Earlier today we posted about the sorry state of journalism in Alabama. You can't cover that topic without thinking of The Birmingham News.
The News, also known as "Pravda of the South" (thanks to Scott Horton, of Harper's.org), has been on a relentless campaign to show that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was not politically motivated. The News also has done just about everything in its power to try to discredit Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, who has testified under oath that Republican operatives devised a plan to "take care of" Siegelman.
The latest entry in the News' "We Would Never Question the Bush Justice Department World Tour" comes today from ace reporter Brett Blackledge, he of Pulitzer Prize fame.
We've ripped Blackledge several news ones here at Legal Schnauzer recently, but his effort today is so over the top that it almost leaves you breathless. If journalists had to be licensed, Blackledge would deserve to be charged with malpractice and have his license yanked. At the very least, the Pulitzer folks should reclaim their prize and say, "You have brought us shame."
Today's Blackledge masterpiece focuses on Charles Niven, a 26-year career prosecutor who served as acting U.S. attorney in Montgomery, supervising an investigation of the Siegelman administration from the summer of 2002 until 2003. Niven tells us that he is certain no political shenanigans were behind the investigation and prosecution of Siegelman.
To get a sense of just how absurd this story is, follow me on the timeline:
* Niven retires from the U.S. attorney's office in January 2003.
* At the time of his retirement, Niven says, he saw no evidence that would link Siegelman to any wrongdoing. But he adds: "There could have been a tremendous amount of evidence uncovered after I left."
* The Siegelman trial begins in May 2006.
So there you have it: Niven swears there was no political pressure involving the Siegelman case, Niven retires in January 2003, the Siegelman trial begins in May 2006 (a fact the News conveniently doesn't mention until well into the story jump). If my math is correct, we have a 3 1/2-year gap, a gap during which Niven admits he knows nothing about the Siegelman case.
Niven says he doesn't know what new evidence might have been uncovered in 3 1/2 years. But here's what the News doesn't tell you: He also could not know about any political pressure that might have come from the Bush White House during that time.
Oops, big hole in story. Never mind, we'll run it anyway.
I know I'm sounding like a parrot with Tourette syndrome, but I've just got to mention this again. For about the sixth or eighth time in a row, the News uses the same strategy on these puff pieces about the Bush DOJ: Start story in lower right-hand corner of front page, slap on dramatic headline and misleading lead graph, jump to inside page, and hope non-comatose readers don't notice the story is limp (at best).
The honchos at the News must figure readers will look at the headline and the lead graph, then stop reading and say, "Dang, that crook Siegelman shore got what was a comin' to him."
Here's what I figure: The News honchos must think their readers are stupid, real stupid.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
High School Football Hijinks
High school football is always news in Alabama. But it is particularly big news today with the announcement that Rush Propst, head coach at powerhouse Hoover High School, will be stepping down when the Bucs are finished with the 2007 playoffs.
Propst led Hoover to spectacular success on the field, with five state championships and a No. 1 national ranking. And he made Hoover High a national brand, thanks to MTV's popular Two A Days program. But Propst stepped down in the wake of apparent academic, financial, and personal wrongdoing, leaving the Hoover community swirling in controversy.
Hoover and Propst are hardly alone among Alabama prep football programs struggling to stay within ethical boundaries:
* Powerful Oxford High School had to forfeit seven games and was fined $300 by the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) for using ineligible players. Oxford also was placed on one year probation. Interestingly, Oxford coach Josh Niblett has been mentioned as a possible successor to Propst at Hoover.
* Bill Clark, head coach at Prattville High School, has agreed to amend his annual disclosure forms with the Alabama Ethics Commission. Prattville beat Hoover in last year's Class 6A championship game, and Clark's move came two weeks after Propst resubmitted a more complete 2002 income form and filed disclosure forms for the years 2003 through 2006. Clark described his primarily public-sector job as "consultant" to the city of Prattville on his 2005 form. Only on an inside page does he reveal that he also is coach and athletic director at Prattville High.
* Huffman High School in Birmingham forfeited four wins and was fined $500 for use of ineligible players. Also, the Huffman principal was placed on administrative leave, and the school was placed on one year probation.
Sure looks like folks in Alabama will go to serious extremes in efforts to win high-school football games. And that's a subject that has drawn your humble blogger's attention.
Our blog primarily is about justice-related issues, particularly the problem of judicial and prosecutorial corruption in courts--at both the state and federal level. But my long and unpleasant encounter with Alabama's "justice" system started, I believe, because some folks wanted to make sure their high-school football program would remain stout.
The program in question, the one at Briarwood Christian High School, has indeed remained stout--the Lions are undefeated and ranked No. 1 in Alabama's Class 5A. But what steps were taken to help the Briarwood team reach such heights? And whose rights were trampled in the process? And what has been the response by both Briarwood and governmental officials to the notion that the school might have committed some wrongful acts in furtherance of Lions football? Do officials at a Christian school "Do What Jesus Would Do" when confronted with evidence that their actions have caused innocent people serious harm?
We will examine these questions and more in the coming days at Legal Schnauzer. And as we've already noted, there are apparent connections between curious activities involving Briarwood football, Hoover High's previous search for a new coach, and the onset of my legal woes. All three commenced in late November, early December of 1998.
Coincidence? We'll take a look.
And speaking of questions, here is one: All of the schools cited above for various violations are public schools. But what about private schools who also are members of the AHSAA, schools such as Briarwood Christian? Do they ever draw scrutiny? Do all of their football players pay full tuition like regular kids, and if not, is that OK? Is it OK for the school to engineer a real-estate transaction to help its coach financially? Would a public school get away with such dealings?
I don't know the answer to these questions. Perhaps someone else does.
Propst led Hoover to spectacular success on the field, with five state championships and a No. 1 national ranking. And he made Hoover High a national brand, thanks to MTV's popular Two A Days program. But Propst stepped down in the wake of apparent academic, financial, and personal wrongdoing, leaving the Hoover community swirling in controversy.
Hoover and Propst are hardly alone among Alabama prep football programs struggling to stay within ethical boundaries:
* Powerful Oxford High School had to forfeit seven games and was fined $300 by the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) for using ineligible players. Oxford also was placed on one year probation. Interestingly, Oxford coach Josh Niblett has been mentioned as a possible successor to Propst at Hoover.
* Bill Clark, head coach at Prattville High School, has agreed to amend his annual disclosure forms with the Alabama Ethics Commission. Prattville beat Hoover in last year's Class 6A championship game, and Clark's move came two weeks after Propst resubmitted a more complete 2002 income form and filed disclosure forms for the years 2003 through 2006. Clark described his primarily public-sector job as "consultant" to the city of Prattville on his 2005 form. Only on an inside page does he reveal that he also is coach and athletic director at Prattville High.
* Huffman High School in Birmingham forfeited four wins and was fined $500 for use of ineligible players. Also, the Huffman principal was placed on administrative leave, and the school was placed on one year probation.
Sure looks like folks in Alabama will go to serious extremes in efforts to win high-school football games. And that's a subject that has drawn your humble blogger's attention.
Our blog primarily is about justice-related issues, particularly the problem of judicial and prosecutorial corruption in courts--at both the state and federal level. But my long and unpleasant encounter with Alabama's "justice" system started, I believe, because some folks wanted to make sure their high-school football program would remain stout.
The program in question, the one at Briarwood Christian High School, has indeed remained stout--the Lions are undefeated and ranked No. 1 in Alabama's Class 5A. But what steps were taken to help the Briarwood team reach such heights? And whose rights were trampled in the process? And what has been the response by both Briarwood and governmental officials to the notion that the school might have committed some wrongful acts in furtherance of Lions football? Do officials at a Christian school "Do What Jesus Would Do" when confronted with evidence that their actions have caused innocent people serious harm?
We will examine these questions and more in the coming days at Legal Schnauzer. And as we've already noted, there are apparent connections between curious activities involving Briarwood football, Hoover High's previous search for a new coach, and the onset of my legal woes. All three commenced in late November, early December of 1998.
Coincidence? We'll take a look.
And speaking of questions, here is one: All of the schools cited above for various violations are public schools. But what about private schools who also are members of the AHSAA, schools such as Briarwood Christian? Do they ever draw scrutiny? Do all of their football players pay full tuition like regular kids, and if not, is that OK? Is it OK for the school to engineer a real-estate transaction to help its coach financially? Would a public school get away with such dealings?
I don't know the answer to these questions. Perhaps someone else does.
The Sad State of Alabama Journalism
One reason that Alabama is a breeding ground for corruption--by state judges, federal judges, federal prosecutors, and so on--is that there is very little serious journalism practiced in the state.
The large newspapers tend to take a pro-corporate viewpoint, and they have no interest in shining a light on wrongdoing by Alabama's GOP hierarchy. Small newspapers tend to be short-staffed and don't have the manpower to take on statewide investigative projects.
And television? Several stations have supposed "investigators" or "we're on your side" kinds of segments. But they are more into exposing some heating and air conditioning guy who didn't install the right filter than they are looking at corrupt public officials. I've seen little if any indication that they are willing to look at serious stories that truly would serve the public interest.
So how bad is it? Scott Horton, of Harper's, presented a vignette the other day that many readers might have missed. It was in a post about a reissue of Liberty and the News, a book by the great American journalist Walter Lippmann.
Horton contrasts Lippmann's work in the 1920s with the prevailing attitude in many newsrooms today. At the heart of Horton's story is a recent conversation he had with a reporter at an important medium-sized city newspaper in north Alabama.
The reporter's colleague had done a series of hard-hitting reports on corruption in the administration of public contracts in Alabama. Our state's Republican governor (Horton doesn't name him, but it clearly is Bob Riley) called the paper's publisher to complain about the articles and say he wanted such reporting to stop.
The publisher summoned the reporter in question from Montgomery and advised him that he had a "fixation with contract corruption," and stories on the subject were to cease.
If had to guess, I would say the newspaper in question was the Huntsville Times, and the offending reporter was Bob Lowry. I guess we won't be seeing more of the strong stories Lowry had produced on the awarding of state contracts.
"Alabama's descent into the status of an American banana republic has much to do with the mortally corrupted standards of its major papers," Horton writes, "with only a couple of notable exceptions in the small cities."
It's interesting that Horton used the term "banana republic" because that is precisely the phrase my wife and I finally came up after months and years of trying to come up with a concise description of the mind-numbing corruption we have experienced in Shelby County, Alabama, and its nasty little county seat, Columbiana.
"Lippmann tells us that you can hardly have a real democracy without a functioning press," Horton writes.
And that tells us why Alabama's democracy is in a shambles.
I see no sign that Alabama's major news outlets are going to change. So we can all thank God for the Internet. And we can thank God that an "outsider," Scott Horton, has used the Web to alert the public to the sleaze that permeates government and justice in our state.
Will it ultimately make a difference? There is reason to hope. But the process probably won't be fast and it definitely won't be easy.
The large newspapers tend to take a pro-corporate viewpoint, and they have no interest in shining a light on wrongdoing by Alabama's GOP hierarchy. Small newspapers tend to be short-staffed and don't have the manpower to take on statewide investigative projects.
And television? Several stations have supposed "investigators" or "we're on your side" kinds of segments. But they are more into exposing some heating and air conditioning guy who didn't install the right filter than they are looking at corrupt public officials. I've seen little if any indication that they are willing to look at serious stories that truly would serve the public interest.
So how bad is it? Scott Horton, of Harper's, presented a vignette the other day that many readers might have missed. It was in a post about a reissue of Liberty and the News, a book by the great American journalist Walter Lippmann.
Horton contrasts Lippmann's work in the 1920s with the prevailing attitude in many newsrooms today. At the heart of Horton's story is a recent conversation he had with a reporter at an important medium-sized city newspaper in north Alabama.
The reporter's colleague had done a series of hard-hitting reports on corruption in the administration of public contracts in Alabama. Our state's Republican governor (Horton doesn't name him, but it clearly is Bob Riley) called the paper's publisher to complain about the articles and say he wanted such reporting to stop.
The publisher summoned the reporter in question from Montgomery and advised him that he had a "fixation with contract corruption," and stories on the subject were to cease.
If had to guess, I would say the newspaper in question was the Huntsville Times, and the offending reporter was Bob Lowry. I guess we won't be seeing more of the strong stories Lowry had produced on the awarding of state contracts.
"Alabama's descent into the status of an American banana republic has much to do with the mortally corrupted standards of its major papers," Horton writes, "with only a couple of notable exceptions in the small cities."
It's interesting that Horton used the term "banana republic" because that is precisely the phrase my wife and I finally came up after months and years of trying to come up with a concise description of the mind-numbing corruption we have experienced in Shelby County, Alabama, and its nasty little county seat, Columbiana.
"Lippmann tells us that you can hardly have a real democracy without a functioning press," Horton writes.
And that tells us why Alabama's democracy is in a shambles.
I see no sign that Alabama's major news outlets are going to change. So we can all thank God for the Internet. And we can thank God that an "outsider," Scott Horton, has used the Web to alert the public to the sleaze that permeates government and justice in our state.
Will it ultimately make a difference? There is reason to hope. But the process probably won't be fast and it definitely won't be easy.
Havoc in Hoover (Cont.)
We now know that Hoover High School will be conducting a search for a new football coach, with Rush Propst stepping down when the Bucs are finished with the 2007 playoffs.
The Hoover School Board has approved an agreement that states, after the playoffs, Propst will be transferred to an administrative assistant job until his resignation takes effect August 31, 2008. His pay will remain at $100,678, and the school board agreed to give Propst a $120,000 annuity by August 31 and pay $21,000 to transfer credit for one year of service from the Georgia to the Alabama retirement system.
In speaking at last night's meeting, Propst admitted to an affair that had produced a child, although he said, "I don't admit wrongdoing inside the halls of Hoover High School."
The Propst story has drawn a variety of interesting responses:
Birmingham News sports columnist Kevin Scarbinsky said the move to oust Propst was best for Hoover. But he noted that, privately, Propst has been saying for months that he would not go quietly, that he would not "leave the building without trying to burn it down behind him." That seems to imply that Propst is aware of widespread wrongdoing, the kind that goes way beyond him. Will that wrongdoing surface publicly in the weeks ahead? Is Hoover essentially buying Rush Propst's silence?
One letter writer to the News says: "We don't allow coaches to pay for players in college so why should it be legal in high school? Rush (Propst) has been bringing in recruits from everywhere to win state titles. The man would sell his own mama to win at football."
My take? I don't think Rush Propst and Hoover are the only ones who might stretch ethical boundaries in an effort to win football games. I've noted on this blog previously that it appears my legal woes grew largely from the desire to win high-school football games.
The school in question is Briarwood Christian, currently undefeated and ranked No. 1 in Class 5A in Alabama. Sources have told me that officials with Briarwood took steps to instigate a real-estate transaction in late 1998 that helped them secure a championship-winning coach. Ironically, that transaction came just as Hoover was conducting its last head-coaching search, the one that ended with Rush Propst getting the job.
Are there connections between the two? Do the fine Christians at Briarwood care one iota that their actions apparently have caused an innocent couple to suffer terribly?
We will return to that story of football intrigue in a bit.
The Hoover School Board has approved an agreement that states, after the playoffs, Propst will be transferred to an administrative assistant job until his resignation takes effect August 31, 2008. His pay will remain at $100,678, and the school board agreed to give Propst a $120,000 annuity by August 31 and pay $21,000 to transfer credit for one year of service from the Georgia to the Alabama retirement system.
In speaking at last night's meeting, Propst admitted to an affair that had produced a child, although he said, "I don't admit wrongdoing inside the halls of Hoover High School."
The Propst story has drawn a variety of interesting responses:
Birmingham News sports columnist Kevin Scarbinsky said the move to oust Propst was best for Hoover. But he noted that, privately, Propst has been saying for months that he would not go quietly, that he would not "leave the building without trying to burn it down behind him." That seems to imply that Propst is aware of widespread wrongdoing, the kind that goes way beyond him. Will that wrongdoing surface publicly in the weeks ahead? Is Hoover essentially buying Rush Propst's silence?
One letter writer to the News says: "We don't allow coaches to pay for players in college so why should it be legal in high school? Rush (Propst) has been bringing in recruits from everywhere to win state titles. The man would sell his own mama to win at football."
My take? I don't think Rush Propst and Hoover are the only ones who might stretch ethical boundaries in an effort to win football games. I've noted on this blog previously that it appears my legal woes grew largely from the desire to win high-school football games.
The school in question is Briarwood Christian, currently undefeated and ranked No. 1 in Class 5A in Alabama. Sources have told me that officials with Briarwood took steps to instigate a real-estate transaction in late 1998 that helped them secure a championship-winning coach. Ironically, that transaction came just as Hoover was conducting its last head-coaching search, the one that ended with Rush Propst getting the job.
Are there connections between the two? Do the fine Christians at Briarwood care one iota that their actions apparently have caused an innocent couple to suffer terribly?
We will return to that story of football intrigue in a bit.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
A Right-Wing Smear Machine
A friend recently told me that he could not imagine voting for Barack Obama.
I knew my friend leans to the right politically, so I was not surprised that he might hold a Democrat in fairly low regard. But I wondered why Obama was of such concern.
The reason, my friend said, was Obama's Islamic background.
I've known this friend for almost 30 years. While our opinions differ on some things, I hold him in very high regard. We've had a number of lengthy conversations over the years on some fairly weighty subjects (religion, politics, etc.), and I've always found him to be thoughtful and well informed.
The comment about Obama seemed a bit wacky, which was out of character for my friend. And I was baffled as to where it came from.
Now, I think I know where it came from.
In "The New Right-Wing Smear Machine," Christopher Hayes of The Nation describes the right wing's use of the e-mail "forward" function to spread all manner of false and misleading political information.
There's the story of Hillary Clinton stiffing the American Gold Star Mothers, an organization of women who've lost sons or daughters in combat. Only one problem with the story. It isn't true.
There's the story about Oliver North offering an impassioned warning about Osama bin Laden in a 1980s Senate committee hearing, only to be dismissed by a Democratic senator (Al Gore in one version; John Kerry in the other). Either way, it's not true.
And then there is the Obama tale, which has him taking great pains to hide the fact he is a Muslim. According to the story, he attended a Wahabi school in Jakarta, with Wahabism being the radical teaching followed by Muslim terrorists. Of course, it isn't true; Obama attended a run-of-the-mill public elementary school.
But a lot of people, including those of good will and good sense, believe these tales. I'm betting my friend either has received an Obama e-mail or talked with someone who has.
Want to keep up with the latest in right-wing smear tactics? Try starting at MyRightWingDad.
I knew my friend leans to the right politically, so I was not surprised that he might hold a Democrat in fairly low regard. But I wondered why Obama was of such concern.
The reason, my friend said, was Obama's Islamic background.
I've known this friend for almost 30 years. While our opinions differ on some things, I hold him in very high regard. We've had a number of lengthy conversations over the years on some fairly weighty subjects (religion, politics, etc.), and I've always found him to be thoughtful and well informed.
The comment about Obama seemed a bit wacky, which was out of character for my friend. And I was baffled as to where it came from.
Now, I think I know where it came from.
In "The New Right-Wing Smear Machine," Christopher Hayes of The Nation describes the right wing's use of the e-mail "forward" function to spread all manner of false and misleading political information.
There's the story of Hillary Clinton stiffing the American Gold Star Mothers, an organization of women who've lost sons or daughters in combat. Only one problem with the story. It isn't true.
There's the story about Oliver North offering an impassioned warning about Osama bin Laden in a 1980s Senate committee hearing, only to be dismissed by a Democratic senator (Al Gore in one version; John Kerry in the other). Either way, it's not true.
And then there is the Obama tale, which has him taking great pains to hide the fact he is a Muslim. According to the story, he attended a Wahabi school in Jakarta, with Wahabism being the radical teaching followed by Muslim terrorists. Of course, it isn't true; Obama attended a run-of-the-mill public elementary school.
But a lot of people, including those of good will and good sense, believe these tales. I'm betting my friend either has received an Obama e-mail or talked with someone who has.
Want to keep up with the latest in right-wing smear tactics? Try starting at MyRightWingDad.
Havoc in Hoover (Cont.)
Rush Propst's reign as football coach at Hoover High School soon may be ending.
School board president Donna Frazier says today that she wants this Friday's game to be Propst's last as head coach. The Bucs recently had to forfeit four games because of use of an ineligible player, but they still have qualified for the state playoffs.
If Frazier has her way, someone other than Propst will be in control when Hoover goes to the playoffs. She says negotiations have been ongoing between school officials and Propst, with input from the Alabama Education Association. Propst said he was unaware of any negotiations to end his tenure as head coach.
Frazier said she assumes the delay in determining Propst's future is due to negotiations over a financial settlement.
If Propst indeed is terminated, that means Hoover will be embarking on its first football coaching search since late 1998. Shortly after that search began, your humble blogger began to witness a series of events that would turn my family's life upside down.
We have been examining possible connections between Hoover's previous search and the beginnings of my legal woes. That examination will continue very soon.
School board president Donna Frazier says today that she wants this Friday's game to be Propst's last as head coach. The Bucs recently had to forfeit four games because of use of an ineligible player, but they still have qualified for the state playoffs.
If Frazier has her way, someone other than Propst will be in control when Hoover goes to the playoffs. She says negotiations have been ongoing between school officials and Propst, with input from the Alabama Education Association. Propst said he was unaware of any negotiations to end his tenure as head coach.
Frazier said she assumes the delay in determining Propst's future is due to negotiations over a financial settlement.
If Propst indeed is terminated, that means Hoover will be embarking on its first football coaching search since late 1998. Shortly after that search began, your humble blogger began to witness a series of events that would turn my family's life upside down.
We have been examining possible connections between Hoover's previous search and the beginnings of my legal woes. That examination will continue very soon.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Hoover High and Me
In a recent post, we mentioned a possible connection between the legal woes at the heart of this blog and the search for a football coach at Hoover High School. Both started almost eight years ago, in late 1998.
The Hoover search concluded with the hiring of Rush Propst, who has had spectacular success on the field, leading the Bucs to five Class 6A state championships and two second-place finishes. Propst also brought the school unprecedented attention, through No. 1 national rankings and the popular MTV series Two A Days.
But the downside of the Rush Propst regime has recently bubbled to the surface, with the school embroiled in an ugly controversy that involves alleged academic, financial, and personal wrongdoing connected to the football program.
Hoover High is again in the spotlight, with Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and The New York Times among the national publications covering the story. Attention this time is coming in a negative wave, and many Hoover residents are concerned about what it means to their school system and the overall community, both of which have long enjoyed stellar reputations.
So why do I think my tale of legal intrigue--what we've come to call the Legal Schnauzer case--has anything to do with the hiring of a football coach at Hoover High School?
Well, here's the story. See what you think.
In November 1998, there was unrest over the football program at Hoover High. Longtime coach Bob Finley had died unexpectedly in 1994, and Gerald Gann, one of his former assistants, had not been able to restore the Bucs to their usual lofty status. Hoover had gone 4-6 and lost several years in a row to arch-rival, and next-door neighbor, Vestavia Hills.
To fire a high-school football coach after a 4-6 season might have been unheard of 10 or 20 years earlier. It probably still would be unheard of today, in some places. But in many towns around Alabama, especially in the suburbs surrounding Birmingham, the line between high school and college athletics was becoming blurry. Coaches were expected to do more than manage the team and teach several classes of gym or driver's ed. They were expected to win.
Gerald Gann, cut very much from the Bob Finley mold, had started with an 11-2 season. But good will from that season had washed away with three straight losing seasons. Gann was summarily canned, and the relatively young Hoover School System went looking for a coach who could win big.
About this time, your humble blogger was living peacefully with his wife and miniature schnauzer in north Shelby County, just 2-3 miles from the winding Hoover city limits. My two main concerns in life were trying to figure out how to keep crabgrass out of my yard and wondering if my alma mater (the University of Missouri) ever would be competitive in football again. (Answers: Mizzou is UNDEFEATED and nationally ranked right now; my yard still has crabgrass.)
Life for my little family unit was about to get much more complicated.
My next-door neighbor to the east was a fellow named Fred Yancey. My wife and I bought our house (our one and, we hope, only) in 1989. Fred and his wife, Sharon, and their two teen-aged children moved in a few months later. Fred had been hired as head football coach at Briarwood Christian High School, just a chip-shot field goal from where we lived.
We didn't see a lot of Fred. As a former sportswriter myself, I was familiar with the coaching lifestyle. If Fred was any kind of coach at all, I knew he would be spending lots of time watching film and otherwise trying to figure out how to win games.
So even though we weren't "big buds" with the Yanceys, we considered them very good neighbors. They were always quick with a warm hello. We helped each other through the occasional neighborhood crisis, storm damage, falling trees, and such. And their kids were so straight-arrow and well-behaved that you hardly knew they were around.
In fact, in the eight years or so the Yanceys lived next door I really had no idea where the boundary line to our property was; I never had any reason to think about it.
That was about to change.
And one reason it changed, I think, is that Fred Yancey proved to be one heck of a football coach. (I can't tell you how many times since late 1998 I've looked to the sky and said: "Sweet Jesus, why couldn't Fred Yancey have been a sorry-ass football coach?" My hair probably would still be brown. My wallet would be thicker. And if I hadn't used crude language with the Lord, maybe He would have helped me.)
As Hoover High football was struggling, the Lions of Briarwood Christian were turning into a powerhouse. And this was a new development on the Birmingham sports scene.
I had worked for 11 years in the city as a sportswriter, much of it spent covering high-school sports, and I don't recall writing a single word about Briarwood Christian athletics. We all knew the school was connected to Briarwood Presybyterian Church, a massive, wealthy, evangelical, conservative congregation in Birmingham's suburbs. Sometimes you would hear about a conservative politician, say a Dan Quayle, visiting the church. And members occasionally made news by getting involved in an anti-abortion protest. But sports? Briarwood Christian was pretty much off the radar screen.
Fred Yancey changed all of that, in a major way. He immediately turned the Lions into winners, and by 1998, his team was pushing for a state championship.
One reason the Lions were so good that year was a multitalented offensive star named Tim Castille, and he was only an eighth grader. And a year or two behind him was his brother Simeon, and people said he would be even better than Tim. The Castilles came by their talent honestly. Their father, Jeremiah, had been a star defensive back at the University of Alabama under Bear Bryant and gone on to have a distinguished career in the National Football League.
My understanding is that Briarwood was pretty much an all-white school at one time. Of course with the coming of integration, church-affiliated "seg academies" sprung up across the South. It might be unfair to call Briarwood a "seg academy." But in the '70s and '80s, I think it's safe to say that Parliament and Funkadelic were seldom heard on the school sound system. In fact, Lionel Richie probably would have caused serious consternation.
The Castilles, and a few other black players, added diversity--and some serious athletic talent--to the Briarwood mix. With Fred Yancey at the controls, and Jeremiah Castille joining him on the coaching staff, the Christians no longer were everybody's favorite Homecoming opponent. In fact, they were whuppin' some major Friday-night butt.
It culminated on December 10, 1998 (a Thursday) when the Lions won the Class 3A title, the school's first state championship in football (and probably in any sport).
I remember reading about the game in the newspaper the next morning and feeling happy for Fred. In fact, I hollered upstairs to my wife, "Hey, we've got a state-championship football coach living next door."
Two days later, our lives would turn upside down.
The Hoover search concluded with the hiring of Rush Propst, who has had spectacular success on the field, leading the Bucs to five Class 6A state championships and two second-place finishes. Propst also brought the school unprecedented attention, through No. 1 national rankings and the popular MTV series Two A Days.
But the downside of the Rush Propst regime has recently bubbled to the surface, with the school embroiled in an ugly controversy that involves alleged academic, financial, and personal wrongdoing connected to the football program.
Hoover High is again in the spotlight, with Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and The New York Times among the national publications covering the story. Attention this time is coming in a negative wave, and many Hoover residents are concerned about what it means to their school system and the overall community, both of which have long enjoyed stellar reputations.
So why do I think my tale of legal intrigue--what we've come to call the Legal Schnauzer case--has anything to do with the hiring of a football coach at Hoover High School?
Well, here's the story. See what you think.
In November 1998, there was unrest over the football program at Hoover High. Longtime coach Bob Finley had died unexpectedly in 1994, and Gerald Gann, one of his former assistants, had not been able to restore the Bucs to their usual lofty status. Hoover had gone 4-6 and lost several years in a row to arch-rival, and next-door neighbor, Vestavia Hills.
To fire a high-school football coach after a 4-6 season might have been unheard of 10 or 20 years earlier. It probably still would be unheard of today, in some places. But in many towns around Alabama, especially in the suburbs surrounding Birmingham, the line between high school and college athletics was becoming blurry. Coaches were expected to do more than manage the team and teach several classes of gym or driver's ed. They were expected to win.
Gerald Gann, cut very much from the Bob Finley mold, had started with an 11-2 season. But good will from that season had washed away with three straight losing seasons. Gann was summarily canned, and the relatively young Hoover School System went looking for a coach who could win big.
About this time, your humble blogger was living peacefully with his wife and miniature schnauzer in north Shelby County, just 2-3 miles from the winding Hoover city limits. My two main concerns in life were trying to figure out how to keep crabgrass out of my yard and wondering if my alma mater (the University of Missouri) ever would be competitive in football again. (Answers: Mizzou is UNDEFEATED and nationally ranked right now; my yard still has crabgrass.)
Life for my little family unit was about to get much more complicated.
My next-door neighbor to the east was a fellow named Fred Yancey. My wife and I bought our house (our one and, we hope, only) in 1989. Fred and his wife, Sharon, and their two teen-aged children moved in a few months later. Fred had been hired as head football coach at Briarwood Christian High School, just a chip-shot field goal from where we lived.
We didn't see a lot of Fred. As a former sportswriter myself, I was familiar with the coaching lifestyle. If Fred was any kind of coach at all, I knew he would be spending lots of time watching film and otherwise trying to figure out how to win games.
So even though we weren't "big buds" with the Yanceys, we considered them very good neighbors. They were always quick with a warm hello. We helped each other through the occasional neighborhood crisis, storm damage, falling trees, and such. And their kids were so straight-arrow and well-behaved that you hardly knew they were around.
In fact, in the eight years or so the Yanceys lived next door I really had no idea where the boundary line to our property was; I never had any reason to think about it.
That was about to change.
And one reason it changed, I think, is that Fred Yancey proved to be one heck of a football coach. (I can't tell you how many times since late 1998 I've looked to the sky and said: "Sweet Jesus, why couldn't Fred Yancey have been a sorry-ass football coach?" My hair probably would still be brown. My wallet would be thicker. And if I hadn't used crude language with the Lord, maybe He would have helped me.)
As Hoover High football was struggling, the Lions of Briarwood Christian were turning into a powerhouse. And this was a new development on the Birmingham sports scene.
I had worked for 11 years in the city as a sportswriter, much of it spent covering high-school sports, and I don't recall writing a single word about Briarwood Christian athletics. We all knew the school was connected to Briarwood Presybyterian Church, a massive, wealthy, evangelical, conservative congregation in Birmingham's suburbs. Sometimes you would hear about a conservative politician, say a Dan Quayle, visiting the church. And members occasionally made news by getting involved in an anti-abortion protest. But sports? Briarwood Christian was pretty much off the radar screen.
Fred Yancey changed all of that, in a major way. He immediately turned the Lions into winners, and by 1998, his team was pushing for a state championship.
One reason the Lions were so good that year was a multitalented offensive star named Tim Castille, and he was only an eighth grader. And a year or two behind him was his brother Simeon, and people said he would be even better than Tim. The Castilles came by their talent honestly. Their father, Jeremiah, had been a star defensive back at the University of Alabama under Bear Bryant and gone on to have a distinguished career in the National Football League.
My understanding is that Briarwood was pretty much an all-white school at one time. Of course with the coming of integration, church-affiliated "seg academies" sprung up across the South. It might be unfair to call Briarwood a "seg academy." But in the '70s and '80s, I think it's safe to say that Parliament and Funkadelic were seldom heard on the school sound system. In fact, Lionel Richie probably would have caused serious consternation.
The Castilles, and a few other black players, added diversity--and some serious athletic talent--to the Briarwood mix. With Fred Yancey at the controls, and Jeremiah Castille joining him on the coaching staff, the Christians no longer were everybody's favorite Homecoming opponent. In fact, they were whuppin' some major Friday-night butt.
It culminated on December 10, 1998 (a Thursday) when the Lions won the Class 3A title, the school's first state championship in football (and probably in any sport).
I remember reading about the game in the newspaper the next morning and feeling happy for Fred. In fact, I hollered upstairs to my wife, "Hey, we've got a state-championship football coach living next door."
Two days later, our lives would turn upside down.
Mark Fuller: The Enron Judge
Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks has written an affidavit that reminds me of those double albums big rock artists used to release in the 1970s. Weeks' document is sort of an Exile on Main Street or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road of the legal world. It's hard to grasp everything that's there on a first impression.
The affidavit, alleging possible unethical and criminal conduct by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama), came to light recently, thanks to the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton. Our post here at Legal Schnauzer outlined the key charges, including embezzlement, theft of government funds, perjury, conspiracy, and fraud upon the U.S. Senate.
These charges of corruption were aimed at the judge who oversaw a trial that ended with the conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges. That trial now is at the heart of a Congressional investigation into politically motivated prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department.
Our original post did not touch on all of the issues raised in Weeks' affidavit. And those issues are of profound importance to everyday Alabamians.
Consider, for example, Fuller's actions in a lawsuit involving the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) and Texas-based energy giant Enron.
Weeks visited Alabama in February 2003 to look into Fuller's background. The judge had been assigned a civil case, Murray et al. v. Scott & Sevier, in which officials at Montgomery-based B.A.S.S. are alleged to have stolen more than $75 million in funds from the nonprofit organization. Weeks was a lawyer for the plaintiffs and wanted to know what kind of judge he and his clients were facing, particularly since the case had been transferred from Kansas to Alabama.
The trail quickly led to RSA, where Weeks learned details about Fuller's efforts to boost the state pension of Bruce DeVane, who had worked for Fuller as chief investigator in the district attorney's office of Coffee and Pike counties.
One RSA official told Weeks that Fuller had committed perjury when testifying under oath before the RSA appeal board. A second official said RSA had lost a lot of money in the Enron scandal and had filed a lawsuit to recover its losses, a case that was pending in federal court before Judge Fuller.
"This was shocking news," Weeks writes in his affidavit. "The first RSA official had told me, pointblank, that Fuller and DeVane had tried to defraud the RSA. Now, the second RSA official was telling me that the RSA had a huge case against Enron pending in front of the very federal judge who had recently lied to and attempted to defraud RSA."
Weeks later learned that RSA had asked Fuller to recuse himself and been turned down.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported on Fuller's actions and cited an article written by David G. Bronner, CEO of the RSA. Horton noted that Bronner drew a connection between the DeVane case and the fact that Fuller later refused to grant RSA the ability to sue Enron in Alabama state court. Bronner wrote:
"I do not like U.S. District Judge Fuller nor does he like me. The RSA had to go through the entire state court system to prevent Judge Fuller's buddy from ripping off the RSA. Shortly thereafter, Judge Fuller tried to sandbag the RSA by preventing our claim (by doing nothing) against the ultimate crook--Enron! Fortunately, the RSA prevailed on both issues."
The affidavit, alleging possible unethical and criminal conduct by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama), came to light recently, thanks to the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton. Our post here at Legal Schnauzer outlined the key charges, including embezzlement, theft of government funds, perjury, conspiracy, and fraud upon the U.S. Senate.
These charges of corruption were aimed at the judge who oversaw a trial that ended with the conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges. That trial now is at the heart of a Congressional investigation into politically motivated prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department.
Our original post did not touch on all of the issues raised in Weeks' affidavit. And those issues are of profound importance to everyday Alabamians.
Consider, for example, Fuller's actions in a lawsuit involving the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) and Texas-based energy giant Enron.
Weeks visited Alabama in February 2003 to look into Fuller's background. The judge had been assigned a civil case, Murray et al. v. Scott & Sevier, in which officials at Montgomery-based B.A.S.S. are alleged to have stolen more than $75 million in funds from the nonprofit organization. Weeks was a lawyer for the plaintiffs and wanted to know what kind of judge he and his clients were facing, particularly since the case had been transferred from Kansas to Alabama.
The trail quickly led to RSA, where Weeks learned details about Fuller's efforts to boost the state pension of Bruce DeVane, who had worked for Fuller as chief investigator in the district attorney's office of Coffee and Pike counties.
One RSA official told Weeks that Fuller had committed perjury when testifying under oath before the RSA appeal board. A second official said RSA had lost a lot of money in the Enron scandal and had filed a lawsuit to recover its losses, a case that was pending in federal court before Judge Fuller.
"This was shocking news," Weeks writes in his affidavit. "The first RSA official had told me, pointblank, that Fuller and DeVane had tried to defraud the RSA. Now, the second RSA official was telling me that the RSA had a huge case against Enron pending in front of the very federal judge who had recently lied to and attempted to defraud RSA."
Weeks later learned that RSA had asked Fuller to recuse himself and been turned down.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported on Fuller's actions and cited an article written by David G. Bronner, CEO of the RSA. Horton noted that Bronner drew a connection between the DeVane case and the fact that Fuller later refused to grant RSA the ability to sue Enron in Alabama state court. Bronner wrote:
"I do not like U.S. District Judge Fuller nor does he like me. The RSA had to go through the entire state court system to prevent Judge Fuller's buddy from ripping off the RSA. Shortly thereafter, Judge Fuller tried to sandbag the RSA by preventing our claim (by doing nothing) against the ultimate crook--Enron! Fortunately, the RSA prevailed on both issues."
Indeed, RSA came out OK. Five financial advisors and fund-raisers for Enron (Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, etc.) agreed to pay RSA $49 million to settle the lawsuit. The settlement allowed RSA to recoup the vast majority of the $57 million it lost when Enron stocks and bonds collapsed in 2001, leading to what was then the largest corporate bankruptcy in U.S. history.
The settlement came about primarily because the financial advisors were facing a trial in state court in Montgomery, Alabama. According to published reports, Mark Fuller had done his darnedest to keep the case in federal court, where Enron was likely to have fared better. Other judges evidently did not agree with Fuller, finding that Alabama state court was the proper venue.
The Enron debacle, of course, came on the watch of the late and disgraced CEO Ken Lay, famous for being called "Kenny Boy" by President George W. Bush.
Reading Weeks' affidavit, one comes away with the impression that Judge Fuller was little more than Ken Lay with a robe in the Enron lawsuit. In fact, maybe Fuller deserves the nickname "Marky Boy."
Thousands of Alabamians rely on RSA for their pensions. And yet Week's affidavit presents overwhelming evidence that Fuller first tried to defraud RSA and then wrongfully ruled against RSA in retaliation for the pension fund having the audacity to defend itself from an attempt at fraud.
Does Mark Fuller sound like the kind of person who should be in any position of authority? Does he sounds like the kind of person who should have been overseeing the trial of former Governor Don Siegelman?
Credibility in Shreds
Every time prosecutor Louis Franklin opens his mouth he seems to sink deeper and deeper into an ever-widening pile of doo-doo.
In this space a couple of weeks ago, we offered the following unsolicited advice to "Sweet Lou" Franklin: Keep your mouth shut and leave public relations to the professionals.
But Sweet Lou just can't resist opening his yap. And every time he does it in a public forum, Scott Horton of Harper's takes him apart.
A considerable amount of fun can be had by reading along as Horton dissects significant portions of the Alabama conservative hierarchy--Franklin, Leura Canary, Alice Martin and other prosecutors; reporters from The Birmingham News and Mobile Press-Register; Judge Mark Fuller, and so on.
But Horton's pieces always deal with serious matters, and that certainly is the case with today's post on Franklin and his interview in Sunday's Birmingham News.
Perhaps most disturbing is that a career prosecutor can't keep his story straight. Horton notes that Franklin now has presented three accounts of how the Don Siegelman prosecution unfolded.
But here is where it really gets serious: Franklin's recent statements to the News conflict with two statements he made to the court under oath, in February and April 2006. A prosecutor who says one thing under oath and something else entirely in published accounts? And we're supposed to have faith that the prosecution of Don Siegelman, led by Louis Franklin supposedly, was properly handled?
The key point of the most recent News article? Franklin called all of the shots.
But this conflicts with Franklin's public statements. In March 2006, he said decisions came jointly from career employees in the Middle District of Alabama and the Public Integrity Section in Washington. In a February 2006 sworn affidavit, he said those two entities were joined in the decision-making process by the Alabama Attorney General's Office.
It reminds you of the old "Who's on First" routine.
I know nothing about Louis Franklin's politics. He could be a liberal for all I know in his personal life. But he works under conservatives. And it appears that he is being swallowed up in a vortex of conservative deceit.
I've seen this kind of thing in my own legal situation. Certain dishonest conservatives apparently think people who don't share their belief systems are stupid. They think we can't see clear wrongdoing and deceit and contradictions and misdirection. Trying to pull that stuff over on someone of Scott Horton's intellectual capacity is not such a good idea.
Another key point: Horton notes that the shenanigans couldn't have happened without a cooperative judge. And the prosecution certainly had that in U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller. Thanks to Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, we now know that the Public Integrity Section should have been investigating serious criminal allegations against Fuller at the time it was signing off on him handling the Siegelman case.
More on Judge Fuller, and the Weeks affidavit, coming up.
In this space a couple of weeks ago, we offered the following unsolicited advice to "Sweet Lou" Franklin: Keep your mouth shut and leave public relations to the professionals.
But Sweet Lou just can't resist opening his yap. And every time he does it in a public forum, Scott Horton of Harper's takes him apart.
A considerable amount of fun can be had by reading along as Horton dissects significant portions of the Alabama conservative hierarchy--Franklin, Leura Canary, Alice Martin and other prosecutors; reporters from The Birmingham News and Mobile Press-Register; Judge Mark Fuller, and so on.
But Horton's pieces always deal with serious matters, and that certainly is the case with today's post on Franklin and his interview in Sunday's Birmingham News.
Perhaps most disturbing is that a career prosecutor can't keep his story straight. Horton notes that Franklin now has presented three accounts of how the Don Siegelman prosecution unfolded.
But here is where it really gets serious: Franklin's recent statements to the News conflict with two statements he made to the court under oath, in February and April 2006. A prosecutor who says one thing under oath and something else entirely in published accounts? And we're supposed to have faith that the prosecution of Don Siegelman, led by Louis Franklin supposedly, was properly handled?
The key point of the most recent News article? Franklin called all of the shots.
But this conflicts with Franklin's public statements. In March 2006, he said decisions came jointly from career employees in the Middle District of Alabama and the Public Integrity Section in Washington. In a February 2006 sworn affidavit, he said those two entities were joined in the decision-making process by the Alabama Attorney General's Office.
It reminds you of the old "Who's on First" routine.
I know nothing about Louis Franklin's politics. He could be a liberal for all I know in his personal life. But he works under conservatives. And it appears that he is being swallowed up in a vortex of conservative deceit.
I've seen this kind of thing in my own legal situation. Certain dishonest conservatives apparently think people who don't share their belief systems are stupid. They think we can't see clear wrongdoing and deceit and contradictions and misdirection. Trying to pull that stuff over on someone of Scott Horton's intellectual capacity is not such a good idea.
Another key point: Horton notes that the shenanigans couldn't have happened without a cooperative judge. And the prosecution certainly had that in U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller. Thanks to Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, we now know that the Public Integrity Section should have been investigating serious criminal allegations against Fuller at the time it was signing off on him handling the Siegelman case.
More on Judge Fuller, and the Weeks affidavit, coming up.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Fond Memories of Hoover and Football
Your humble blogger has followed the ongoing Hoover High School football saga with great interest. There are several reasons for this, one being that I have very fond personal and professional memories of football and Hoover.
My first real job, when I was 21 and right out of college, was as a sportswriter at the late, and sometimes great, Birmingham Post-Herald. I wound up working there for 11 years (1978-89), and my primary assignment in the early years was coverage of high-school sports.
I had grown up in Missouri, where high-school football was not a particularly big deal. I saw many a game under the "Friday night lights," but basketball and baseball seemed to capture the Midwest's imagination more than the gridiron.
But I quickly learned that football was king in the Deep South. I was shocked when I saw how good the high-school teams were in Alabama. It was not so much that the athletes were better than those in Missouri (although they probably were). But the coaching was light years ahead of what I was used to. Buddy Anderson at Vestavia Hills, Robert Higginbotham at Shades Valley, Bill Sparks at Midfield, Danny Ridgeway at Banks, Ray Williams at West End, Ed Bruce at Gardendale, Bobby Johns at Erwin, Billy Livings at Jeff Davis in Montgomery . . . they were just a few of the many superb coaches I enjoyed covering.
But the coach who made the deepest impression on me was Bob Finley at W.A. Berry High School in Hoover. Berry was the forerunner to Hoover High, which would go on to fame on MTV's Two A Days and win numerous state championships under Coach Rush Propst, now the center of much controversy.
Bob Finley's Bucs also played championship football, and they did it in old-school style. Hand the ball to the tailback 25-30 times a game, commit very few penalties, win field position with a solid kicking game. It wasn't dazzling, but it worked.
I'm sure I'm forgetting some folks, but I recall only a handful of Berry players who went on to play major-college football. Linebacker Ricky Gilliland, tight end Bart Krout, and kicker Terry Sanders played at Alabama. I think former Auburn great Mike Kolen went to Berry.
But most of the guys I saw play were average high-school types who didn't particularly stand out in the hallways. I remember a tough tailback named Brian Blankenship. A slippery quarterback named Jimmy Dozier. A little noseguard named Jay Zito. Not sure any of them played a down of college football.
The most interesting guy, though, was the head coach. Finley seemed more like a minister than a football coach. If he had been a minister, I wouldn't have seen him as a fire-breathing evangelical sort. He would have been more of a "quiet" minister, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, an Episcopalian.
A recent letter writer to The Birmingham News, commenting on the current woes at Hoover High, recalled Finley's days as coach and remembered him "as one of the most decent Christian men I've ever known." I would second that statement, but Finley did not seem to be "out there" about his Christianity. He lived his faith, best I could tell, by example.
I once did a long feature story on Coach Finley. One of his former assistants said the thing he remembered most about Coach Finley was his willingness to do the little things--stopping to pick up a piece of paper in the parking lot, sweeping the gymnasium floor. He remembered that Finley coached girls' basketball at a time when girls' sports received very little attention.
When I interviewed Finley for the story, I told him that he almost seemed too nice to be a football coach. "It's hard to imagine you yelling at anybody," I said. The coach smiled and said he had tried the emotional locker room bit with his guys a few times, but it had fallen flat. "Being basically a dull person," he said, it was best for him to stick to the quieter approach. I still laugh thinking about that.
The key, Finley said, was knowing your players. He often learned a lot from listening to parents. He recalled learning that one player would go into a shell if you criticized him. But if you could find something to praise him about, the young man would give a wholehearted effort.
A few years ago, I interviewed a former Berry player who had gone on to become an ophthalmologist. The point of my story was eye surgery, and we probably talked about that for about half an hour. But we must have spent twice that long talking about Coach Finley and Berry football.
I also laugh when I think about how Finley used to call me "sir" during interviews. And I was 22 or 23 years old. But the funny thing was, it didn't seem phony coming from him. In fact, if there was anything phony about Bob Finley, I never saw it.
I've thought a lot about Bob Finley in the past seven or eight years, since my legal woes began--the legal woes that are at the heart of this blog. You see, the core problem with our justice system--whether you are talking about circuit court in Shelby County, Alabama appellate courts, or the cowboys in the Bush Justice Department--is dishonesty.
Bob Finley was a superb coach, and I think he would have been an excellent minister. I also think he would have been a very good judge, the kind we desperately need. He always impressed me as a fundamentally honest and fair person. And he had a keen intellect. Unlike the sleazebag judges I've encountered, Finley would have valued the law and applied it correctly.
My encounters with Alabama courts have been the most disheartening experience of my life. It has shown me an ugly side of human nature that I never knew existed. In an effort to maintain my mental health through the ordeal, I've tried regularly to think of the genuinely good people I've been privileged to know over the years. One of those was Bob Finley.
Unfortunately, Coach Finley is no longer with us. He died of a heart attack in 1994, while doing one of those simple things--mowing a field at the school.
A Web site, Hooverbuc.com, has information about the tradition of football in Hoover. It includes records under Finley and other coaches, including Rush Propst.
When Finley died, two of his former assistants tried to carry on his legacy. Mike Thorsen coached the Bucs for one year and went 4-5. Gerald Gann took over and went 11-2, 3-7, 3-7, 4-6. Gann is now head coach at John Carroll High School in Birmingham, and from everything I've heard, he's an outstanding person, very much in the Finley mold. But Gann's record evidently was not good enough, and he was fired after the 1998 season.
Hoover's search for a new coach started in late 1998. My legal problems also started in late 1998. I've often wondered if there was a connection between the two.
More on that in a bit.
My first real job, when I was 21 and right out of college, was as a sportswriter at the late, and sometimes great, Birmingham Post-Herald. I wound up working there for 11 years (1978-89), and my primary assignment in the early years was coverage of high-school sports.
I had grown up in Missouri, where high-school football was not a particularly big deal. I saw many a game under the "Friday night lights," but basketball and baseball seemed to capture the Midwest's imagination more than the gridiron.
But I quickly learned that football was king in the Deep South. I was shocked when I saw how good the high-school teams were in Alabama. It was not so much that the athletes were better than those in Missouri (although they probably were). But the coaching was light years ahead of what I was used to. Buddy Anderson at Vestavia Hills, Robert Higginbotham at Shades Valley, Bill Sparks at Midfield, Danny Ridgeway at Banks, Ray Williams at West End, Ed Bruce at Gardendale, Bobby Johns at Erwin, Billy Livings at Jeff Davis in Montgomery . . . they were just a few of the many superb coaches I enjoyed covering.
But the coach who made the deepest impression on me was Bob Finley at W.A. Berry High School in Hoover. Berry was the forerunner to Hoover High, which would go on to fame on MTV's Two A Days and win numerous state championships under Coach Rush Propst, now the center of much controversy.
Bob Finley's Bucs also played championship football, and they did it in old-school style. Hand the ball to the tailback 25-30 times a game, commit very few penalties, win field position with a solid kicking game. It wasn't dazzling, but it worked.
I'm sure I'm forgetting some folks, but I recall only a handful of Berry players who went on to play major-college football. Linebacker Ricky Gilliland, tight end Bart Krout, and kicker Terry Sanders played at Alabama. I think former Auburn great Mike Kolen went to Berry.
But most of the guys I saw play were average high-school types who didn't particularly stand out in the hallways. I remember a tough tailback named Brian Blankenship. A slippery quarterback named Jimmy Dozier. A little noseguard named Jay Zito. Not sure any of them played a down of college football.
The most interesting guy, though, was the head coach. Finley seemed more like a minister than a football coach. If he had been a minister, I wouldn't have seen him as a fire-breathing evangelical sort. He would have been more of a "quiet" minister, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, an Episcopalian.
A recent letter writer to The Birmingham News, commenting on the current woes at Hoover High, recalled Finley's days as coach and remembered him "as one of the most decent Christian men I've ever known." I would second that statement, but Finley did not seem to be "out there" about his Christianity. He lived his faith, best I could tell, by example.
I once did a long feature story on Coach Finley. One of his former assistants said the thing he remembered most about Coach Finley was his willingness to do the little things--stopping to pick up a piece of paper in the parking lot, sweeping the gymnasium floor. He remembered that Finley coached girls' basketball at a time when girls' sports received very little attention.
When I interviewed Finley for the story, I told him that he almost seemed too nice to be a football coach. "It's hard to imagine you yelling at anybody," I said. The coach smiled and said he had tried the emotional locker room bit with his guys a few times, but it had fallen flat. "Being basically a dull person," he said, it was best for him to stick to the quieter approach. I still laugh thinking about that.
The key, Finley said, was knowing your players. He often learned a lot from listening to parents. He recalled learning that one player would go into a shell if you criticized him. But if you could find something to praise him about, the young man would give a wholehearted effort.
A few years ago, I interviewed a former Berry player who had gone on to become an ophthalmologist. The point of my story was eye surgery, and we probably talked about that for about half an hour. But we must have spent twice that long talking about Coach Finley and Berry football.
I also laugh when I think about how Finley used to call me "sir" during interviews. And I was 22 or 23 years old. But the funny thing was, it didn't seem phony coming from him. In fact, if there was anything phony about Bob Finley, I never saw it.
I've thought a lot about Bob Finley in the past seven or eight years, since my legal woes began--the legal woes that are at the heart of this blog. You see, the core problem with our justice system--whether you are talking about circuit court in Shelby County, Alabama appellate courts, or the cowboys in the Bush Justice Department--is dishonesty.
Bob Finley was a superb coach, and I think he would have been an excellent minister. I also think he would have been a very good judge, the kind we desperately need. He always impressed me as a fundamentally honest and fair person. And he had a keen intellect. Unlike the sleazebag judges I've encountered, Finley would have valued the law and applied it correctly.
My encounters with Alabama courts have been the most disheartening experience of my life. It has shown me an ugly side of human nature that I never knew existed. In an effort to maintain my mental health through the ordeal, I've tried regularly to think of the genuinely good people I've been privileged to know over the years. One of those was Bob Finley.
Unfortunately, Coach Finley is no longer with us. He died of a heart attack in 1994, while doing one of those simple things--mowing a field at the school.
A Web site, Hooverbuc.com, has information about the tradition of football in Hoover. It includes records under Finley and other coaches, including Rush Propst.
When Finley died, two of his former assistants tried to carry on his legacy. Mike Thorsen coached the Bucs for one year and went 4-5. Gerald Gann took over and went 11-2, 3-7, 3-7, 4-6. Gann is now head coach at John Carroll High School in Birmingham, and from everything I've heard, he's an outstanding person, very much in the Finley mold. But Gann's record evidently was not good enough, and he was fired after the 1998 season.
Hoover's search for a new coach started in late 1998. My legal problems also started in late 1998. I've often wondered if there was a connection between the two.
More on that in a bit.
Pravda on the Prowl
The Birmingham News, also known as "Pravda of the South," continues its relentless attempt to discredit Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson.
Simpson has testified under oath that she heard Republican operatives discussing a plan to "take care of" former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. The News has tried its darnedest to discredit Simpson, and the latest effort comes in today's edition, in a familiar format.
As usual, the story starts on the lower right-hand corner of the front page, with an inflammatory headline and a misleading lead graph or two. Then it jumps inside, where you learn there pretty much is nothing to the story.
Today, we again have Assistant U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin telling us the Siegelman case was driven by career prosecutors in Montgomery, not Department of Justice officials in Washington.
The story really isn't much different from the two press releases Franklin has issued over the past couple of months. Pretty much the only new information is that John W. Scott, a senior DOJ trial lawyer, disagreed with plans to request a special grand jury. This is supposed to prove, Franklin says, that Alabama prosecutors such as Steve Feaga and himself were driving the case.
Interestingly, the News tells us that repeated attempts to reach Scott last week failed. Guess we're just supposed to take "Sweet Lou" Franklin's word on things. Why would the News run this story without comment from Scott? It's not like we haven't heard Franklin's take on things before.
The story couldn't wait a day or two, or even a week, to get Scott's comments? Hmmm.
"Sweet Lou" Franklin, by the way, tells us U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) is assuming incorrectly that Department of Justice officials controlled the case. From where I sit, it doesn't appear that Davis is assuming anything. He is relying on Simpson's sworn statement, her 143-page sworn testimony, and other evidence. Where's the evidence that Davis needs to assume anything? Of course, the News reporters never asks this question.
They also don't ask Franklin why investigators never followed up on allegations from witness Lanny Young that he bribed Alabama Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor. And they don't ask Franklin why investigators haven't followed up on Time magazine charges that Young's activities with Sessions and Pryor amounted to money laundering.
The News does tell us this: Scott disagreed with Franklin and Feaga on the idea of a special grand jury, and he did it through a series of e-mails. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has asked that these e-mails and other evidence be turned over. But that hasn't happened.
Did the News ask Franklin why his office has not turned over these documents to Congress? Not on your life.
And we are supposed to believe most anything "Sweet Lou" Franklin says? Not on your life.
Simpson has testified under oath that she heard Republican operatives discussing a plan to "take care of" former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. The News has tried its darnedest to discredit Simpson, and the latest effort comes in today's edition, in a familiar format.
As usual, the story starts on the lower right-hand corner of the front page, with an inflammatory headline and a misleading lead graph or two. Then it jumps inside, where you learn there pretty much is nothing to the story.
Today, we again have Assistant U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin telling us the Siegelman case was driven by career prosecutors in Montgomery, not Department of Justice officials in Washington.
The story really isn't much different from the two press releases Franklin has issued over the past couple of months. Pretty much the only new information is that John W. Scott, a senior DOJ trial lawyer, disagreed with plans to request a special grand jury. This is supposed to prove, Franklin says, that Alabama prosecutors such as Steve Feaga and himself were driving the case.
Interestingly, the News tells us that repeated attempts to reach Scott last week failed. Guess we're just supposed to take "Sweet Lou" Franklin's word on things. Why would the News run this story without comment from Scott? It's not like we haven't heard Franklin's take on things before.
The story couldn't wait a day or two, or even a week, to get Scott's comments? Hmmm.
"Sweet Lou" Franklin, by the way, tells us U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) is assuming incorrectly that Department of Justice officials controlled the case. From where I sit, it doesn't appear that Davis is assuming anything. He is relying on Simpson's sworn statement, her 143-page sworn testimony, and other evidence. Where's the evidence that Davis needs to assume anything? Of course, the News reporters never asks this question.
They also don't ask Franklin why investigators never followed up on allegations from witness Lanny Young that he bribed Alabama Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor. And they don't ask Franklin why investigators haven't followed up on Time magazine charges that Young's activities with Sessions and Pryor amounted to money laundering.
The News does tell us this: Scott disagreed with Franklin and Feaga on the idea of a special grand jury, and he did it through a series of e-mails. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has asked that these e-mails and other evidence be turned over. But that hasn't happened.
Did the News ask Franklin why his office has not turned over these documents to Congress? Not on your life.
And we are supposed to believe most anything "Sweet Lou" Franklin says? Not on your life.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Blowhard Bob as Hamlet
What connection does Alabama Governor Bob Riley have to Hamlet?
Scott Horton, of Harper's, tells us today in a fascinating analysis of Riley's reaction to Tuesday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
We have noted the irrational, even disturbing, nature of Riley's attack on U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL). We tied it to the fact that Davis produced phone-record evidence showing that an affidavit from Rob Riley, Big Bob's son, was highly suspect.
But Horton goes deeper, showing that Riley's outrage probably goes back to the low poll numbers that had him in dire trouble in early 2005. The first-term governor had a voter-approval rating of 36 percent, which usually means a governor is certain not to get a second term.
But Jill Simpson's sworn testimony states that Bob Riley went to Washington at about this point to encourage the Justice Department to pursue the Don Siegelman case more aggressively. At this point, polls showed Siegelman leading his closest Democratic challenger by 30 points, so it was looking like a rematch of the 2002 election--and it was one that Big Bob was not likely to win, given he needed a "miracle" in Baldwin County to pull it out the first time.
Riley's effort apparently worked. An indictment and prosecution came, knocking Siegelman out of the race. Riley wound up steamrolling Lucy Baxley to claim a second term.
"Riley owes his second term to the indictment and prosecution of Siegelman," Horton writes.
So why is Riley attacking Artur Davis in such a nutty way, attributing words to Davis that Davis never spoke? Riley, Horton says, was having a Hamlet moment, becoming a gentleman who "dost protest too much."
And why would Riley protest too much? Probably, Horton says, because he really did go to Washington to sic the feds on Siegelman, just as Jill Simpson said he did.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, tells us today in a fascinating analysis of Riley's reaction to Tuesday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
We have noted the irrational, even disturbing, nature of Riley's attack on U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL). We tied it to the fact that Davis produced phone-record evidence showing that an affidavit from Rob Riley, Big Bob's son, was highly suspect.
But Horton goes deeper, showing that Riley's outrage probably goes back to the low poll numbers that had him in dire trouble in early 2005. The first-term governor had a voter-approval rating of 36 percent, which usually means a governor is certain not to get a second term.
But Jill Simpson's sworn testimony states that Bob Riley went to Washington at about this point to encourage the Justice Department to pursue the Don Siegelman case more aggressively. At this point, polls showed Siegelman leading his closest Democratic challenger by 30 points, so it was looking like a rematch of the 2002 election--and it was one that Big Bob was not likely to win, given he needed a "miracle" in Baldwin County to pull it out the first time.
Riley's effort apparently worked. An indictment and prosecution came, knocking Siegelman out of the race. Riley wound up steamrolling Lucy Baxley to claim a second term.
"Riley owes his second term to the indictment and prosecution of Siegelman," Horton writes.
So why is Riley attacking Artur Davis in such a nutty way, attributing words to Davis that Davis never spoke? Riley, Horton says, was having a Hamlet moment, becoming a gentleman who "dost protest too much."
And why would Riley protest too much? Probably, Horton says, because he really did go to Washington to sic the feds on Siegelman, just as Jill Simpson said he did.
Mike Hubbard Gets a Spanking
Alabama Republican Party chairman Mike Hubbard receives a public spanking today, one he richly deserves.
The Anniston Star expertly administers the spanking in response to Hubbard's press release, "Artur Davis and his Carnival of Conspiracy."
The Star calls Hubbard's missive "a load of utter nonsense."
"Let's get this straight," the Star states. "The issue is bigger than Siegelman's guilt or innocence; it's about the potential stain of politics on the U.S. legal system.
The Star chastises Hubbard for painting U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) as a partisan, "pandering to that horrible bunch of heathens, the liberal left."
Then the Star cuts to the chase:
"What's at play is nothing more than a clunky attempt by the state GOP to push back at a potentially big problem."
The Star is right on target. But I would invite the newspaper to take a broader look at our justice system. The problem goes beyond federal cases, such as those being investigated by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Alabama's state courts, dominated by the Republicans that Mike Hubbard so cherishes, also have serious problems. The stain of politics is present there, too, and I can prove it.
Here is a key point: Corruption in Alabama's state courts also has a strong federal connection, and that's part of the DOJ story that has not been covered. Republican state judges have repeatedly violated a federal statute in the Legal Schnauzer case, which is at the heart of this blog. The federal statute in question is 18 U.S. Code 1346, honest-services mail fraud. It involves use of the U.S. mails to perpetuate a fraudulent scheme.
Just how important is this statute? Look back at this press release about the Don Siegelman indictment. Honest-services mail fraud is cited throughout. In fact, 1346 made up two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman. Remember, Don Siegelman's case was in federal court, but the charges came from his activities as a state official. Federal funds and the U.S. mails and wires allegedly were involved, and that's what made it a federal matter.
But what happens when Republican judges, acting as state officials, commit federal crimes? In my case, the victim reports it repeatedly to the FBI and to Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. And what happens? Nothing. In fact, I have clear evidence of Alice Martin intentionally trying to sweep the Legal Schnauzer case under the rug.
Would she do that because the complaint doesn't have merit? Of course not. If it had no merit, she would merely ignore it or tell me why it had no merit. But she intentionally covers it up because she knows it does have merit. And Republicans have enough trouble on their hands with so much attention focused on the Bush Justice Department. They really would have problems if the Alabama public were shown the extent of corruption among state Republican judges.
So kudos to the Star for its editorial. But the paper needs to get an enterprising reporter out there looking at Alabama state courts.
The Anniston Star expertly administers the spanking in response to Hubbard's press release, "Artur Davis and his Carnival of Conspiracy."
The Star calls Hubbard's missive "a load of utter nonsense."
"Let's get this straight," the Star states. "The issue is bigger than Siegelman's guilt or innocence; it's about the potential stain of politics on the U.S. legal system.
The Star chastises Hubbard for painting U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) as a partisan, "pandering to that horrible bunch of heathens, the liberal left."
Then the Star cuts to the chase:
"What's at play is nothing more than a clunky attempt by the state GOP to push back at a potentially big problem."
The Star is right on target. But I would invite the newspaper to take a broader look at our justice system. The problem goes beyond federal cases, such as those being investigated by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Alabama's state courts, dominated by the Republicans that Mike Hubbard so cherishes, also have serious problems. The stain of politics is present there, too, and I can prove it.
Here is a key point: Corruption in Alabama's state courts also has a strong federal connection, and that's part of the DOJ story that has not been covered. Republican state judges have repeatedly violated a federal statute in the Legal Schnauzer case, which is at the heart of this blog. The federal statute in question is 18 U.S. Code 1346, honest-services mail fraud. It involves use of the U.S. mails to perpetuate a fraudulent scheme.
Just how important is this statute? Look back at this press release about the Don Siegelman indictment. Honest-services mail fraud is cited throughout. In fact, 1346 made up two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman. Remember, Don Siegelman's case was in federal court, but the charges came from his activities as a state official. Federal funds and the U.S. mails and wires allegedly were involved, and that's what made it a federal matter.
But what happens when Republican judges, acting as state officials, commit federal crimes? In my case, the victim reports it repeatedly to the FBI and to Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. And what happens? Nothing. In fact, I have clear evidence of Alice Martin intentionally trying to sweep the Legal Schnauzer case under the rug.
Would she do that because the complaint doesn't have merit? Of course not. If it had no merit, she would merely ignore it or tell me why it had no merit. But she intentionally covers it up because she knows it does have merit. And Republicans have enough trouble on their hands with so much attention focused on the Bush Justice Department. They really would have problems if the Alabama public were shown the extent of corruption among state Republican judges.
So kudos to the Star for its editorial. But the paper needs to get an enterprising reporter out there looking at Alabama state courts.
An Apology to Jill Simpson
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has written a letter to Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, apologizing for the premature release of the transcript from her interview with U.S. House Judiciary Committee staff members.
Conyers, chairman of the committee, said the transcript was leaked to some members of the Alabama media without his authorization. Simpson said she had an agreement with committee members that she would be notified before the statement was released. She said the early release of the transcript allowed her to be "attacked by surprise."
The transcript was released by the committee's Republican counsel. But ranking Republican member Lamar Smith (R-TX) denied there was a leak. Smith said the transcript already had been given to Time magazine prior to its release.
The complete text of Conyers' letter is available at Glynn Wilson's Locust Fork News.
Conyers, chairman of the committee, said the transcript was leaked to some members of the Alabama media without his authorization. Simpson said she had an agreement with committee members that she would be notified before the statement was released. She said the early release of the transcript allowed her to be "attacked by surprise."
The transcript was released by the committee's Republican counsel. But ranking Republican member Lamar Smith (R-TX) denied there was a leak. Smith said the transcript already had been given to Time magazine prior to its release.
The complete text of Conyers' letter is available at Glynn Wilson's Locust Fork News.
Hoover High in the Spotlight
Hoover High School used to be known mainly for its powerhouse football program and its central role in the popular Two A Days series on MTV.
An investigation into alleged academic, financial, and personal improprieties connected to the football program is drawing a different sort of national attention. And members of the community are concerned about it.
This week's Sports Illustrated includes an article about the Hoover mess, focusing on head coach Rush Propst. Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, an investigative series on HBO, has expressed interest in the topic. USA Today, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram are among the newspapers around the country who have covered it.
While Hoover officials are not thrilled about the national attention for a negative story, they seem to be more concerned about attention from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). SACS is Hoover High's accrediting body, and it has expressed interest in the school's institutional integrity and fiscal management.
"When you start involving SACS, then things start getting scary," Hoover City Councilman Gene Smith said.
And here's maybe an even scarier possibility for Hooverites. Their community long has been viewed as an attractive place to live, especially by upper- and upper-middle-class families with children. The city includes numerous attractive, high-end neighborhoods where property values have consistently risen over the years. And Hoover is a shopping mecca, featuring The Galleria and numerous other major retail centers, drawing shoppers from around the region.
School board member Suzy Baker says she is concerned that some parents will move to neighboring cities, such as Homewood and Vestavia Hills, because of their distrust of the school system. "What we're trying to do is re-establish the level of trust by putting our priorities in the right place," Baker says.
There is some interesting history to all of this. Hoover used to be part of the Jefferson County School System. But the city formed its own school system, evidently in an effort to compete with independent systems in cities such as Homewood, Vestavia Hills, and Mountain Brook.
During the Jefferson County days, Hoover's high school was known as Berry High School, and it had an excellent football program then. The coach was a gentleman named Bob Finley, who was as low key and humble as Rush Propst is outspoken and controversial. Finley took a bunch of mostly average athletes and consistently produced outstanding teams. In fact, the stadium at the old Berry High location bears his name.
I have some fond personal and professional memories of Coach Finley and old Berry High School. I also have some not-so-fond concerns about how my legal woes, which are at the heart of this blog, might have some indirect connections to Hoover High and its search for a football coach in late 1998, early 1999--a search that wound up with the hiring of Rush Propst.
I don't think anyone connected to Hoover High did anything wrong in my case. But another school in the Birmingham area, one that has become a football powerhouse in recent years, took some curious steps connected to its football program at that time. And it all wound up with yours truly having some major legal headaches, which continue to this day.
We'll have more on that soon.
An investigation into alleged academic, financial, and personal improprieties connected to the football program is drawing a different sort of national attention. And members of the community are concerned about it.
This week's Sports Illustrated includes an article about the Hoover mess, focusing on head coach Rush Propst. Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, an investigative series on HBO, has expressed interest in the topic. USA Today, The New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram are among the newspapers around the country who have covered it.
While Hoover officials are not thrilled about the national attention for a negative story, they seem to be more concerned about attention from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). SACS is Hoover High's accrediting body, and it has expressed interest in the school's institutional integrity and fiscal management.
"When you start involving SACS, then things start getting scary," Hoover City Councilman Gene Smith said.
And here's maybe an even scarier possibility for Hooverites. Their community long has been viewed as an attractive place to live, especially by upper- and upper-middle-class families with children. The city includes numerous attractive, high-end neighborhoods where property values have consistently risen over the years. And Hoover is a shopping mecca, featuring The Galleria and numerous other major retail centers, drawing shoppers from around the region.
School board member Suzy Baker says she is concerned that some parents will move to neighboring cities, such as Homewood and Vestavia Hills, because of their distrust of the school system. "What we're trying to do is re-establish the level of trust by putting our priorities in the right place," Baker says.
There is some interesting history to all of this. Hoover used to be part of the Jefferson County School System. But the city formed its own school system, evidently in an effort to compete with independent systems in cities such as Homewood, Vestavia Hills, and Mountain Brook.
During the Jefferson County days, Hoover's high school was known as Berry High School, and it had an excellent football program then. The coach was a gentleman named Bob Finley, who was as low key and humble as Rush Propst is outspoken and controversial. Finley took a bunch of mostly average athletes and consistently produced outstanding teams. In fact, the stadium at the old Berry High location bears his name.
I have some fond personal and professional memories of Coach Finley and old Berry High School. I also have some not-so-fond concerns about how my legal woes, which are at the heart of this blog, might have some indirect connections to Hoover High and its search for a football coach in late 1998, early 1999--a search that wound up with the hiring of Rush Propst.
I don't think anyone connected to Hoover High did anything wrong in my case. But another school in the Birmingham area, one that has become a football powerhouse in recent years, took some curious steps connected to its football program at that time. And it all wound up with yours truly having some major legal headaches, which continue to this day.
We'll have more on that soon.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XX
An abundance of news this week on the Don Siegelman-front has caused an interruption in our "Mississippi Churning" series. But there is much more to write on the Paul Minor case, and thanks to U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), our work here now has the attention of Congress. So let's return to activity in the Magnolia State, where the U.S. Justice Department and a federal judge have been up to some serious shenanigans:
Judge Wingate Revisited
We've noted two critical decisions that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate made that virtually ensured the defendants would be found guilty in the Paul Minor case. One was his decision not to allow expert testimony for the defense. The second was his jury instruction finding that the defendants could be convicted of bribery even if no quid pro quo existed. This instruction was based in Mississippi state law, even though federal law in the Fifth Circuit clearly requires a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction.
We've presented substantial evidence to show that these two rulings were incorrect under the law. But the wrongheadedness in the Minor trial did not stop there. Some other examples:
The indictment:
The government's indictment, alleging various forms of corruption against attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, used language that does not exist under any federal statute--or state statute for that matter.
The indictment alleged that Minor bribed the judges in order to receive an "unfair advantage." It alleged that the judges gave him "favorable" rulings. No such language is found in the federal statutes. Under the actual law, the key word is that something of value was "corruptly" given, with knowledge that it was "unlawful." Since Mississippi campaign-finance laws allow the loan guarantees Minor provided to the judges, the key issue became: Did the judges make unlawful rulings? Whether Minor received "favorable" rulings, or whether he sought an "unfair advantage, was irrelevant. And as we showed earlier in our series, in the two underlying lawsuits at the heart of the government's case--Archie Marks and Accu-Fab--the law and the facts indicated that Minor's clients should prevail. In other words, Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield ruled correctly.
In essence, "unfair advantage" and "favorable rulings" are layman's terms with no legal meaning in the Minor case. But prosecutors surely knew those phrases would resonate with a jury. And that language would ensure that there would be no messy testimony from expert witnesses showing that the judges' rulings were not unlawful.
Defense attorneys filed several motions challenging the language in the indictment. Wingate allowed it to stand. The judge's decision essentially means that Minor is in prison, and Teel and Whitfield soon are heading to prison, for convictions based on language that doesn't exist in the law.
Standards of evidence
There was a dramatic change in the evidence that was allowed from the first to the second trial. A source close to the case estimates that about 75 percent of the defense evidence allowed in the first trial was not allowed in the second trial. We will go into this in more detail later, but some examples include:
* Minor could not present "good works" evidence, including his military service in Vietnam, his Bronze Star, his charitable work, and his work with low-income individuals through the Legal Services Foundation in south Mississippi.
* Minor could not produce evidence that he could have filed more than 500 cases before Teel and Whitfield--cases which resulted in gross judgments of more than $75 million and attorneys' fees to Minor's firm of more than $13 million--but filed them in other jurisdictions instead. Does that sound like the actions of a corrupt attorney? No. Is that why Wingate didn't allow the testimony? Yes.
The jury and paperwork
Sources report that Wingate allowed jurors to have copies of the government indictment throughout the trial. And yet, once he had read the jury instructions, he did not allow jurors to take copies with them to the jury room. Our sources say both of these procedures are most unusual.
Quid pro quo
We've noted that Wingate did not require a finding of a quid pro quo on the bribery charge in the second trial. Sources tell us that he did require a quid pro quo in the first trial. The first trial resulted in acquittals on several counts, with the jury deadlocking on other counts, leading to the retrial.
As we showed in our previous post, Fifth Circuit law clearly requires a quid pro quo for conviction on a bribery charge under 18 U.S. Code 666, the statute upon which the Minor prosecution was based.
The key judicial precedent that Wingate should have followed was U.S. v. Duvall 846, F.2d 916 (1988). But he conveniently chose to ignore Duvall and cobbled together a jury instruction based mostly in Mississippi state law. The defendants, of course, were not charged with violating state law. But that's essentially what they were convicted on.
Maybe Judge Wingate was so worried about the vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that he neglected to concern himself with the small issue of justice for Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. As it turned out, Minor, Teel and Whitfield got cheated by our federal courts, and Wingate didn't get the job he evidently so cherished. Nicely orchestrated by the judge--a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.
Judge Wingate Revisited
We've noted two critical decisions that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate made that virtually ensured the defendants would be found guilty in the Paul Minor case. One was his decision not to allow expert testimony for the defense. The second was his jury instruction finding that the defendants could be convicted of bribery even if no quid pro quo existed. This instruction was based in Mississippi state law, even though federal law in the Fifth Circuit clearly requires a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction.
We've presented substantial evidence to show that these two rulings were incorrect under the law. But the wrongheadedness in the Minor trial did not stop there. Some other examples:
The indictment:
The government's indictment, alleging various forms of corruption against attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, used language that does not exist under any federal statute--or state statute for that matter.
The indictment alleged that Minor bribed the judges in order to receive an "unfair advantage." It alleged that the judges gave him "favorable" rulings. No such language is found in the federal statutes. Under the actual law, the key word is that something of value was "corruptly" given, with knowledge that it was "unlawful." Since Mississippi campaign-finance laws allow the loan guarantees Minor provided to the judges, the key issue became: Did the judges make unlawful rulings? Whether Minor received "favorable" rulings, or whether he sought an "unfair advantage, was irrelevant. And as we showed earlier in our series, in the two underlying lawsuits at the heart of the government's case--Archie Marks and Accu-Fab--the law and the facts indicated that Minor's clients should prevail. In other words, Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield ruled correctly.
In essence, "unfair advantage" and "favorable rulings" are layman's terms with no legal meaning in the Minor case. But prosecutors surely knew those phrases would resonate with a jury. And that language would ensure that there would be no messy testimony from expert witnesses showing that the judges' rulings were not unlawful.
Defense attorneys filed several motions challenging the language in the indictment. Wingate allowed it to stand. The judge's decision essentially means that Minor is in prison, and Teel and Whitfield soon are heading to prison, for convictions based on language that doesn't exist in the law.
Standards of evidence
There was a dramatic change in the evidence that was allowed from the first to the second trial. A source close to the case estimates that about 75 percent of the defense evidence allowed in the first trial was not allowed in the second trial. We will go into this in more detail later, but some examples include:
* Minor could not present "good works" evidence, including his military service in Vietnam, his Bronze Star, his charitable work, and his work with low-income individuals through the Legal Services Foundation in south Mississippi.
* Minor could not produce evidence that he could have filed more than 500 cases before Teel and Whitfield--cases which resulted in gross judgments of more than $75 million and attorneys' fees to Minor's firm of more than $13 million--but filed them in other jurisdictions instead. Does that sound like the actions of a corrupt attorney? No. Is that why Wingate didn't allow the testimony? Yes.
The jury and paperwork
Sources report that Wingate allowed jurors to have copies of the government indictment throughout the trial. And yet, once he had read the jury instructions, he did not allow jurors to take copies with them to the jury room. Our sources say both of these procedures are most unusual.
Quid pro quo
We've noted that Wingate did not require a finding of a quid pro quo on the bribery charge in the second trial. Sources tell us that he did require a quid pro quo in the first trial. The first trial resulted in acquittals on several counts, with the jury deadlocking on other counts, leading to the retrial.
As we showed in our previous post, Fifth Circuit law clearly requires a quid pro quo for conviction on a bribery charge under 18 U.S. Code 666, the statute upon which the Minor prosecution was based.
The key judicial precedent that Wingate should have followed was U.S. v. Duvall 846, F.2d 916 (1988). But he conveniently chose to ignore Duvall and cobbled together a jury instruction based mostly in Mississippi state law. The defendants, of course, were not charged with violating state law. But that's essentially what they were convicted on.
Maybe Judge Wingate was so worried about the vacancy on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that he neglected to concern himself with the small issue of justice for Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. As it turned out, Minor, Teel and Whitfield got cheated by our federal courts, and Wingate didn't get the job he evidently so cherished. Nicely orchestrated by the judge--a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.
More From Mississippi
It's been a busy week for news related to the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. If you are interested in seeing justice done in our courts, you are likely to find some of the news encouraging, some disturbing, and some, well, curious.
Kudos for Cohen
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) deserves applause for presenting the Minor case to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee at Tuesday's hearing in Washington. The Minor case now seems to join the Don Siegelman (Alabama), Cyril Wecht (Pennsylvania), and Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin) cases on the selective-prosecution front burner.
Ana Radelat covered the Minor story for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger's Washington Bureau. An interesting quote near the end of her story from U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, who directed the prosecution. "When someone is tried and convicted by a jury, that's a pretty good indication that he's guilty," Lampton said. Actually, that's not an indication of anything, particularly when the judge in this case (Republican appointee Henry Wingate) butchered the law repeatedly--giving improper jury instructions related to the two key charges (bribery and honest-services mail fraud), improperly rejecting expert testimony, ignoring Fifth-Circuit law that requires a quid pro quo be present for a bribery conviction . . . and on and on.
Anita Lee covered the story for the Biloxi Sun Herald. James Park, legislative counsel for Rep. Cohen, said the case came to the representative's attention through recent articles in The New York Times and Harper's.org.
An Objective Judge?
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate would allow attorney Paul Minor no reprieve from immediately paying $4.25 million in fines and restitution stemming from his conviction on bribery-related charges.
According to court documents, the fine is more than 15 times what the district court's Guideline calculation would require and Probation recommended. It is more than 11 times what the Guidelines provide for in cases involving the worst of offenders.
Julie Epps, one of Minor's attorneys, asked that Minor be allowed to post the money in an interest-bearing court account until his appeal is decided. Minor has been moved several times within the prison system, making it difficult for him to make arrangements for the money. But Wingate insisted the fine be paid now.
Why would a judge impose a fine that is 15 times beyond the level called for by federal guidelines? Why would a judge insist that such a huge fine be paid prior to a decision on appeal? Why would a judge repeatedly butcher the law, leading to the conviction of a lawyer and two judges who clearly violated no federal laws?
This next item might give some insight to those questions.
Fifth Circuit Seat is Filled
The U.S. Senate this week confirmed the appointment of Mississippi state judge Leslie Southwick to a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans and covers Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The vacant seat had been a source of controversy for several years. Congressional Democrats blocked President Bush's first two nominees, Charles Pickering and Mike Wallace. Civil Rights groups had pushed for the appointment of a black judge, and U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate (who oversaw the Minor case) was considered a prime candidate.
For unclear reasons, Wingate did not meet with favor from the Bush administration. And some observers have wondered if his bizarre and improper handling of the Minor trial was an effort to draw support from the White House.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy was among those leading the charge for Wingate. Ironically, the push by Democrats and Civil Rights groups for a black judge might have caused Wingate to put his personal ambitions ahead of justice, leading to the convictions of an attorney and two judges (one of them black) who were seen as champions of Democratic causes
Kudos for Cohen
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) deserves applause for presenting the Minor case to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee at Tuesday's hearing in Washington. The Minor case now seems to join the Don Siegelman (Alabama), Cyril Wecht (Pennsylvania), and Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin) cases on the selective-prosecution front burner.
Ana Radelat covered the Minor story for the Jackson Clarion-Ledger's Washington Bureau. An interesting quote near the end of her story from U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, who directed the prosecution. "When someone is tried and convicted by a jury, that's a pretty good indication that he's guilty," Lampton said. Actually, that's not an indication of anything, particularly when the judge in this case (Republican appointee Henry Wingate) butchered the law repeatedly--giving improper jury instructions related to the two key charges (bribery and honest-services mail fraud), improperly rejecting expert testimony, ignoring Fifth-Circuit law that requires a quid pro quo be present for a bribery conviction . . . and on and on.
Anita Lee covered the story for the Biloxi Sun Herald. James Park, legislative counsel for Rep. Cohen, said the case came to the representative's attention through recent articles in The New York Times and Harper's.org.
An Objective Judge?
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate would allow attorney Paul Minor no reprieve from immediately paying $4.25 million in fines and restitution stemming from his conviction on bribery-related charges.
According to court documents, the fine is more than 15 times what the district court's Guideline calculation would require and Probation recommended. It is more than 11 times what the Guidelines provide for in cases involving the worst of offenders.
Julie Epps, one of Minor's attorneys, asked that Minor be allowed to post the money in an interest-bearing court account until his appeal is decided. Minor has been moved several times within the prison system, making it difficult for him to make arrangements for the money. But Wingate insisted the fine be paid now.
Why would a judge impose a fine that is 15 times beyond the level called for by federal guidelines? Why would a judge insist that such a huge fine be paid prior to a decision on appeal? Why would a judge repeatedly butcher the law, leading to the conviction of a lawyer and two judges who clearly violated no federal laws?
This next item might give some insight to those questions.
Fifth Circuit Seat is Filled
The U.S. Senate this week confirmed the appointment of Mississippi state judge Leslie Southwick to a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New Orleans and covers Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The vacant seat had been a source of controversy for several years. Congressional Democrats blocked President Bush's first two nominees, Charles Pickering and Mike Wallace. Civil Rights groups had pushed for the appointment of a black judge, and U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate (who oversaw the Minor case) was considered a prime candidate.
For unclear reasons, Wingate did not meet with favor from the Bush administration. And some observers have wondered if his bizarre and improper handling of the Minor trial was an effort to draw support from the White House.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy was among those leading the charge for Wingate. Ironically, the push by Democrats and Civil Rights groups for a black judge might have caused Wingate to put his personal ambitions ahead of justice, leading to the convictions of an attorney and two judges (one of them black) who were seen as champions of Democratic causes
Standing Up to Blowhard Bob
It's good to see Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham stand up to Blowhard Bob Riley and his irrational attack on U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL).
Why would Blowhard Bob, Alabama's Republican governor, go after Davis so aggressively? Evidently it's because Davis actually takes his role on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee seriously and is taking an open-minded look at charges of selective prosecution in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and other Democrats. It probably didn't help that Davis entered phone-record evidence to show that an affidavit from Rob Riley, Blowhard Bob's son, was highly suspect.
Turnham called Bob Riley's rant "shrill and unprofessional" and noted Davis' qualifications for looking into selective prosecution. "Not only is he uniquely qualified to speak to these issues, but he has a sworn duty to pursue truth, justice and to see that the rule of law through our constitution is followed. His remarks and actions in those roles have been only professional and indeed courageous. He does not deserve the personal, partisan attacks from Alabama's top Republicans (including party chair Mike Hubbard) that are akin to 'killing the messenger' who seeks the truth."
If Riley wants to be a blowhard, why doesn't he discuss issues related to the lawsuit brought against him by Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff? And perhaps Riley could explain why, less than a month after Scott Horton of Harper's reported that Riley tried to get the U.S. Attorney's Office to make the lawsuit "go away," Goff now is facing possible indictment on mysterious charges related to a dispute that is four years old and was long ago settled.
No wonder Riley doesn't want people looking into issues related to abuse of the Justice Department.
Why would Blowhard Bob, Alabama's Republican governor, go after Davis so aggressively? Evidently it's because Davis actually takes his role on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee seriously and is taking an open-minded look at charges of selective prosecution in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and other Democrats. It probably didn't help that Davis entered phone-record evidence to show that an affidavit from Rob Riley, Blowhard Bob's son, was highly suspect.
Turnham called Bob Riley's rant "shrill and unprofessional" and noted Davis' qualifications for looking into selective prosecution. "Not only is he uniquely qualified to speak to these issues, but he has a sworn duty to pursue truth, justice and to see that the rule of law through our constitution is followed. His remarks and actions in those roles have been only professional and indeed courageous. He does not deserve the personal, partisan attacks from Alabama's top Republicans (including party chair Mike Hubbard) that are akin to 'killing the messenger' who seeks the truth."
If Riley wants to be a blowhard, why doesn't he discuss issues related to the lawsuit brought against him by Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff? And perhaps Riley could explain why, less than a month after Scott Horton of Harper's reported that Riley tried to get the U.S. Attorney's Office to make the lawsuit "go away," Goff now is facing possible indictment on mysterious charges related to a dispute that is four years old and was long ago settled.
No wonder Riley doesn't want people looking into issues related to abuse of the Justice Department.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Big Bob Blows His Top
A strange, even disturbing, interview with Alabama Governor Bob Riley in today's Birmingham News.
The headline is "Riley Angered by Davis Remarks About GOP Plot: Governor Calls Claims in Siegelman case 'far-fetched'" The story is in the usual spot the News has picked out for stories attacking Jill Simpson's credibility. That's the lower right-hand corner of the front page, with an inflammatory headline, a misleading introduction, and a large amount of copy jumped inside where things usually peter out.
Some thoughts about this latest effort from "The Pravda of the South."
* Riley attacks U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) right off the bat. "When it gets to the point where he (Davis) says he believes that the governor of Alabama went to Washington, met with the Justice Department, convinced them to put resources into a conspiracy to get Don Siegelman, that is so far-fetched, that is so totally wrong that I'm disappointed that someone like Artur Davis could possibly believe that." Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall Davis saying the words that Riley attributes to him. In fact, to its credit, the News gets a response from Davis, and he says he's never said those words.
* From here, the piece has the scent of damage control. The theme seems to be: "Little Rob's affidavit gamble didn't go over so well in Washington, so it's time to bring out Big Bob to attack Artur Davis." One gets the feeling that Big Bob can't believe Artur Davis had the temerity to produce phone-record evidence that contradicted the main point in Little Rob's affidavit.
* Big Bob evidently is so upset that his son got shown up on Washington's big stage that be comes off as irrational. He calls Davis' words at Tuesday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing "absurd." And then he says that he and Davis won't be pals any longer. "It's going to be hard for me to have the respect I have had for him . . . because now he is accusing me, he is accusing the governor of something that I think in his heart he knows never happened." Excuse me again, but I don't recall Artur Davis accusing Bob Riley of anything. Riley seems to have Davis and Jill Simpson mixed up.
* You have to admire Davis' ability to keep his cool in the face of such nutty statements. Davis points out that his statement about politics being used to destroy opponents was about Karl Rove, not Riley. "If the governor views that as a reference to him, I would ask the governor to look closely at the whole statement," Davis said.
* We've noted the tendency of Riley spokespeople to brush off questions about uncomfortable charges with words like "ridiculous," "ludicrous," and "absurd." Big Bob does the same thing in today's article, repeatedly using such language. Why? I suspect it's because those are what I call "show stopper" words. They are big, harsh, dismissive words that tend to cut off dialogue. And the last thing the Riley camp wants is dialogue on this issue. I kept wondering if News reporter Brett Blackledge was ever going to ask, "Governor, what is ridiculous or absurd about the information presented at Tuesday's hearing? What specifically do you find ridiculous and why?" Of course, that question never came from the paper's "Attack Chihuahua."
* The disturbing part comes when Riley seems to cast a thinly veiled threat Davis' way and uses the race card to do it. And in the process, Riley clearly insults the integrity of Alabama voters. "Riley said Davis risks damaging himself in the eyes of Alabama voters," Blackledge writes. Hmmm, so Bob Riley is concerned about Artur Davis' political future? And Alabama voters won't like it if a politician actually asks serious questions about the conduct of the Bush Justice Department? And Alabama voters are too stupid to notice that Justice Department officials are not turning over requested documents and Bush Administration officials are refusing to testify on the DOJ scandal? And what voters would Davis be losing credibility with? The reference clearly seems to be to white voters. Big Bob's message to Davis: "If you want to be Alabama governor someday, you'll shut up and be quiet. White Alabamians can't handle it if you unmask conservatives and show them who we really are. And if you upset white Alabamians, they will make a young black fellow like yourself pay."
* We can't finish our commentary without noting this amazing line from Blackledge. He writes: "The affidavits disputing Simpson's description of the phone call don't say the call didn't take place, only that Rob Riley and others don't remember talking to Simpson that day and that a conversation about Rove, Siegelman's prosecution and his concession never took place." AC (Attack Chihuahua) evidently thinks Alabamians are stupid, too. Rob Riley's affidavit clearly says: " . . . I do not believe a phone call occurred that involved Ms. Simpson . . . " In lawyerly, hedged language, that says a phone call didn't take place. Butts' affidavit says, " . . . nor do I believe any such call/conversation as alleged ever took place." And Matthew Lembke's affidavit says, "I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place . . . "All three of them said the phone call didn't take place. What's so hard to understand?
The headline is "Riley Angered by Davis Remarks About GOP Plot: Governor Calls Claims in Siegelman case 'far-fetched'" The story is in the usual spot the News has picked out for stories attacking Jill Simpson's credibility. That's the lower right-hand corner of the front page, with an inflammatory headline, a misleading introduction, and a large amount of copy jumped inside where things usually peter out.
Some thoughts about this latest effort from "The Pravda of the South."
* Riley attacks U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) right off the bat. "When it gets to the point where he (Davis) says he believes that the governor of Alabama went to Washington, met with the Justice Department, convinced them to put resources into a conspiracy to get Don Siegelman, that is so far-fetched, that is so totally wrong that I'm disappointed that someone like Artur Davis could possibly believe that." Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall Davis saying the words that Riley attributes to him. In fact, to its credit, the News gets a response from Davis, and he says he's never said those words.
* From here, the piece has the scent of damage control. The theme seems to be: "Little Rob's affidavit gamble didn't go over so well in Washington, so it's time to bring out Big Bob to attack Artur Davis." One gets the feeling that Big Bob can't believe Artur Davis had the temerity to produce phone-record evidence that contradicted the main point in Little Rob's affidavit.
* Big Bob evidently is so upset that his son got shown up on Washington's big stage that be comes off as irrational. He calls Davis' words at Tuesday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing "absurd." And then he says that he and Davis won't be pals any longer. "It's going to be hard for me to have the respect I have had for him . . . because now he is accusing me, he is accusing the governor of something that I think in his heart he knows never happened." Excuse me again, but I don't recall Artur Davis accusing Bob Riley of anything. Riley seems to have Davis and Jill Simpson mixed up.
* You have to admire Davis' ability to keep his cool in the face of such nutty statements. Davis points out that his statement about politics being used to destroy opponents was about Karl Rove, not Riley. "If the governor views that as a reference to him, I would ask the governor to look closely at the whole statement," Davis said.
* We've noted the tendency of Riley spokespeople to brush off questions about uncomfortable charges with words like "ridiculous," "ludicrous," and "absurd." Big Bob does the same thing in today's article, repeatedly using such language. Why? I suspect it's because those are what I call "show stopper" words. They are big, harsh, dismissive words that tend to cut off dialogue. And the last thing the Riley camp wants is dialogue on this issue. I kept wondering if News reporter Brett Blackledge was ever going to ask, "Governor, what is ridiculous or absurd about the information presented at Tuesday's hearing? What specifically do you find ridiculous and why?" Of course, that question never came from the paper's "Attack Chihuahua."
* The disturbing part comes when Riley seems to cast a thinly veiled threat Davis' way and uses the race card to do it. And in the process, Riley clearly insults the integrity of Alabama voters. "Riley said Davis risks damaging himself in the eyes of Alabama voters," Blackledge writes. Hmmm, so Bob Riley is concerned about Artur Davis' political future? And Alabama voters won't like it if a politician actually asks serious questions about the conduct of the Bush Justice Department? And Alabama voters are too stupid to notice that Justice Department officials are not turning over requested documents and Bush Administration officials are refusing to testify on the DOJ scandal? And what voters would Davis be losing credibility with? The reference clearly seems to be to white voters. Big Bob's message to Davis: "If you want to be Alabama governor someday, you'll shut up and be quiet. White Alabamians can't handle it if you unmask conservatives and show them who we really are. And if you upset white Alabamians, they will make a young black fellow like yourself pay."
* We can't finish our commentary without noting this amazing line from Blackledge. He writes: "The affidavits disputing Simpson's description of the phone call don't say the call didn't take place, only that Rob Riley and others don't remember talking to Simpson that day and that a conversation about Rove, Siegelman's prosecution and his concession never took place." AC (Attack Chihuahua) evidently thinks Alabamians are stupid, too. Rob Riley's affidavit clearly says: " . . . I do not believe a phone call occurred that involved Ms. Simpson . . . " In lawyerly, hedged language, that says a phone call didn't take place. Butts' affidavit says, " . . . nor do I believe any such call/conversation as alleged ever took place." And Matthew Lembke's affidavit says, "I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place . . . "All three of them said the phone call didn't take place. What's so hard to understand?
The Nation Meets a Whistleblower
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, has written a splendid piece for The Nation magazine on Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson and her role in bringing the issue of selective prosecution to the public's attention.
In "A Whistleblower's Tale," Wilson notes that Tuesday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing probably never would have taken place if Simpson had not signed a sworn affidavit that quoted Republican operatives discussing a plan to "take care of" former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
In addition to the Siegelman case, Congress is looking at cases in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) on Tuesday introduced evidence regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has received considerable attention here at Legal Schnauzer.
It's very likely that none of those cases would have received scrutiny if Simpson had not come forward. And Wilson provides the most comprehensive, and most personal, account of a whistleblower who has taken considerable personal and professional risks.
Since taking steps to shine a light on Republican wrongdoing in the Siegelman matter, Simpson has seen her house burn down, her car forced off the road, and her law business dry up. "Any time you speak truth to power, there are great risks," she says.
Wilson's piece is an excellent read. And while the main focus is on Simpson, the article also says a lot about Rob Riley, son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and victor over Siegelman in a bitterly fought 2002 election. Rob Riley filed an affidavit to counter Simpson's story and has repeatedly tried to attack her credibility in news accounts.
But what about Riley's credibility? Wilson reports that Riley told a Birmingham News reporter that he had not seen Simpson in years and had never tried cases with her. But Simpson has boxes of records proving they tried many cases together over the years, and she provided some of those records to the House Judiciary Committee.
In "A Whistleblower's Tale," Wilson notes that Tuesday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing probably never would have taken place if Simpson had not signed a sworn affidavit that quoted Republican operatives discussing a plan to "take care of" former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
In addition to the Siegelman case, Congress is looking at cases in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. And U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) on Tuesday introduced evidence regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has received considerable attention here at Legal Schnauzer.
It's very likely that none of those cases would have received scrutiny if Simpson had not come forward. And Wilson provides the most comprehensive, and most personal, account of a whistleblower who has taken considerable personal and professional risks.
Since taking steps to shine a light on Republican wrongdoing in the Siegelman matter, Simpson has seen her house burn down, her car forced off the road, and her law business dry up. "Any time you speak truth to power, there are great risks," she says.
Wilson's piece is an excellent read. And while the main focus is on Simpson, the article also says a lot about Rob Riley, son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and victor over Siegelman in a bitterly fought 2002 election. Rob Riley filed an affidavit to counter Simpson's story and has repeatedly tried to attack her credibility in news accounts.
But what about Riley's credibility? Wilson reports that Riley told a Birmingham News reporter that he had not seen Simpson in years and had never tried cases with her. But Simpson has boxes of records proving they tried many cases together over the years, and she provided some of those records to the House Judiciary Committee.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Well, Well, Weller
The Birmingham News today unearths a new spokesperson in an attempt to explain the strange activities of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Montgomery.
It's not the usual suspects--Louis Franklin or Steve Feaga. It's Julia Weller.
Who? you might ask. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has the answer.
Weller is a former assistant U.S. attorney, who once held the top staff position under Leura Canary in Montgomery. Weller left the USA office under mysterious circumstances and wound up in her current role, administrative law judge, courtesy of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.
The News digs up Weller to offer an explanation for the government's decision not to pursue allegations by Alabama developer Lanny Young that he had offered bribes to Republicans William Pryor and Jeff Sessions. Of course, the government took similar allegations against Democrat Don Siegelman and ran with them, all the way to conviction.
Weller tells us that the USA office checked out Young's allegations regarding Sessions and Pryor, but just couldn't find any quid pro quo that would amount to federal bribery.
The News tells us virtually nothing about Weller's background. But Horton is more than happy to shine some light on that subject. Weller is a longtime friend of Leura Canary, and Weller's husband is well-known Montgomery tax attorney Christopher Weller. Among Christopher Weller's close friends are none other than William Pryor and Jeff Sessions--not to mention Karl Rove.
Makes you think the government's investigation of the Pryor/Sessions allegations was pretty exhaustive doesn't it?
It's not the usual suspects--Louis Franklin or Steve Feaga. It's Julia Weller.
Who? you might ask. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has the answer.
Weller is a former assistant U.S. attorney, who once held the top staff position under Leura Canary in Montgomery. Weller left the USA office under mysterious circumstances and wound up in her current role, administrative law judge, courtesy of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.
The News digs up Weller to offer an explanation for the government's decision not to pursue allegations by Alabama developer Lanny Young that he had offered bribes to Republicans William Pryor and Jeff Sessions. Of course, the government took similar allegations against Democrat Don Siegelman and ran with them, all the way to conviction.
Weller tells us that the USA office checked out Young's allegations regarding Sessions and Pryor, but just couldn't find any quid pro quo that would amount to federal bribery.
The News tells us virtually nothing about Weller's background. But Horton is more than happy to shine some light on that subject. Weller is a longtime friend of Leura Canary, and Weller's husband is well-known Montgomery tax attorney Christopher Weller. Among Christopher Weller's close friends are none other than William Pryor and Jeff Sessions--not to mention Karl Rove.
Makes you think the government's investigation of the Pryor/Sessions allegations was pretty exhaustive doesn't it?
The Heart of the Matter
"A Primer in Political Persecution," Scott Horton's post today at Harper's.org, is an absolute must-read.
It is a brilliant analysis of yesterday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. After reading Horton's description of the general Republican approach to the proceedings, the word that seems to best describe large segments of the modern GOP is "vacuous."
Another couple of words come to mind: "tone deaf." Certain GOPers do not seem capable of grasping what has gone wrong in our nation's justice department and why it's a problem. They seem void of any sense of fair play, of right and wrong, of justice. As Horton writes, they can't even seem to take the subject seriously. And what could be more serious than the notion that certain Americans are being held prisoner because of their political beliefs? Have the GOPers ever heard of Stalin?
Anyone who has read Horton for any length of time knows that he holds contempt for much of what passes for modern conservatism. But I think even Horton was taken aback by the crudity on display in the GOP camp yesterday.
Some Horton highlights:
* He describes the behavior of several GOP committee members as "infantile." They approached the proceeding with a cavalier attitude, attacked a respected former GOP attorney general (Richard Thornburgh), and showed a shocking lack of knowledge about the matters at hand.
* He noted the testimony of University of Missouri faculty member Donald C. Shields, co-author of a study showing that the Bush DOJ has prosecuted 5.6 Democrats for every one Republican. The chance of that ratio coming from random selection? "One in 10,000," Shields said.
* Horton describes in wonderful detail the embarrassing performance of committee member Randy Forbes (R-VA), who noted the affidavits of three Alabamians (Rob Riley & Co.) and declared Jill Simpson should be investigated. (She probably already is, Horton writes.) At that, Artur Davis (D-AL) presented phone records showing a phone call to Rob Riley's law firm at exactly the time Simpson had said all along. Gulp! This, Horton writes, turned Forbes into a "greasespot."
* Was the Bush DOJ offering a defense? Not yesterday, Horton writes.
* The GOP was tripped up by its reliance on the spotty coverage of The Birmingham News, which had reported that Simpson had no documents to back up her story. The supporting evidence existed all along, Horton writes, but the News' stellar reporters evidently never bothered to check it out. Horton says his research indicates that more supporting evidence and corroborating witnesses are out there.
It is a brilliant analysis of yesterday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. After reading Horton's description of the general Republican approach to the proceedings, the word that seems to best describe large segments of the modern GOP is "vacuous."
Another couple of words come to mind: "tone deaf." Certain GOPers do not seem capable of grasping what has gone wrong in our nation's justice department and why it's a problem. They seem void of any sense of fair play, of right and wrong, of justice. As Horton writes, they can't even seem to take the subject seriously. And what could be more serious than the notion that certain Americans are being held prisoner because of their political beliefs? Have the GOPers ever heard of Stalin?
Anyone who has read Horton for any length of time knows that he holds contempt for much of what passes for modern conservatism. But I think even Horton was taken aback by the crudity on display in the GOP camp yesterday.
Some Horton highlights:
* He describes the behavior of several GOP committee members as "infantile." They approached the proceeding with a cavalier attitude, attacked a respected former GOP attorney general (Richard Thornburgh), and showed a shocking lack of knowledge about the matters at hand.
* He noted the testimony of University of Missouri faculty member Donald C. Shields, co-author of a study showing that the Bush DOJ has prosecuted 5.6 Democrats for every one Republican. The chance of that ratio coming from random selection? "One in 10,000," Shields said.
* Horton describes in wonderful detail the embarrassing performance of committee member Randy Forbes (R-VA), who noted the affidavits of three Alabamians (Rob Riley & Co.) and declared Jill Simpson should be investigated. (She probably already is, Horton writes.) At that, Artur Davis (D-AL) presented phone records showing a phone call to Rob Riley's law firm at exactly the time Simpson had said all along. Gulp! This, Horton writes, turned Forbes into a "greasespot."
* Was the Bush DOJ offering a defense? Not yesterday, Horton writes.
* The GOP was tripped up by its reliance on the spotty coverage of The Birmingham News, which had reported that Simpson had no documents to back up her story. The supporting evidence existed all along, Horton writes, but the News' stellar reporters evidently never bothered to check it out. Horton says his research indicates that more supporting evidence and corroborating witnesses are out there.
The Left Perspective in Alabama
Kudos to "Mooncat" at Left in Alabama for an excellent summary of yesterday's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution. The site also provided live blogging as the hearing progressed.
Some highlights from the summary:
* Questions from GOP committee members seemed to adhere to key points in an editorial from yesterday's edition of The Birmingham News.
* The Paul Minor case in Mississippi was introduced, highlighting the prosecution of an individual who was a major contributor to John Edwards' presidential campaign. "We may be seeing a new class of people investigated for political activities--Edwards donors," Mooncat writes.
* And most fascinating of all: On more than one occasion, a GOP committee member tried to make connections between the War on Terror and selective prosecution. What the *!@*% . I'd love to hear that part. Were they pretty much admitting that selective prosecution of political figures in Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin was going on--and somehow it was advancing the cause of national security? Oh, now I get it: Don Siegelman, Paul Minor & Co. are terror suspects. And Cyril Wecht? That name sounds Muslim doesn't it?
Some highlights from the summary:
* Questions from GOP committee members seemed to adhere to key points in an editorial from yesterday's edition of The Birmingham News.
* The Paul Minor case in Mississippi was introduced, highlighting the prosecution of an individual who was a major contributor to John Edwards' presidential campaign. "We may be seeing a new class of people investigated for political activities--Edwards donors," Mooncat writes.
* And most fascinating of all: On more than one occasion, a GOP committee member tried to make connections between the War on Terror and selective prosecution. What the *!@*% . I'd love to hear that part. Were they pretty much admitting that selective prosecution of political figures in Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin was going on--and somehow it was advancing the cause of national security? Oh, now I get it: Don Siegelman, Paul Minor & Co. are terror suspects. And Cyril Wecht? That name sounds Muslim doesn't it?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Highlights From the House
The Riley Affidavits
Rob Riley said he was going to produce affidavits to counter Jill Simpson's contention that the Don Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated. And by golly, Riley came through--sort of.
He produced an affidavit for today's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing, and so did retired Alabama Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts and Birmingham attorney Matthew Lembke.
Riley was true to his word, but did the affidavits effectively counter Simpson's sworn testimony? That might be another matter. As we noted in our previous post, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) did not seem to be swayed.
So what to make of the Riley affidavits, which can be read here?
I'm hardly an expert, but I have encountered more affidavits than I ever dreamed I'd have any reason to see in the past few years. So here is one layman's thoughts:
* All three affidavits have a fair amount of what I would call "hedge" language in them--
Riley
"I have no memory of being on a phone call . . ."
"I do not believe a phone call occurred . . ."
"I do not believe that I have ever met or spoken with Judge Mark Fuller . . ."
Butts
". . . nor do I recall, any conference call occurring with Ms. Simpson . . . "
"As I recall, none of us were ever outside each other's presence on that day . . . "
"Again, I neither recall any such call, nor do I believe any such call/conversation . . . ever took place."
Lembke
"I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place between her . . . "
"I do not believe that I was out of Justice Butts' and Rob Riley's presence for 11 consecutive minutes . . . "
I suspect students learn this kind of language on the first day of law school. It's a good way to convey a message without risking a false statement under oath. Doesn't mean there is anything improper with the affidavits. But I suspect most reasonably objective laypeople would find Simpson's language more definitive and convincing than that in the Riley affidavits.
* Riley is not so "hedgey" on certain matters:
"I have never been told by Mr. Butts, or anyone else, that Mr. Butts spoke with Mr. Siegelman on November 18, 2002, and convinced Mr. Siegelman to concede . . ."
"I have never requested Karl Rove's (Mr. Rove's) assistance to 'speed up' checks for any of Ms. Simpson's clients, or his assistance on any other federal matter . . . "
* Perhaps the most interesting definitive statements come from Butts and Lembke, both about Bill Canary. Both state clearly that Canary was not with them at Rob Riley's office on the date of the alleged conference call. Perhaps the most famous line of Simpson's affidavit was Canary's statement that "his girls" were going to "take care of" Siegelman. So do Butts and Lembke score major points with their sworn statements that Canary was not present with them on the date in question? Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps someone with technical knowledge about conference calls could answer that question. Would Canary have to be present with Riley & Co. in order to be on a conference call? Could he be at another location and still take part in the conference call, as Simpson says? Has Simpson ever stated that all of the other parties on the call were in one location?
* Maybe the most interesting line from the affidavits is this from Butts: "While there is much that can be said about that trial, I continue to believe that both Richard Scrushy and Don Siegelman were erroneously convicted and that their respective convictions should be reversed on appeal for many trial errors." Hmmm, would be interesting to hear a former Supreme Court justice elaborate on the errors that he feels were made in the trial.
Politics and a Prosecution
Former U.S. attorney Doug Jones testified today that there is no question in his mind that the Siegelman prosecution was "driven by politics."
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, has this report on today's hearing. Jones, who now practices law in Birmingham, said the Siegelman case was part of a "disturbing trend" of selective prosecutions on the part of the Bush Justice Department.
Jones, who began representing Siegelman in 2003, testified that he was assured in spring 2004 that Siegelman would not be charged in the federal investigation. Then in summer 2004, he was told that a meeting was held in Washington and a top-to-bottom review of the Siegelman cases was ordered, with Siegelman "all of a sudden" being indicted in November 2004, one month after another case against the former governor was dropped "with prejudice" in Birmingham.
A Matter of Justice
A leading national association of advocacy groups has issued a statement concerning improper conduct by three federal judges in connection with the Siegelman case. Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that the Alliance for Justice has particularly harsh words for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, the subject of a scathing affidavit that came to light recently from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
Judges William Pryor and Noel Hillman also receive criticism from AFJ. The complete statement is available here.
Rob Riley said he was going to produce affidavits to counter Jill Simpson's contention that the Don Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated. And by golly, Riley came through--sort of.
He produced an affidavit for today's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing, and so did retired Alabama Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts and Birmingham attorney Matthew Lembke.
Riley was true to his word, but did the affidavits effectively counter Simpson's sworn testimony? That might be another matter. As we noted in our previous post, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) did not seem to be swayed.
So what to make of the Riley affidavits, which can be read here?
I'm hardly an expert, but I have encountered more affidavits than I ever dreamed I'd have any reason to see in the past few years. So here is one layman's thoughts:
* All three affidavits have a fair amount of what I would call "hedge" language in them--
Riley
"I have no memory of being on a phone call . . ."
"I do not believe a phone call occurred . . ."
"I do not believe that I have ever met or spoken with Judge Mark Fuller . . ."
Butts
". . . nor do I recall, any conference call occurring with Ms. Simpson . . . "
"As I recall, none of us were ever outside each other's presence on that day . . . "
"Again, I neither recall any such call, nor do I believe any such call/conversation . . . ever took place."
Lembke
"I do not recall the phone call that Ms. Simpson claims took place between her . . . "
"I do not believe that I was out of Justice Butts' and Rob Riley's presence for 11 consecutive minutes . . . "
I suspect students learn this kind of language on the first day of law school. It's a good way to convey a message without risking a false statement under oath. Doesn't mean there is anything improper with the affidavits. But I suspect most reasonably objective laypeople would find Simpson's language more definitive and convincing than that in the Riley affidavits.
* Riley is not so "hedgey" on certain matters:
"I have never been told by Mr. Butts, or anyone else, that Mr. Butts spoke with Mr. Siegelman on November 18, 2002, and convinced Mr. Siegelman to concede . . ."
"I have never requested Karl Rove's (Mr. Rove's) assistance to 'speed up' checks for any of Ms. Simpson's clients, or his assistance on any other federal matter . . . "
* Perhaps the most interesting definitive statements come from Butts and Lembke, both about Bill Canary. Both state clearly that Canary was not with them at Rob Riley's office on the date of the alleged conference call. Perhaps the most famous line of Simpson's affidavit was Canary's statement that "his girls" were going to "take care of" Siegelman. So do Butts and Lembke score major points with their sworn statements that Canary was not present with them on the date in question? Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps someone with technical knowledge about conference calls could answer that question. Would Canary have to be present with Riley & Co. in order to be on a conference call? Could he be at another location and still take part in the conference call, as Simpson says? Has Simpson ever stated that all of the other parties on the call were in one location?
* Maybe the most interesting line from the affidavits is this from Butts: "While there is much that can be said about that trial, I continue to believe that both Richard Scrushy and Don Siegelman were erroneously convicted and that their respective convictions should be reversed on appeal for many trial errors." Hmmm, would be interesting to hear a former Supreme Court justice elaborate on the errors that he feels were made in the trial.
Politics and a Prosecution
Former U.S. attorney Doug Jones testified today that there is no question in his mind that the Siegelman prosecution was "driven by politics."
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, has this report on today's hearing. Jones, who now practices law in Birmingham, said the Siegelman case was part of a "disturbing trend" of selective prosecutions on the part of the Bush Justice Department.
Jones, who began representing Siegelman in 2003, testified that he was assured in spring 2004 that Siegelman would not be charged in the federal investigation. Then in summer 2004, he was told that a meeting was held in Washington and a top-to-bottom review of the Siegelman cases was ordered, with Siegelman "all of a sudden" being indicted in November 2004, one month after another case against the former governor was dropped "with prejudice" in Birmingham.
A Matter of Justice
A leading national association of advocacy groups has issued a statement concerning improper conduct by three federal judges in connection with the Siegelman case. Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that the Alliance for Justice has particularly harsh words for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, the subject of a scathing affidavit that came to light recently from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
Judges William Pryor and Noel Hillman also receive criticism from AFJ. The complete statement is available here.
The Rob Riley Gambit
Rob Riley, the son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, has been saying for several weeks that he and others would prepare affidavits to help counter Jill Simpson's sworn statements that the Don Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated.
Rob Riley was true to his word. He indeed presented an affidavit for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, as did retired Alabama Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts, and Birmingham attorney Matthew Lembke of Bradley Arant Rose & White. According to Simpson's testimony, Riley and Butts were on a conference call in which plans to "take care of" Siegelman were discussed. Lembke served as counsel to the Riley for governor campaign in the fall of 2002.
Affidavits from Rob Riley, Butts, and Lembke are available here, along with other documents presented for today's hearing on selective prosecution and the Bush Justice Department.
Did Riley & Co. make a wise move by presenting the affidavits? It's probably too early to know for sure, but early reports indicate it might not have been such a good idea. And that's mainly because Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) had a hard time buying what the three men were selling.
TPM Muckraker reports that Davis said Simpson had presented phone records contradicting Riley & Co.'s claims that the phone call never happened.
Left in Alabama presented a live blog of today's event, and that shines considerable light on what transpired. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) evidently referred to the affidavits from Riley & Co. and concluded that Simpson's testimony had been conclusively debunked.
Davis responded by entering Exhibit 4, which was a copy of Ms. Simpson's phone records, showing an 11-minute call on November 18, 2002, to (205) 870-9866, the number for the Riley Jackson law firm.
Was this a "gotcha" moment, one that trumps the Riley affidavits? We probably will be hearing more from Riley & Co. in the days ahead, but Simpson's phone records seem to present a problem for them.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an intriguing post today about The Birmingham News' recent series of articles that seemed to be a pretty clear attempt to cast doubt on Simpson's sworn statements.
Of particular note, Horton points out, is this line from a story by News reporter Brett Blackledge, whom Horton has labeled the "Attack Chihuahua:"
"Simpson told congressional lawyers last month she has no records, documents or other materials to corroborate her recollection of telephone calls and meetings with Rob Riley . . . "
That line immediately draws Horton's attention:
"Small problem with this series of statements. They're all untrue. Not only did she demonstrate that she had the records, she showed them to the journalists who asked for them. It seems that our ace reporter never bothered to ask her for them when he conducted his tape-recorded interview."
This raises a question: Did Riley & Co., acting on bad information from Blackledge, write their affidavits under the assumption that Simpson had no hard evidence to support her claims?
Did Davis essentially pull an October Surprise on the Riley camp?
Rob Riley was true to his word. He indeed presented an affidavit for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, as did retired Alabama Supreme Court Justice Terry Butts, and Birmingham attorney Matthew Lembke of Bradley Arant Rose & White. According to Simpson's testimony, Riley and Butts were on a conference call in which plans to "take care of" Siegelman were discussed. Lembke served as counsel to the Riley for governor campaign in the fall of 2002.
Affidavits from Rob Riley, Butts, and Lembke are available here, along with other documents presented for today's hearing on selective prosecution and the Bush Justice Department.
Did Riley & Co. make a wise move by presenting the affidavits? It's probably too early to know for sure, but early reports indicate it might not have been such a good idea. And that's mainly because Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) had a hard time buying what the three men were selling.
TPM Muckraker reports that Davis said Simpson had presented phone records contradicting Riley & Co.'s claims that the phone call never happened.
Left in Alabama presented a live blog of today's event, and that shines considerable light on what transpired. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) evidently referred to the affidavits from Riley & Co. and concluded that Simpson's testimony had been conclusively debunked.
Davis responded by entering Exhibit 4, which was a copy of Ms. Simpson's phone records, showing an 11-minute call on November 18, 2002, to (205) 870-9866, the number for the Riley Jackson law firm.
Was this a "gotcha" moment, one that trumps the Riley affidavits? We probably will be hearing more from Riley & Co. in the days ahead, but Simpson's phone records seem to present a problem for them.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an intriguing post today about The Birmingham News' recent series of articles that seemed to be a pretty clear attempt to cast doubt on Simpson's sworn statements.
Of particular note, Horton points out, is this line from a story by News reporter Brett Blackledge, whom Horton has labeled the "Attack Chihuahua:"
"Simpson told congressional lawyers last month she has no records, documents or other materials to corroborate her recollection of telephone calls and meetings with Rob Riley . . . "
That line immediately draws Horton's attention:
"Small problem with this series of statements. They're all untrue. Not only did she demonstrate that she had the records, she showed them to the journalists who asked for them. It seems that our ace reporter never bothered to ask her for them when he conducted his tape-recorded interview."
This raises a question: Did Riley & Co., acting on bad information from Blackledge, write their affidavits under the assumption that Simpson had no hard evidence to support her claims?
Did Davis essentially pull an October Surprise on the Riley camp?
Legal Schnauzer Goes to Congress
When we started this blog a little less than five months ago, I was reminded of the classic philosophical question: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
With news reports telling us that thousands of blogs are started every day, I wasn't sure if Legal Schnauzer would make any sound at all. I certainly never dreamed that it might play a role in a Congressional investigation.
But it appears that our work is playing a role in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation into possible selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
The Legal Schnauzer, it seems, has made a sound after all. And hopefully those sounds will continue so that we can do our part in fixing a justice system that has gone horribly off the tracks.
Today's subcommittee hearing has focused primarily on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a subject we have followed closely here at Legal Schnauzer. But the committee also has information regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, another case we have followed closely on the blog.
The House Judiciary Committee's Web site includes links to a number of documents it is reviewing in its probe of the Bush Justice Department. Among those documents is a letter from Paul Minor that makes numerous citations to our reporting here at Legal Schnauzer.
The Minor letter provides an excellent overview of the case that involved him, Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. It's a fascinating first-person account of what it is like to be pursued by a justice department run amok.
Legal Schnauzer started primarily as a blog about my own experience with corrupt state judges in Alabama. And indeed we have written about that case, so far in fairly general terms. But it became apparent early on that the problems in our courts are both state and federal in scope--and they also go well beyond my little neck of the woods, to Mississippi, other Southern states, and beyond.
In time, we will get into heavy detail about my case, what we've come to call the Legal Schnauzer case. But for now, the nation is focused on an entire Justice Department that has lost its way. I'm pleased that we are able to play a small part in a process that I hope will expose those who have corrupted our courts and eventually lead to justice for those who have been wronged.
There is much more to write about the Paul Minor case, and we will continue to weigh in on the Siegelman proceedings. And eventually, we will shine a spotlight on my case, and hopefully others, that involve just regular folks.
The House Judiciary hearings might seem far away for many folks. The cases being investigated generally involved people of substantial means and power. But a corrupted justice system can hit very close to home--sometimes when you least expect it.
I'm hearing from numerous Alabamians who have a sense that they have somehow been wronged in state courts. Many of my correspondents have been involved in family-law courts, with issues of a highly personal and emotional nature--child custody, child well-being etc.
I have a feeling that many of the people I've heard from are correct in their feelings that justice was not served in Alabama courts. My hope is that their voices, and the voices of others who are victims of injustice, will eventually be heard.
With news reports telling us that thousands of blogs are started every day, I wasn't sure if Legal Schnauzer would make any sound at all. I certainly never dreamed that it might play a role in a Congressional investigation.
But it appears that our work is playing a role in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation into possible selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
The Legal Schnauzer, it seems, has made a sound after all. And hopefully those sounds will continue so that we can do our part in fixing a justice system that has gone horribly off the tracks.
Today's subcommittee hearing has focused primarily on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a subject we have followed closely here at Legal Schnauzer. But the committee also has information regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, another case we have followed closely on the blog.
The House Judiciary Committee's Web site includes links to a number of documents it is reviewing in its probe of the Bush Justice Department. Among those documents is a letter from Paul Minor that makes numerous citations to our reporting here at Legal Schnauzer.
The Minor letter provides an excellent overview of the case that involved him, Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. It's a fascinating first-person account of what it is like to be pursued by a justice department run amok.
Legal Schnauzer started primarily as a blog about my own experience with corrupt state judges in Alabama. And indeed we have written about that case, so far in fairly general terms. But it became apparent early on that the problems in our courts are both state and federal in scope--and they also go well beyond my little neck of the woods, to Mississippi, other Southern states, and beyond.
In time, we will get into heavy detail about my case, what we've come to call the Legal Schnauzer case. But for now, the nation is focused on an entire Justice Department that has lost its way. I'm pleased that we are able to play a small part in a process that I hope will expose those who have corrupted our courts and eventually lead to justice for those who have been wronged.
There is much more to write about the Paul Minor case, and we will continue to weigh in on the Siegelman proceedings. And eventually, we will shine a spotlight on my case, and hopefully others, that involve just regular folks.
The House Judiciary hearings might seem far away for many folks. The cases being investigated generally involved people of substantial means and power. But a corrupted justice system can hit very close to home--sometimes when you least expect it.
I'm hearing from numerous Alabamians who have a sense that they have somehow been wronged in state courts. Many of my correspondents have been involved in family-law courts, with issues of a highly personal and emotional nature--child custody, child well-being etc.
I have a feeling that many of the people I've heard from are correct in their feelings that justice was not served in Alabama courts. My hope is that their voices, and the voices of others who are victims of injustice, will eventually be heard.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sociopathy and the GOP
Let's return to one of my favorite topics--the disturbed mindset that seems to be running rampant in the modern conservative movement.
It's not a favorite topic in the sense that it's something I enjoy; in fact, I've had personal experience with it that is downright frightening, and it's certainly to avoid if possible. But the subject is fascinating simply because it is so important, and I think, explains so much that has gone wrong in our society over the past 25-30 years--from the S&L scandal, to supply-side economics and its huge deficits, to the phony abortion-rights debate, to the hijacking of Christianity, to the Iraq war, to the U.S. attorneys firings, to the Don Siegelman case, to the Paul Minor case, to Larry Craig and his "wide stance" . . .
Well, you get the idea. Strong evidence suggests there are some serious nut jobs running around disguised as what we might call "postmodern conservatives." These people don't look like nut jobs at first glance. They are overwhelmingly white, male, Republican, church-going, married (with children), and by God, they support our troops. What could be more wholesome?
But come across them in an up close and personal way, as I have, and you are likely to see thought processes that have jumped the tracks in a serious way. If they perceive that you have crossed them, even if you are in the right and they are in the wrong, they will do their best to make you pay.
And the scary thing about sociopaths? They, and the people who share their beliefs, are the last ones to realize something is wrong with them.
I wonder if John W. Goff thinks something is wrong with them. He's the Alabama insurance executive who filed a lawsuit in March against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they conspired to drive him out of the insurance business.
Important background on the Goff case is available at the Insurance Journal.
Through his lawsuit, Goff was seeking to have Riley answer questions under oath about sources of funds to the governor's campaign. Less than a month ago, Scott Horton of Harper's reported that the Goff lawsuit was causing serious heartburn in the Riley camp, and Riley had gone to U.S. Attorney Leura Canary in an effort to make it "go away."
Remember, it was Canary's office that brought the case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which will be the focal point of a Congressional hearing today. Is that kind of scrutiny of concern to Canary & Co. Evidently not. Published reports indicate her office is preparing to indict Goff.
This comes just seven months after Goff filed a lawsuit against Riley and a month or so after Riley reportedly was trying to find a way to make the suit "go away."
Now I'm a psychiatrist in the way Lucy is a psychiatrist in the Peanuts comic strips. I can give you my unprofessional opinion for five cents, and it may not be worth a whole lot. But if you read a little about sociopathy and then read about the Goff story, the Siegelman story, the Paul Minor story (and many others), the objective mind tends to see tell-tale signs that something's amiss.
Want to know more about sociopathy? Here's a good story at Salon, an interview with Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door.
Who is a sociopath? It's someone without a conscience, someone who cannot empathize with others. Stout estimates that four percent of the U.S. population are sociopaths, and she says that estimate is conservative.
"Conceptually, for the purposes of the book, I'm talking about people who have exhibited symptoms such as extreme deceitfulness, lack of remorse, lack of personal responsibility, and a general desire to control people and make them jump," Stout says.
Do most sociopaths commit really heinous crimes?
"No," Stout says. "Most sociopaths are not violent and probably never will be. They are the people you see every day: The boss who likes to ridicule people. The seduce-and-abandon lover who does this mainly for fun. The person who marries for money or prestige and no apparent other reason. These people aren't necessarily serial killers, but they cause a lot of harm."
How do you spot a sociopath?
"If someone lies to you once or twice, it could be a misunderstanding. If someone lies to you three times, then chances are you're dealing with a liar. And deceit is the central behavior of sociopathy."
Deceit also is a central theme in the cases we've discussed on this blog. The latest of those involves John W. Goff.
Is someone abusing the justice system in order to silence Mr. Goff and deprive him of his legal rights? In essence, is someone trying to shut Mr. Goff up? We can't know for sure at the moment, but evidence certainly suggests that.
And interestingly, the Legal Schnauzer recently had an experience similar to that of Mr. Goff, the kind where someone seems interested in shutting someone up.
More on that in a bit.
It's not a favorite topic in the sense that it's something I enjoy; in fact, I've had personal experience with it that is downright frightening, and it's certainly to avoid if possible. But the subject is fascinating simply because it is so important, and I think, explains so much that has gone wrong in our society over the past 25-30 years--from the S&L scandal, to supply-side economics and its huge deficits, to the phony abortion-rights debate, to the hijacking of Christianity, to the Iraq war, to the U.S. attorneys firings, to the Don Siegelman case, to the Paul Minor case, to Larry Craig and his "wide stance" . . .
Well, you get the idea. Strong evidence suggests there are some serious nut jobs running around disguised as what we might call "postmodern conservatives." These people don't look like nut jobs at first glance. They are overwhelmingly white, male, Republican, church-going, married (with children), and by God, they support our troops. What could be more wholesome?
But come across them in an up close and personal way, as I have, and you are likely to see thought processes that have jumped the tracks in a serious way. If they perceive that you have crossed them, even if you are in the right and they are in the wrong, they will do their best to make you pay.
And the scary thing about sociopaths? They, and the people who share their beliefs, are the last ones to realize something is wrong with them.
I wonder if John W. Goff thinks something is wrong with them. He's the Alabama insurance executive who filed a lawsuit in March against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they conspired to drive him out of the insurance business.
Important background on the Goff case is available at the Insurance Journal.
Through his lawsuit, Goff was seeking to have Riley answer questions under oath about sources of funds to the governor's campaign. Less than a month ago, Scott Horton of Harper's reported that the Goff lawsuit was causing serious heartburn in the Riley camp, and Riley had gone to U.S. Attorney Leura Canary in an effort to make it "go away."
Remember, it was Canary's office that brought the case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which will be the focal point of a Congressional hearing today. Is that kind of scrutiny of concern to Canary & Co. Evidently not. Published reports indicate her office is preparing to indict Goff.
This comes just seven months after Goff filed a lawsuit against Riley and a month or so after Riley reportedly was trying to find a way to make the suit "go away."
Now I'm a psychiatrist in the way Lucy is a psychiatrist in the Peanuts comic strips. I can give you my unprofessional opinion for five cents, and it may not be worth a whole lot. But if you read a little about sociopathy and then read about the Goff story, the Siegelman story, the Paul Minor story (and many others), the objective mind tends to see tell-tale signs that something's amiss.
Want to know more about sociopathy? Here's a good story at Salon, an interview with Martha Stout, author of The Sociopath Next Door.
Who is a sociopath? It's someone without a conscience, someone who cannot empathize with others. Stout estimates that four percent of the U.S. population are sociopaths, and she says that estimate is conservative.
"Conceptually, for the purposes of the book, I'm talking about people who have exhibited symptoms such as extreme deceitfulness, lack of remorse, lack of personal responsibility, and a general desire to control people and make them jump," Stout says.
Do most sociopaths commit really heinous crimes?
"No," Stout says. "Most sociopaths are not violent and probably never will be. They are the people you see every day: The boss who likes to ridicule people. The seduce-and-abandon lover who does this mainly for fun. The person who marries for money or prestige and no apparent other reason. These people aren't necessarily serial killers, but they cause a lot of harm."
How do you spot a sociopath?
"If someone lies to you once or twice, it could be a misunderstanding. If someone lies to you three times, then chances are you're dealing with a liar. And deceit is the central behavior of sociopathy."
Deceit also is a central theme in the cases we've discussed on this blog. The latest of those involves John W. Goff.
Is someone abusing the justice system in order to silence Mr. Goff and deprive him of his legal rights? In essence, is someone trying to shut Mr. Goff up? We can't know for sure at the moment, but evidence certainly suggests that.
And interestingly, the Legal Schnauzer recently had an experience similar to that of Mr. Goff, the kind where someone seems interested in shutting someone up.
More on that in a bit.
The Rob Riley Gazette Speaks
Followers of the No Comment blog at Harper's.org know that author Scott Horton frequently refers to The Birmingham News as "Pravda of the South."
It's hard to top that as a nickname for Alabama's largest newspaper, but I might suggest a supplemental nickname: The Rob Riley Gazette.
The News certainly seems to be Riley's mouthpiece of choice leading up to today's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Don Siegelman prosecution. The News last week devoted copious amounts of space to stories seeking to discredit Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson, who testified under oath that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated and driven by the Bush White House.
The latest entry in the Trash-Jill-Simpson-Sweepstakes might be the strangest tale of all.
News' reporter Brett Blackledge informs us that a 2002 affidavit accused Siegelman supporters of vote fraud. The one-page affidavit was filed by Eddie Spivey, who had worked with a consulting group on the Siegelman campaign. Spivey claimed that Siegelman supporters had manipulated votes at ballot boxes.
Rob Riley, son of Alabama governor Bob Riley, was so concerned about the affidavit that he took it to the state attorney general's office and showed it to Troy King. Blackledge says Rob Riley also showed it to a female reporter for The Birmingham News, who evidently wrote nothing about it at the time. Curiously, Blackledge does not mention the reporter's name.
Even more curiously, Spivey could not be reached for comment, even though he wound up getting a state job handling security at the governor's mansion.
For good measure, Rob Riley could not give the News a copy of the affidavit, saying it was in storage.
As for Troy King, now Alabama's attorney general, he turned the affidavit over to state investigators, who closed the case after conducting initial interviews.
This story has more holes than the Oakland Raiders' offensive line. But the News goes with it anyway, following its usual strategy: Start it on the front page, with an ominous sounding headline and lead paragraph, and then reveal on the jump that there is little, if anything, to it.
But, hey, at least Blackledge got to tell us that Simpson, in her affidavit, made no mention of the voter-fraud affidavit that captured the attention of the Riley campaign team. I guess that's supposed to call her credibility into question.
She also failed to mention that the Eagles are about to release Long Road out of Eden, their first studio album in almost 30 years. And she failed to provide a review of Alice Cooper's show Saturday night at the Alabama Theater. Gee, there must be a story there somewhere.
Blackledge did provide this nugget: Rob Riley and others mentioned in Simpson's affidavit are preparing affidavits to submit to the committee for Tuesday's hearing. Can't wait to read those.
Speaking of today's hearings, U.S. Representative Artur Davis (D-AL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, weighs in with an article today in the Montgomery Advertiser.
It's hard to top that as a nickname for Alabama's largest newspaper, but I might suggest a supplemental nickname: The Rob Riley Gazette.
The News certainly seems to be Riley's mouthpiece of choice leading up to today's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Don Siegelman prosecution. The News last week devoted copious amounts of space to stories seeking to discredit Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson, who testified under oath that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated and driven by the Bush White House.
The latest entry in the Trash-Jill-Simpson-Sweepstakes might be the strangest tale of all.
News' reporter Brett Blackledge informs us that a 2002 affidavit accused Siegelman supporters of vote fraud. The one-page affidavit was filed by Eddie Spivey, who had worked with a consulting group on the Siegelman campaign. Spivey claimed that Siegelman supporters had manipulated votes at ballot boxes.
Rob Riley, son of Alabama governor Bob Riley, was so concerned about the affidavit that he took it to the state attorney general's office and showed it to Troy King. Blackledge says Rob Riley also showed it to a female reporter for The Birmingham News, who evidently wrote nothing about it at the time. Curiously, Blackledge does not mention the reporter's name.
Even more curiously, Spivey could not be reached for comment, even though he wound up getting a state job handling security at the governor's mansion.
For good measure, Rob Riley could not give the News a copy of the affidavit, saying it was in storage.
As for Troy King, now Alabama's attorney general, he turned the affidavit over to state investigators, who closed the case after conducting initial interviews.
This story has more holes than the Oakland Raiders' offensive line. But the News goes with it anyway, following its usual strategy: Start it on the front page, with an ominous sounding headline and lead paragraph, and then reveal on the jump that there is little, if anything, to it.
But, hey, at least Blackledge got to tell us that Simpson, in her affidavit, made no mention of the voter-fraud affidavit that captured the attention of the Riley campaign team. I guess that's supposed to call her credibility into question.
She also failed to mention that the Eagles are about to release Long Road out of Eden, their first studio album in almost 30 years. And she failed to provide a review of Alice Cooper's show Saturday night at the Alabama Theater. Gee, there must be a story there somewhere.
Blackledge did provide this nugget: Rob Riley and others mentioned in Simpson's affidavit are preparing affidavits to submit to the committee for Tuesday's hearing. Can't wait to read those.
Speaking of today's hearings, U.S. Representative Artur Davis (D-AL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, weighs in with an article today in the Montgomery Advertiser.
Judge Fuller Under the Microscope
A top legal ethicist says an affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller was unsuited for the Don Siegelman trial.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, interviews Professor David Luban, of Georgetown University, about key points in the Weeks affidavit.
Luban seems particularly struck by the fact that Siegelman, as governor of Alabama, appointed Gary McAliley to replace Fuller as district attorney when Fuller became a federal judge. McAliley proceeded to investigate Fuller's financial management of the DA's office in Pike and Coffee counties.
"The possibility of personal anger against Siegelman on Fuller's part is just the kind of thing that the judicial disqualification law tries to guard against," Luban says. "You simply can't preside over a criminal case against somebody who appointed a DA to investigate you."
Luban also notes that the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of the U.S. Justice Department possessed the Weeks affidavit at the time it was "signing papers in the Siegelman case attesting to Judge Fuller's rectitude."
The fact that Fuller refused to recuse himself from a case involving the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) and Enron, even though an RSA appeals board had ruled against him on a proposed pay bump for one of Fuller's employees, also jumps out at Luban. The professor notes that Fuller's actions in the RSA case were similar to those he took in the Siegelman case.
"Why did PIN go out of their way to support Judge Fuller's decision not to disqualify himself in the Siegelman case? At the very least, it shows remarkably bad judgment on the part of PIN."
Weeks' affidavit is filled with damning information about Fuller, and we will take a closer look at it shortly.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, interviews Professor David Luban, of Georgetown University, about key points in the Weeks affidavit.
Luban seems particularly struck by the fact that Siegelman, as governor of Alabama, appointed Gary McAliley to replace Fuller as district attorney when Fuller became a federal judge. McAliley proceeded to investigate Fuller's financial management of the DA's office in Pike and Coffee counties.
"The possibility of personal anger against Siegelman on Fuller's part is just the kind of thing that the judicial disqualification law tries to guard against," Luban says. "You simply can't preside over a criminal case against somebody who appointed a DA to investigate you."
Luban also notes that the Public Integrity Section (PIN) of the U.S. Justice Department possessed the Weeks affidavit at the time it was "signing papers in the Siegelman case attesting to Judge Fuller's rectitude."
The fact that Fuller refused to recuse himself from a case involving the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) and Enron, even though an RSA appeals board had ruled against him on a proposed pay bump for one of Fuller's employees, also jumps out at Luban. The professor notes that Fuller's actions in the RSA case were similar to those he took in the Siegelman case.
"Why did PIN go out of their way to support Judge Fuller's decision not to disqualify himself in the Siegelman case? At the very least, it shows remarkably bad judgment on the part of PIN."
Weeks' affidavit is filled with damning information about Fuller, and we will take a closer look at it shortly.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
John Goff, the GOP, and Sociopathy
Saturday probably is the slowest blog-reading day of the week, so many readers might have missed a major story that broke yesterday.
The story is of profound importance to anyone interested in justice (especially in Alabama) and methods used by modern Republicans to attack people they perceive as enemies (especially in Alabama). Perhaps most importantly, the story provides glaring new evidence of the sociopathy that is at the heart of modern Republicanism--or at least a significant chunk of what passes for postmodern conservatism.
We've addressed the issue of sociopathy and the GOP previously here at Legal Schnauzer. It's a subject with which I have painful personal experience. But even I was caught off guard by the brazenness at the heart of the story that broke yesterday.
I became aware of the story through Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org. And Horton based his reporting on a story in yesterday's Montgomery Advertister.
At the heart of the story is Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, who has sued Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others for actions he claims caused one of his companies to collapse. Through the discovery process connected to his lawsuit, Goff seeks to have Riley answer questions under oath about money that allegedly flowed from Mississippi gaming interests into Riley's campaign, through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Horton wrote about the Goff case on September 23 and said his sources were telling him that the lawsuit was causing serious consternation in the Riley camp.
Goff is a former Riley supporter; he hardly could be described as a "liberal activist." In fact, Goff made a corporate jet available to Riley for trips to Washington, D.C. Now that the two are at odds, Goff wants to ask Riley if his jet was used to ferry Indian casino money back to Alabama for the 2002 campaign.
Horton wrote almost a month ago that Riley had turned to U.S. Attorney Leura Canary to see if she could make the case "go away."
Evidently, he turned to the right person because we learned yesterday that Goff is being investigated by the Justice Department, and he expects to be indicted. The source of any possible charges against Goff remain unclear, but Goff said two of his former employees were subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury in Montgomery last month.
According to Goff attorney Thomas Gallion, one of the ex-employees said her grand jury testimony focused exclusively on a four-year-old legal dispute between Goff and one of his re-insurers. The dispute led the state to file an administrative complaint against Goff in 2004. The complaint, and dispute, have since been resolved, Goff says.
But now the Justice Department is trying to find criminal activity related to the 2004 dispute. And this comes just two months after Goff filed his lawsuit against Riley and others.
And it comes less than one month after Scott Horton reported that Bob Riley had turned to Leura Canary in an effort to make Goff and his lawsuit "go away."
I've chuckled at a few trolls on this blog who periodically comment that Horton "doesn't know what he's talking about" or Horton's "sources are clueless," or some such. Wonder what those trolls will think now.
Horton hit this one right on the button, although I imagine even he didn't think Riley/Canary would be brazen enough to try to have Goff indicted. If the indictment comes, along with a criminal prosecution, the Goff case might make the Don Siegelman affair look like a company picnic.
The kind of prosecutorial abuse that appears to be behind the Goff case almost staggers the mind. But maybe it shouldn't, not when you consider the sociopathic GOP mindset. More on that in a bit.
The story is of profound importance to anyone interested in justice (especially in Alabama) and methods used by modern Republicans to attack people they perceive as enemies (especially in Alabama). Perhaps most importantly, the story provides glaring new evidence of the sociopathy that is at the heart of modern Republicanism--or at least a significant chunk of what passes for postmodern conservatism.
We've addressed the issue of sociopathy and the GOP previously here at Legal Schnauzer. It's a subject with which I have painful personal experience. But even I was caught off guard by the brazenness at the heart of the story that broke yesterday.
I became aware of the story through Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org. And Horton based his reporting on a story in yesterday's Montgomery Advertister.
At the heart of the story is Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, who has sued Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others for actions he claims caused one of his companies to collapse. Through the discovery process connected to his lawsuit, Goff seeks to have Riley answer questions under oath about money that allegedly flowed from Mississippi gaming interests into Riley's campaign, through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Horton wrote about the Goff case on September 23 and said his sources were telling him that the lawsuit was causing serious consternation in the Riley camp.
Goff is a former Riley supporter; he hardly could be described as a "liberal activist." In fact, Goff made a corporate jet available to Riley for trips to Washington, D.C. Now that the two are at odds, Goff wants to ask Riley if his jet was used to ferry Indian casino money back to Alabama for the 2002 campaign.
Horton wrote almost a month ago that Riley had turned to U.S. Attorney Leura Canary to see if she could make the case "go away."
Evidently, he turned to the right person because we learned yesterday that Goff is being investigated by the Justice Department, and he expects to be indicted. The source of any possible charges against Goff remain unclear, but Goff said two of his former employees were subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury in Montgomery last month.
According to Goff attorney Thomas Gallion, one of the ex-employees said her grand jury testimony focused exclusively on a four-year-old legal dispute between Goff and one of his re-insurers. The dispute led the state to file an administrative complaint against Goff in 2004. The complaint, and dispute, have since been resolved, Goff says.
But now the Justice Department is trying to find criminal activity related to the 2004 dispute. And this comes just two months after Goff filed his lawsuit against Riley and others.
And it comes less than one month after Scott Horton reported that Bob Riley had turned to Leura Canary in an effort to make Goff and his lawsuit "go away."
I've chuckled at a few trolls on this blog who periodically comment that Horton "doesn't know what he's talking about" or Horton's "sources are clueless," or some such. Wonder what those trolls will think now.
Horton hit this one right on the button, although I imagine even he didn't think Riley/Canary would be brazen enough to try to have Goff indicted. If the indictment comes, along with a criminal prosecution, the Goff case might make the Don Siegelman affair look like a company picnic.
The kind of prosecutorial abuse that appears to be behind the Goff case almost staggers the mind. But maybe it shouldn't, not when you consider the sociopathic GOP mindset. More on that in a bit.
The Power of the Prosecutor
The New Republic, has joined the chorus of media outlets reporting on issues connected to the Don Siegelman case. TNR reporter Bradford Plumer focuses on concerns about rogue prosecutors.
Plumer begins his piece by citing the recent Time magazine report about Alabama developer Lanny Young, who told Justice Department investigators that he had bribed two Republicans (Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor), along with Siegelman, a Democrat. The prosecution chose to go after only Siegelman.
"Yes, prosecutors always get leeway to decide which cases to charge. But how do we know when that power's being abused? Did the U.S. Attorney's office in Alabama lay off Sessions because there wasn't enough evidence or because several of the investigating attorneys had once worked for him? And do similar abuses occur elsewhere in the legal system, away from the media spotlight."
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we will show that the answer to that last question is a resounding yes. The fraudulent lawsuit filed against me was in state court, and no government officials or wealthy businessmen were parties. A media spotlight was nowhere in sight. But Republican judges repeatedly committed a federal crime, honest services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346), which ironically was the key charge in both the Siegelman case and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office in Birmingham have long possessed ample evidence of the crime and chosen to ignore it.
Plumer does not address this in his article, but prosecutorial misconduct comes in at least two varieties--overly aggressive prosecution and suppression of prosecution (both for political reasons).
We will address suppression of prosecution, as practiced by U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Alice Martin, here at Legal Schnauzer. But Plumer presents some fascinating information about prosecutions that are both overly aggressive--and sloppy.
He cites a 2003 Center for Public Integrity (CPI) study that shows, over a 30-plus year period, judges and court panels have dismissed charges, reversed convictions, or reduced sentences in at least 2,012 cases because of prosecutorial misconduct. That is probably a radical undercount, Plumer reports, because not all appellate decisions are published, and CPI could only study cases that actually went to trial. (About 95 percent of cases are settled by guilty pleas to reduced charges.)
Prosecutors frequently "overcharge," tacking on additional charges to give themselves more leverage in plea bargaining, or, if the case goes to trial, a better chance of securing conviction.
Writes Plumer: "A jury, after all, is more likely to think a defendant 'must be' guilty if there's a long list of charges, and often will compromise by settling on a few--something that could plausibly have happened with Siegelman, who was acquitted on 25 counts and convicted on seven."
Plumer begins his piece by citing the recent Time magazine report about Alabama developer Lanny Young, who told Justice Department investigators that he had bribed two Republicans (Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor), along with Siegelman, a Democrat. The prosecution chose to go after only Siegelman.
"Yes, prosecutors always get leeway to decide which cases to charge. But how do we know when that power's being abused? Did the U.S. Attorney's office in Alabama lay off Sessions because there wasn't enough evidence or because several of the investigating attorneys had once worked for him? And do similar abuses occur elsewhere in the legal system, away from the media spotlight."
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we will show that the answer to that last question is a resounding yes. The fraudulent lawsuit filed against me was in state court, and no government officials or wealthy businessmen were parties. A media spotlight was nowhere in sight. But Republican judges repeatedly committed a federal crime, honest services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346), which ironically was the key charge in both the Siegelman case and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. The FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office in Birmingham have long possessed ample evidence of the crime and chosen to ignore it.
Plumer does not address this in his article, but prosecutorial misconduct comes in at least two varieties--overly aggressive prosecution and suppression of prosecution (both for political reasons).
We will address suppression of prosecution, as practiced by U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Alice Martin, here at Legal Schnauzer. But Plumer presents some fascinating information about prosecutions that are both overly aggressive--and sloppy.
He cites a 2003 Center for Public Integrity (CPI) study that shows, over a 30-plus year period, judges and court panels have dismissed charges, reversed convictions, or reduced sentences in at least 2,012 cases because of prosecutorial misconduct. That is probably a radical undercount, Plumer reports, because not all appellate decisions are published, and CPI could only study cases that actually went to trial. (About 95 percent of cases are settled by guilty pleas to reduced charges.)
Prosecutors frequently "overcharge," tacking on additional charges to give themselves more leverage in plea bargaining, or, if the case goes to trial, a better chance of securing conviction.
Writes Plumer: "A jury, after all, is more likely to think a defendant 'must be' guilty if there's a long list of charges, and often will compromise by settling on a few--something that could plausibly have happened with Siegelman, who was acquitted on 25 counts and convicted on seven."
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Pravda of Montgomery
Some fascinating, and disturbing, stuff is coming out in the Montgomery Advertiser today. Leave it to Scott Horton, of Harper's, to put it all in perspective.
First comes a feature story on U.S. attorney Leura Canary that is perhaps the most nauseating puff piece I've ever read in a significant news publication. That this article would come out when serious charges of corruption are being leveled at Canary's office is an embarrassment to the journalism profession.
The Advertiser story presents Canary's family in the most glowing terms. But Horton helpfully points out that her family has a dark side that is not covered in reporter Kenneth Mullinax' story.
Turns out that Leura Canary's uncle was Si Garrett, perhaps the most notorious attorney general in Alabama history. He was known to have been involved in the murder of political opponent Albert J. Patterson and eventually checked himself into a Texas insane asylum in order to avoid prosecution. He also became deeply involved in the massive organized-crime scandal in Phenix City, Alabama, with connections to gambling, prostitution, and other sordid activities.
Horton also notes that Uncle Si was noted for practicing political prosecutions. Sounds like his niece learned those lessons well.
Meanwhile, Canary's office evidently is planning to indict Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, who has sued Governor Bob Riley and others for actions that caused the collapse of one of Goff's insurance companies.
Less than a month ago, Scott Horton reported on the Goff lawsuit and the considerable consternation it was causing the Riley administration. Horton reported that Goff was seeking sworn testimony on funding sources for Riley's campaign, and one of those sources included gambling interests in Mississippi. Goff's lawsuit, by the way, mentions Bill Canary, husband of Leura Canary and a featured player in Jill Simpson's testimony before Congressional lawyers about the Don Siegelman case.
"It's inexplicable that you don't investigate something for three or four years," says Goff attorney Thomas Gallion. "Then a couple of months after a lawsuit is filed by Goff--that mentions Bill Canary--they all of a sudden launch an investigation."
Goff put it best: "If these people can make you go away for their wrongdoing, it's a scary situation. If they're successful, I'll just deal with it. But I'm not scared. I'm going to fight them all the way."
Evidently a Congressional investigation has not slowed down the Republican slime machine in Alabama one bit. An indictment of Goff might be the grossest abuse of prosecutorial power by the Bush DOJ yet.
And one has to wonder about the leadership of the Montgomery Advertiser. Ironically, executive editor of the paper is an African-American female named Wanda Lloyd. She has an impressive resume, with stops at the Washington Post, USA Today, Miami Herald, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Lloyd's hiring was hailed as a major progressive step, a sign that "change was in the air." If she's caused any change to occur in Alabama capital city, I've failed to see it. Her paper has become little more than a mouthpiece for the entrenched conservative interests of Montgomery, and I see little evidence that Lloyd is doing much of anything other than picking up a paycheck.
She's responsible for the editorial content of her paper. And its content today is embarrassing.
First comes a feature story on U.S. attorney Leura Canary that is perhaps the most nauseating puff piece I've ever read in a significant news publication. That this article would come out when serious charges of corruption are being leveled at Canary's office is an embarrassment to the journalism profession.
The Advertiser story presents Canary's family in the most glowing terms. But Horton helpfully points out that her family has a dark side that is not covered in reporter Kenneth Mullinax' story.
Turns out that Leura Canary's uncle was Si Garrett, perhaps the most notorious attorney general in Alabama history. He was known to have been involved in the murder of political opponent Albert J. Patterson and eventually checked himself into a Texas insane asylum in order to avoid prosecution. He also became deeply involved in the massive organized-crime scandal in Phenix City, Alabama, with connections to gambling, prostitution, and other sordid activities.
Horton also notes that Uncle Si was noted for practicing political prosecutions. Sounds like his niece learned those lessons well.
Meanwhile, Canary's office evidently is planning to indict Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, who has sued Governor Bob Riley and others for actions that caused the collapse of one of Goff's insurance companies.
Less than a month ago, Scott Horton reported on the Goff lawsuit and the considerable consternation it was causing the Riley administration. Horton reported that Goff was seeking sworn testimony on funding sources for Riley's campaign, and one of those sources included gambling interests in Mississippi. Goff's lawsuit, by the way, mentions Bill Canary, husband of Leura Canary and a featured player in Jill Simpson's testimony before Congressional lawyers about the Don Siegelman case.
"It's inexplicable that you don't investigate something for three or four years," says Goff attorney Thomas Gallion. "Then a couple of months after a lawsuit is filed by Goff--that mentions Bill Canary--they all of a sudden launch an investigation."
Goff put it best: "If these people can make you go away for their wrongdoing, it's a scary situation. If they're successful, I'll just deal with it. But I'm not scared. I'm going to fight them all the way."
Evidently a Congressional investigation has not slowed down the Republican slime machine in Alabama one bit. An indictment of Goff might be the grossest abuse of prosecutorial power by the Bush DOJ yet.
And one has to wonder about the leadership of the Montgomery Advertiser. Ironically, executive editor of the paper is an African-American female named Wanda Lloyd. She has an impressive resume, with stops at the Washington Post, USA Today, Miami Herald, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Lloyd's hiring was hailed as a major progressive step, a sign that "change was in the air." If she's caused any change to occur in Alabama capital city, I've failed to see it. Her paper has become little more than a mouthpiece for the entrenched conservative interests of Montgomery, and I see little evidence that Lloyd is doing much of anything other than picking up a paycheck.
She's responsible for the editorial content of her paper. And its content today is embarrassing.
The Propst/Fuller Comparsion
Let's revisit our comparison of the coverage accorded the problems of Hoover High School football coach Rush Propst vs. that of alleged wrongdoing by U.S. Federal Judge Mark Fuller.
On the field, Propst's Bucs still are quite stout, running their record to 6-1 with a 34-20 victory over Homewood last night. But off the field, it looks more and more (at least to this observer) like Propst is likely to lose his job at some point.
The ax already is beginning to fall on prominent figures in the investigation of alleged academic improprieties, with assistant principal Carol Martin reaching a deal with the school board to be reassigned. It's hard to see how Propst, the central figure in the Hoover mess, will come out of this unscathed.
I'm not here to defend Rush Propst. He evidently has a sizable ego and rubs more than a few people the wrong way. While his teams have played with machine-like efficiency on the field, he allowed messes to accumulate off the field.
But consider the price Propst is paying for his transgressions compared to the free pass that corrupt judges in Alabama seem to get. I'm not aware of a charge that Propst has violated any criminal law. He has not violated any oath to uphold the law. He has not caused people to be ruined financially and he has not alleged to have wrongfully deprived anyone of his freedom. He certainly has not made an effort to raid a prominent pension fund for state employees.
Evidence is overwhelming that Judge Fuller at the federal level--and state judges J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson in Shelby County--have engaged in conduct that is criminal and/or grossly unethical. So have members of Alabama's state appellate courts.
But the public seems far more interested in thrashing Russ Propst, while corrupt judges merrily stay under the radar of many Alabamians.
Perhaps that will change when the House investigation of the Bush Justice Department picks up steam. Perhaps it will change if we get a Democratic president in 2008, and hopefully, some people of integrity and honor begin to run the Justice Department.
But I, for one, am not holding my breath.
On the field, Propst's Bucs still are quite stout, running their record to 6-1 with a 34-20 victory over Homewood last night. But off the field, it looks more and more (at least to this observer) like Propst is likely to lose his job at some point.
The ax already is beginning to fall on prominent figures in the investigation of alleged academic improprieties, with assistant principal Carol Martin reaching a deal with the school board to be reassigned. It's hard to see how Propst, the central figure in the Hoover mess, will come out of this unscathed.
I'm not here to defend Rush Propst. He evidently has a sizable ego and rubs more than a few people the wrong way. While his teams have played with machine-like efficiency on the field, he allowed messes to accumulate off the field.
But consider the price Propst is paying for his transgressions compared to the free pass that corrupt judges in Alabama seem to get. I'm not aware of a charge that Propst has violated any criminal law. He has not violated any oath to uphold the law. He has not caused people to be ruined financially and he has not alleged to have wrongfully deprived anyone of his freedom. He certainly has not made an effort to raid a prominent pension fund for state employees.
Evidence is overwhelming that Judge Fuller at the federal level--and state judges J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson in Shelby County--have engaged in conduct that is criminal and/or grossly unethical. So have members of Alabama's state appellate courts.
But the public seems far more interested in thrashing Russ Propst, while corrupt judges merrily stay under the radar of many Alabamians.
Perhaps that will change when the House investigation of the Bush Justice Department picks up steam. Perhaps it will change if we get a Democratic president in 2008, and hopefully, some people of integrity and honor begin to run the Justice Department.
But I, for one, am not holding my breath.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Corrupt Coaches, Corrupt Judges?
Do Americans hold higher standards for their football coaches than they do for their judges?
It looks that way from here.
Consider the case of Rush Propst, head football coach at Alabama's Hoover High School (of MTV and "Two A Days" fame). Propst has stepped in some deep doo-doo over alleged academic, financial, and personal transgressions.
The story has been big news in Birmingham. Today's Birmingham News devotes 30 to 40 column inches to the story, which starts on the front page. City councilman Gene Smith says Propst should immediately be put on administrative leave. Also, the Hoover School Board announced that assistant principal Carol Martin, who was alleged to have had an affair with Propst, was resigning.
News columnists have jumped in on the action. John Archibald gave Propst a merciless pounding earlier this week. I don't recall Archibald ever thrashing a public figure quite the way he thrashed Propst.
Now consider another story that surfaced earlier this week. A widely respected national publication, Harper's.org, broke the news about an affidavit leveling charges of criminal conduct against Alabama federal judge Mark Fuller.
This is the same Judge Fuller who oversaw the trial and conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. So Fuller, who handled a high-profile corruption trial, now faces charges that he is corrupt himself.
And the charges against Fuller hardly come from a yokel. They come from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, who earned his law degree at the University of Virginia and has worked with one of the nation's leading experts on white-collar crime. Perhaps most impressively, Weeks earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Missouri (the Legal Schnauzer's alma mater) and is based in Springfield, Missouri (the Legal Schnauzer's hometown). Small world.
Here's the scoop: A national publication publishes a story, based on a highly credible source, about gross misconduct by a federal judge in Alabama--the same judge who oversaw the trial that placed a former Alabama governor in federal prison.
Big story, right? The Birmingham News is all over it, right? Well, not exactly.
In fact, if the "Pravda of the South" has printed a word about the story, I've missed it. If any Alabama paper has printed a word about it, I've missed it.
And this is not unusual for Alabama newspapers. Several of them have received extensive evidence of wrongdoing by GOP state judges in my case, what we've come to call the Legal Schnauzer case. This involves clear corrupt and/or criminal behavior by Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson. It involves similar behavior by GOP judges on Alabama's appellate courts, wrongfully upholding the trial court's unlawful findings.
Have the papers done anything on that case. Nope. Has John Archibald expressed any outrage about that case? Nope.
But you will read all about here at Legal Schnauzer.
So to borrow phrasing from an earlier President Bush, here's what you have: Rush Propst, football coach? Bad, bad. Mark Fuller and other assorted corrupt judges? Good, good.
It looks that way from here.
Consider the case of Rush Propst, head football coach at Alabama's Hoover High School (of MTV and "Two A Days" fame). Propst has stepped in some deep doo-doo over alleged academic, financial, and personal transgressions.
The story has been big news in Birmingham. Today's Birmingham News devotes 30 to 40 column inches to the story, which starts on the front page. City councilman Gene Smith says Propst should immediately be put on administrative leave. Also, the Hoover School Board announced that assistant principal Carol Martin, who was alleged to have had an affair with Propst, was resigning.
News columnists have jumped in on the action. John Archibald gave Propst a merciless pounding earlier this week. I don't recall Archibald ever thrashing a public figure quite the way he thrashed Propst.
Now consider another story that surfaced earlier this week. A widely respected national publication, Harper's.org, broke the news about an affidavit leveling charges of criminal conduct against Alabama federal judge Mark Fuller.
This is the same Judge Fuller who oversaw the trial and conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. So Fuller, who handled a high-profile corruption trial, now faces charges that he is corrupt himself.
And the charges against Fuller hardly come from a yokel. They come from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, who earned his law degree at the University of Virginia and has worked with one of the nation's leading experts on white-collar crime. Perhaps most impressively, Weeks earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Missouri (the Legal Schnauzer's alma mater) and is based in Springfield, Missouri (the Legal Schnauzer's hometown). Small world.
Here's the scoop: A national publication publishes a story, based on a highly credible source, about gross misconduct by a federal judge in Alabama--the same judge who oversaw the trial that placed a former Alabama governor in federal prison.
Big story, right? The Birmingham News is all over it, right? Well, not exactly.
In fact, if the "Pravda of the South" has printed a word about the story, I've missed it. If any Alabama paper has printed a word about it, I've missed it.
And this is not unusual for Alabama newspapers. Several of them have received extensive evidence of wrongdoing by GOP state judges in my case, what we've come to call the Legal Schnauzer case. This involves clear corrupt and/or criminal behavior by Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson. It involves similar behavior by GOP judges on Alabama's appellate courts, wrongfully upholding the trial court's unlawful findings.
Have the papers done anything on that case. Nope. Has John Archibald expressed any outrage about that case? Nope.
But you will read all about here at Legal Schnauzer.
So to borrow phrasing from an earlier President Bush, here's what you have: Rush Propst, football coach? Bad, bad. Mark Fuller and other assorted corrupt judges? Good, good.
Gauging Republican hypocrisy
Just when you think Republican hypocrisy can't get any worse, they go and top themselves.
The latest example comes in a story today about Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocking a bid by anti-abortion forces to cut off money for clinics that provide family planning and other health services, in addition to abortions.
The proposal was defeated on a 52-41 vote. Naturally, Alabama's two GOP senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted to cut off funding.
But guess who brought the proposal in the first place. Well, none other than Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). You might remember Sen. Vitter from stories earlier this year about his tendency to consort with prostitutes in New Orleans and elsewhere.
Vitter evidently based his proposal to block abortion funding on, you guessed it, moral grounds.
Now how can Sessions, Shelby, and others sit there and support Vitter with a straight face? Do these people have no sense of irony--or shame?
Just how big a hypocrite is Vitter? Research shows that 80 to 90 percent of abortions are performed on unmarried women. One report found that the abortion ratio for unmarried women was 8.8 times that for married women.
From this information, we can surmise that the No. 1 cause of abortion is sex outside of marriage. And that is exactly the practice that Sen. Vitter engages in--with prostitutes!
One of the advantages of having a blog is that you get to have your very own soapbox. So allow me to get on my soapbox for a moment.
The so-called "abortion debate" in this country is a sham and has caused great harm to our national fabric. I am a Christian who is pro choice, and one of my strongest reasons for being pro choice involves religion. Yes, you heard that right. I am pro choice for religious reasons.
If you believe in a Creator/God, and I do, then you can't help but see that our Creator took the role of pregnancy and put it exclusively in the hands of women. Don't know why the Creator did that, but it's abundantly clear that He did. As a Christian, I would like to see issues related to pregnancy stay where the Creator put them--in the hands of women.
And from a New Testament perspective, we know that abortion existed in the time of Jesus. We know that because the Hippocratic oath, which predates Jesus, mentions abortion. And yet, did Jesus ever utter a word one or way or another about abortion? If he did, I don't see it reported in the Bible.
So why do Christians, of all people, get so worked up over an issue that Jesus himself evidently wasn't worked up about? And some modern-day Christians are so worked up about it that they go to the polls and vote for bubbleheads like George Bush, based almost solely on their so-called "pro life" views. Makes me want to ask, as Dr. Phil might, "And how . . . has that . . . worked out . . . for you?"
The bottom line? Abortion shouldn't even be the issue that we focus on. It's merely a symptom of a problem. The larger problem is unintended pregnancy. A Washington Post story says women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. (Note that they use the word unintended, not unplanned. Many of us walking around out there are the result of unplanned pregnancies, and many of those happen within marriage.)
Pregnancies that are unintended, and truly unwanted, are the problem. Deal with those effectively, and the abortion problem pretty much goes away.
But we don't seem to want to do that. Why? Because that would mean pointing the finger at guys, dudes, hombres--you know the ones who hardly ever come up in the abortion debate.
Here is the bitter truth about our bogus "abortion debate:" The vast majority of abortions are caused by sex outside of marriage. And who pushes for sex outside of marriage? Guys!
Trust me on this; I'm a guy. We are the ones who learn from an early age that it's a desirable thing to "score." And by score, I don't mean kissing and fondling and all of those fun things that come under the heading of "playing snuggle bunnies." I'm talking about the real McCoy, the "I word," intercourse.
Our culture teaches guys that intercourse is the thing to go for. And our culture does a lousy job of teaching guys the consequences of having that attitude.
I can't begin to claim that I understand how women think. But do young unmarried women, let's say in the 18-25 age group, really want to have intercourse all that badly? I like to think they enjoy all of those "snuggle bunny" things, but intercourse? My impression is that, for young women, the "big act" usually is over too quickly and is rather unsatisfying. And meanwhile, they are the ones left to deal with concerns about a possible pregnancy. And science teaches us that the woman even is more likely than the guy to wind up with a sexually transmitted disease. God did women a lot of favors didn't He?
From where I sit, I don't see where young, unmarried women have much (if anything) to gain from engaging in intercourse. But many of them evidently partake because someone pushes them into it. And who is that? A guy!
I suspect that many young, unmarried women would be perfectly happy to play some healthy "snuggle bunnies." But that's not enough for us guys. We want to swing for the fences, go the distance, shoot from three-point territory. (OK, enough with the sports metaphors.)
Are we serious about dealing with the abortion problem? Well, then we need to start teaching guys to deal with their sexuality in responsible ways. It's their desire for the "big act," particularly when it comes outside of marriage, that leads to most abortions.
Are you listening David Vitter?
The latest example comes in a story today about Democrats in the U.S. Senate blocking a bid by anti-abortion forces to cut off money for clinics that provide family planning and other health services, in addition to abortions.
The proposal was defeated on a 52-41 vote. Naturally, Alabama's two GOP senators, Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby, voted to cut off funding.
But guess who brought the proposal in the first place. Well, none other than Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). You might remember Sen. Vitter from stories earlier this year about his tendency to consort with prostitutes in New Orleans and elsewhere.
Vitter evidently based his proposal to block abortion funding on, you guessed it, moral grounds.
Now how can Sessions, Shelby, and others sit there and support Vitter with a straight face? Do these people have no sense of irony--or shame?
Just how big a hypocrite is Vitter? Research shows that 80 to 90 percent of abortions are performed on unmarried women. One report found that the abortion ratio for unmarried women was 8.8 times that for married women.
From this information, we can surmise that the No. 1 cause of abortion is sex outside of marriage. And that is exactly the practice that Sen. Vitter engages in--with prostitutes!
One of the advantages of having a blog is that you get to have your very own soapbox. So allow me to get on my soapbox for a moment.
The so-called "abortion debate" in this country is a sham and has caused great harm to our national fabric. I am a Christian who is pro choice, and one of my strongest reasons for being pro choice involves religion. Yes, you heard that right. I am pro choice for religious reasons.
If you believe in a Creator/God, and I do, then you can't help but see that our Creator took the role of pregnancy and put it exclusively in the hands of women. Don't know why the Creator did that, but it's abundantly clear that He did. As a Christian, I would like to see issues related to pregnancy stay where the Creator put them--in the hands of women.
And from a New Testament perspective, we know that abortion existed in the time of Jesus. We know that because the Hippocratic oath, which predates Jesus, mentions abortion. And yet, did Jesus ever utter a word one or way or another about abortion? If he did, I don't see it reported in the Bible.
So why do Christians, of all people, get so worked up over an issue that Jesus himself evidently wasn't worked up about? And some modern-day Christians are so worked up about it that they go to the polls and vote for bubbleheads like George Bush, based almost solely on their so-called "pro life" views. Makes me want to ask, as Dr. Phil might, "And how . . . has that . . . worked out . . . for you?"
The bottom line? Abortion shouldn't even be the issue that we focus on. It's merely a symptom of a problem. The larger problem is unintended pregnancy. A Washington Post story says women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. (Note that they use the word unintended, not unplanned. Many of us walking around out there are the result of unplanned pregnancies, and many of those happen within marriage.)
Pregnancies that are unintended, and truly unwanted, are the problem. Deal with those effectively, and the abortion problem pretty much goes away.
But we don't seem to want to do that. Why? Because that would mean pointing the finger at guys, dudes, hombres--you know the ones who hardly ever come up in the abortion debate.
Here is the bitter truth about our bogus "abortion debate:" The vast majority of abortions are caused by sex outside of marriage. And who pushes for sex outside of marriage? Guys!
Trust me on this; I'm a guy. We are the ones who learn from an early age that it's a desirable thing to "score." And by score, I don't mean kissing and fondling and all of those fun things that come under the heading of "playing snuggle bunnies." I'm talking about the real McCoy, the "I word," intercourse.
Our culture teaches guys that intercourse is the thing to go for. And our culture does a lousy job of teaching guys the consequences of having that attitude.
I can't begin to claim that I understand how women think. But do young unmarried women, let's say in the 18-25 age group, really want to have intercourse all that badly? I like to think they enjoy all of those "snuggle bunny" things, but intercourse? My impression is that, for young women, the "big act" usually is over too quickly and is rather unsatisfying. And meanwhile, they are the ones left to deal with concerns about a possible pregnancy. And science teaches us that the woman even is more likely than the guy to wind up with a sexually transmitted disease. God did women a lot of favors didn't He?
From where I sit, I don't see where young, unmarried women have much (if anything) to gain from engaging in intercourse. But many of them evidently partake because someone pushes them into it. And who is that? A guy!
I suspect that many young, unmarried women would be perfectly happy to play some healthy "snuggle bunnies." But that's not enough for us guys. We want to swing for the fences, go the distance, shoot from three-point territory. (OK, enough with the sports metaphors.)
Are we serious about dealing with the abortion problem? Well, then we need to start teaching guys to deal with their sexuality in responsible ways. It's their desire for the "big act," particularly when it comes outside of marriage, that leads to most abortions.
Are you listening David Vitter?
A Powerful Voice on Political Prosecution
Richard Thornburgh, a former attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, evidently is prepared to testify that the Justice Department of George W. Bush engages in political prosecutions.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, writes today about Thornburgh's expected testimony, which originally was reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Thornburgh's testimony is expected to focus on the Cyril Wecht prosecution in Pennsylvania. Cases in Alabama (Don Siegelman) and Wisconsin (Georgia Thompson) are expected to be at the heart of an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
Former Alabama U.S. Attorney Doug Jones also is expected to testify on Tuesday.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, writes today about Thornburgh's expected testimony, which originally was reported in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Thornburgh's testimony is expected to focus on the Cyril Wecht prosecution in Pennsylvania. Cases in Alabama (Don Siegelman) and Wisconsin (Georgia Thompson) are expected to be at the heart of an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
Former Alabama U.S. Attorney Doug Jones also is expected to testify on Tuesday.
Attacking Funding Sources for Democrats
The New York Times reports today on a disturbing trend that might be at the heart of the Paul Minor prosecution, a Mississippi case we have covered extensively here at Legal Schnauzer. Scott Horton, of Harper's, points out, though, that the Times might not grasp the broader importance of its own story.
The Times writes about Milberg Weiss, a New York-based law firm that long has been a source of support for Democratic candidates. The firm was indicted last year on federal charges of fraud and bribery.
Horton recently broke a story about a Bush Justice Department plan to raid the offices of attorneys who are known as sources of Democratic funds. We posted about Horton's work here.
As we noted earlier, one must wonder if Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were victims of the Bush DOJ scheme in Mississippi. After all, Minor was well known as a source of funding for Democratic candidates. And now it appears the Milberg Weiss case might have been based on the DOJ scheme.
The Times writes about Milberg Weiss, a New York-based law firm that long has been a source of support for Democratic candidates. The firm was indicted last year on federal charges of fraud and bribery.
Horton recently broke a story about a Bush Justice Department plan to raid the offices of attorneys who are known as sources of Democratic funds. We posted about Horton's work here.
As we noted earlier, one must wonder if Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were victims of the Bush DOJ scheme in Mississippi. After all, Minor was well known as a source of funding for Democratic candidates. And now it appears the Milberg Weiss case might have been based on the DOJ scheme.
Horton points out, in today's "War on Trial Lawyers" brief, that The Times' reporter missed the larger story. Federal courts in Michigan and Illinois have begun to ask tough questions about raids at the offices of trial lawyers. Someone might want to begin asking tough questions about what happened at Paul Minor's law office in Mississippi.
Speaking of Michigan, the Next Hurrah blog has an interesting post about that case, involving attorney Geoffrey Fieger.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XIX
In the previous post in our "Mississippi Churning" series, we noted U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate's baffling determination to rely on Mississippi state law regarding bribery rather than federal law.
We wondered if perhaps federal law in the Fifth Judicial Circuit was somehow unclear on the elements of bribery. But we found one Fifth-Circuit case that seemed abundantly clear. Now we've found a Fifth-Circuit case that seems to be even more clear than U.S. v. Tomblin, the case we cited earlier.
The Tomblin case involved a charge under 18 U.S. Code 201, which generally is used in cases involving bribery of federal officials. Now we have U.S. v. Duvall, 846 F. 2d 966 (1988), which involves 18 U.S. Code 666, the same statute cited in the Minor case and the law that generally involves non-federal officials. For good measure, Duvall originated in Mississippi, just like the Minor case.
We've noted that Wingate seemed to go out of his way to find a jury instruction on bribery that did not require a quid pro quo. And he found it in Mississippi state law. He certainly was not going to find it in Fifth-Circuit federal law.
What did the Fifth Circuit have to say in Duvall?
"By definition a bribe is money or favor bestowed on or promised to a person in a position of trust to pervert his judgment or influence his conduct; it is something that serves to induce or influence. Bribery occurs when a gift to a government official is coupled with a particular intent and connotes some more or less specific quid pro quo for which the gift or contribution is offered or accepted. . . . Thus the distinguishing characteristic of a bribe . . . is not that it damages the public because it causes the giver to demand a higher price from the government but because it subverts a government official's loyalty and judgment."
Hard to be more clear than that? Bribery in the Fifth Circuit requires a quid pro quo. So why did Judge Wingate's jury instructions not read that way?
And that brings us back to our earlier question about Judge Wingate and the Paul Minor trial: Was he incompetent or was he corrupt?
We wondered if perhaps federal law in the Fifth Judicial Circuit was somehow unclear on the elements of bribery. But we found one Fifth-Circuit case that seemed abundantly clear. Now we've found a Fifth-Circuit case that seems to be even more clear than U.S. v. Tomblin, the case we cited earlier.
The Tomblin case involved a charge under 18 U.S. Code 201, which generally is used in cases involving bribery of federal officials. Now we have U.S. v. Duvall, 846 F. 2d 966 (1988), which involves 18 U.S. Code 666, the same statute cited in the Minor case and the law that generally involves non-federal officials. For good measure, Duvall originated in Mississippi, just like the Minor case.
We've noted that Wingate seemed to go out of his way to find a jury instruction on bribery that did not require a quid pro quo. And he found it in Mississippi state law. He certainly was not going to find it in Fifth-Circuit federal law.
What did the Fifth Circuit have to say in Duvall?
"By definition a bribe is money or favor bestowed on or promised to a person in a position of trust to pervert his judgment or influence his conduct; it is something that serves to induce or influence. Bribery occurs when a gift to a government official is coupled with a particular intent and connotes some more or less specific quid pro quo for which the gift or contribution is offered or accepted. . . . Thus the distinguishing characteristic of a bribe . . . is not that it damages the public because it causes the giver to demand a higher price from the government but because it subverts a government official's loyalty and judgment."
Hard to be more clear than that? Bribery in the Fifth Circuit requires a quid pro quo. So why did Judge Wingate's jury instructions not read that way?
And that brings us back to our earlier question about Judge Wingate and the Paul Minor trial: Was he incompetent or was he corrupt?
Havoc at Hoover High
The scene keeps getting uglier at Hoover High School, home of the mighty Bucs football program.
A report on an investigation into alleged academic and athletic improprieties at the school was released on Saturday. And the fallout already is not pretty. School officials probably wish they could go back to the good old days when the football program was known for its central role in MTV's "Two a Days."
Superintendent Andy Craig today is asking the Alabama Ethics Commission to investigate whether football coach Rush Propst violated the state ethics law. The issue is whether Propst used his public office for private gain.
Perhaps more importantly, the Bucs' on-the-field record could take a hit. The Alabama High School Athletic Association is investigating the eligibility of wide receiver Tristan Purifoy. If the transfer from Hanceville, Alabama, is found ineligible, the 5-1 Bucs could be forced to forfeit all the games they won this season in which Purifoy has played.
The 6-2, 215-pound Purifoy is one of Hoover's top offensive players, with 14 catches for 390 yards and three touchdowns. He scored the team's final touchdown in a 16-7 win over arch-rival Vestavia Hills last Friday.
As we noted in a recent post, the Hoover High School saga has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer. Part of that is for personal and professional reasons. But there also is the possibility that the school--through no wrongdoing on Hoover's part--played a role in launching the legal nightmare that is at the heart of this blog.
We will go into that in a bit.
A report on an investigation into alleged academic and athletic improprieties at the school was released on Saturday. And the fallout already is not pretty. School officials probably wish they could go back to the good old days when the football program was known for its central role in MTV's "Two a Days."
Superintendent Andy Craig today is asking the Alabama Ethics Commission to investigate whether football coach Rush Propst violated the state ethics law. The issue is whether Propst used his public office for private gain.
Perhaps more importantly, the Bucs' on-the-field record could take a hit. The Alabama High School Athletic Association is investigating the eligibility of wide receiver Tristan Purifoy. If the transfer from Hanceville, Alabama, is found ineligible, the 5-1 Bucs could be forced to forfeit all the games they won this season in which Purifoy has played.
The 6-2, 215-pound Purifoy is one of Hoover's top offensive players, with 14 catches for 390 yards and three touchdowns. He scored the team's final touchdown in a 16-7 win over arch-rival Vestavia Hills last Friday.
As we noted in a recent post, the Hoover High School saga has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer. Part of that is for personal and professional reasons. But there also is the possibility that the school--through no wrongdoing on Hoover's part--played a role in launching the legal nightmare that is at the heart of this blog.
We will go into that in a bit.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Rob Riley and The Credibility Gap
Rob Riley, son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, seems to be waging an interesting campaign to counter the Congressional testimony of Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson.
Simpson testified under oath that Rob Riley told her that an offer was being extended to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman to drop a criminal investigation in exchange for his decision not to contest Bob Riley's razor-close electoral victory in 2002. The investigation continued, and Siegelman wound up being convicted on corruption charges in case now drawing scrutiny as a possible example of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
Rob Riley, finding a receptive audience in reporters from The Birmingham News and the Montgomery Advertiser, fired back that he was preparing a sworn statement of his own and was willing to testify before Congressional investigators, just as Simpson has.
Is Riley serious or merely bluffing? It seems he might have some difficulty answering certain questions under oath. For example, two of his colleagues on the conference call described by Simpson (Terry Butts and Bill Canary), have denied the conversation with Simpson took place. If clear evidence exists that the conversation did take place, doesn't that put Rob Riley in a tough spot?
Also, Riley has stated in published reports that, at one point, he hadn't seen Simpson in "13 or 14 years" and, while she might have called his office, he could not recall any conversation with her. But Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork World News & Journal reports that Simpson's phone records show she was in almost constant contact with the Rileys in the days immediately after the 2002 election.
Would Rob Riley really agree to be interviewed under oath, particularly if matters related to the 2002 election could come up? Would he want to possibly address the funny numbers that came from Baldwin County on election night? Would he want to be asked about Auburn University professor James Gundlach and his paper showing that the election results almost had to have been electronically manipulated? Or how about the Mississippi Choctaw casino money that was reportedly funneled from Jack Abramoff to the Riley campaign? And if such an interview were wide-ranging--and the eager Rob surely would want it to be wide-ranging--would he discuss the awarding of state contracts under his father's administration?
And here's a question: If Riley is interested in testifying before Congress, why is he seemingly waging a major media battle against Simpson? Why worry about the Alabama media if he's going to tell his story under oath before Congress? And why talk only to Alabama reporters? Why not hold a press conference and invite reporters from all over, especially that pesky Scott Horton, from Harper's.org?
And why hasn't Rob Riley already signed a sworn affidavit? He could have done that weeks ago, not long after Simpson's affidavit came to light.
Speaking of Scott Horton, he had this interesting assessment of The Birmingham News' articles this past weekend on Simpson's testimony: "The articles . . . are heavily driven by one person--Rob Riley. Instead of putting squarely to Mr. Riley the accusations that were leveled in the Washington deposition (and thus, unlike Riley's statements, were answered under oath), the News focuses on attempting to show why Simpson shouldn't be believed."
The Birmingham News is not the only state newspaper fawning over Rob Riley these days. For two days running, the Montgomery Advertiser has run articles about Thomas Gallion, opposing counsel in a lawsuit against Bob Riley, allegedly making a threatening phone call to Rob Riley.
And what kind of threat did Gallion supposedly make? Did he threaten to shoot or knife someone? Did he threaten to plant a bomb somewhere? Did he threaten bodily harm upon Rob Riley or his father?
Nope. According to reporter Francis X. Gilpin, Thomas Gallion allegedly said, "This is war," in a reference to the lawsuit. "It's not the kind of voice mail you're going to forget," Rob Riley says in today's story, obviously still shaken.
It's a wonder the Robmeister didn't need to be sedated.
And what does Gallion have to do with Jill Simpson? Get this: The two of them have evidently communicated. Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo, two people who have concerns about the Riley administration have actually spoken to each other. I never would have believed it.
Hopefully, someone will get Rob Riley some Xanax to help him get over that terrifying phone call from Tommy Gallion. Meanwhile, one must wonder: If the Robmeister is so unsettled by one phone call from a hometown attorney, how is he going to handle questions under oath from Congressional investigators?
Guess we'll find out before too long.
Simpson testified under oath that Rob Riley told her that an offer was being extended to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman to drop a criminal investigation in exchange for his decision not to contest Bob Riley's razor-close electoral victory in 2002. The investigation continued, and Siegelman wound up being convicted on corruption charges in case now drawing scrutiny as a possible example of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
Rob Riley, finding a receptive audience in reporters from The Birmingham News and the Montgomery Advertiser, fired back that he was preparing a sworn statement of his own and was willing to testify before Congressional investigators, just as Simpson has.
Is Riley serious or merely bluffing? It seems he might have some difficulty answering certain questions under oath. For example, two of his colleagues on the conference call described by Simpson (Terry Butts and Bill Canary), have denied the conversation with Simpson took place. If clear evidence exists that the conversation did take place, doesn't that put Rob Riley in a tough spot?
Also, Riley has stated in published reports that, at one point, he hadn't seen Simpson in "13 or 14 years" and, while she might have called his office, he could not recall any conversation with her. But Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork World News & Journal reports that Simpson's phone records show she was in almost constant contact with the Rileys in the days immediately after the 2002 election.
Would Rob Riley really agree to be interviewed under oath, particularly if matters related to the 2002 election could come up? Would he want to possibly address the funny numbers that came from Baldwin County on election night? Would he want to be asked about Auburn University professor James Gundlach and his paper showing that the election results almost had to have been electronically manipulated? Or how about the Mississippi Choctaw casino money that was reportedly funneled from Jack Abramoff to the Riley campaign? And if such an interview were wide-ranging--and the eager Rob surely would want it to be wide-ranging--would he discuss the awarding of state contracts under his father's administration?
And here's a question: If Riley is interested in testifying before Congress, why is he seemingly waging a major media battle against Simpson? Why worry about the Alabama media if he's going to tell his story under oath before Congress? And why talk only to Alabama reporters? Why not hold a press conference and invite reporters from all over, especially that pesky Scott Horton, from Harper's.org?
And why hasn't Rob Riley already signed a sworn affidavit? He could have done that weeks ago, not long after Simpson's affidavit came to light.
Speaking of Scott Horton, he had this interesting assessment of The Birmingham News' articles this past weekend on Simpson's testimony: "The articles . . . are heavily driven by one person--Rob Riley. Instead of putting squarely to Mr. Riley the accusations that were leveled in the Washington deposition (and thus, unlike Riley's statements, were answered under oath), the News focuses on attempting to show why Simpson shouldn't be believed."
The Birmingham News is not the only state newspaper fawning over Rob Riley these days. For two days running, the Montgomery Advertiser has run articles about Thomas Gallion, opposing counsel in a lawsuit against Bob Riley, allegedly making a threatening phone call to Rob Riley.
And what kind of threat did Gallion supposedly make? Did he threaten to shoot or knife someone? Did he threaten to plant a bomb somewhere? Did he threaten bodily harm upon Rob Riley or his father?
Nope. According to reporter Francis X. Gilpin, Thomas Gallion allegedly said, "This is war," in a reference to the lawsuit. "It's not the kind of voice mail you're going to forget," Rob Riley says in today's story, obviously still shaken.
It's a wonder the Robmeister didn't need to be sedated.
And what does Gallion have to do with Jill Simpson? Get this: The two of them have evidently communicated. Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo, two people who have concerns about the Riley administration have actually spoken to each other. I never would have believed it.
Hopefully, someone will get Rob Riley some Xanax to help him get over that terrifying phone call from Tommy Gallion. Meanwhile, one must wonder: If the Robmeister is so unsettled by one phone call from a hometown attorney, how is he going to handle questions under oath from Congressional investigators?
Guess we'll find out before too long.
Bama, Ole Miss, and Conversion
I was watching a college football game the other day when a legal issue broke out. (I hate when that happens.)
Here's the deal: The University of Alabama was playing Ole Miss (that's the University of Mississippi for you folks from outside the South), and Bama appeared to be in good shape late in the game. Ole Miss, however, wasn't ready to pack it in.
The Rebels drove into Crimson Tide territory as the clock wound down and launched a long pass toward the end zone with only a few seconds left. The Ole Miss receiver outwrestled an Alabama defender and came down with the ball inside the 10-yard line for a remarkable catch. It looked like the Rebels would get one more play and a chance to tie or win the game.
But officials decided the play should be reviewed via instant replay. After about a five-minute delay, the referee announced that the play was being reversed because replay showed the Ole Miss receiver had gone out of bounds and been the first person to touch the ball when he came back in bounds, making him an ineligible receiver.
Alabama held on to win, and needless to say, Ole Miss fans weren't happy. Bottles, cans, cups and other debris rained onto the field from the student section. Press reports said the debris included a number of high-heeled shoes, evidently tossed by unhappy sorority girls.
So where does the legal issue come in? Believe it or not, the circumstances were similar to those involved in the lawsuit against yours truly, the Legal Schnauzer. Instead of objects being tossed onto a football field, my situation involved objects being tossed onto my property.
And that's what made me think of the legal possibilities presented by the unhappy Ole Miss fans.
Consider this scenario: Let's say an Ole Miss coed, we'll call her Suzy Sorority, heaved both of her high-heeled shoes onto the stadium turf and walked away barefooted after the Rebels heartbreaking loss. Let's say Suzy's father is the esteemed barrister J. Harwell Sorority, Esq., Ole Miss law school class of 1975.
"Welly," as he's known to his drinking buds, says, "Suzy Q, where are your shoes, Dahlin'?"
"I threw 'em on the field, Daddy," Suzy says. "I tried to hit that big ugly linebacker from Bama."
"Did you nail him?"
"No, but I almost got their zillionaire coach, that Saban guy."
"Gosh, Dahlin', that would have been even better."
"I know, Daddy, but now I don't have my high heels, and Justin wants to take me to the country club this weekend."
"You mean you didn't get your shoes back?"
"Well no, Daddy. How was I gonna get 'em back?"
"I can't get your shoes back, Sugah Plum, but I can get something bettah--lots of Benjamins."
And so J. Harwell Sorority sues the University of Mississippi for conversion. For good measure, he sues the officials for fraud, the Southeastern Conference for negligence, and the University of Alabama for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
You might ask, what's this "conversion" business? Why that's the charming little tort I got sued for, thanks to my neighbor, Mike McGarity, and his distinguished attorney, William E. Swatek.
Conversion might best be described as a civil form of theft. For example, if you loan your bicycle to someone and they refuse to return it, you probably would have a case for conversion. If you mistakenly take someone's coat from a restaurant and then refuse to give it back when they identify it, you would be in danger of a lawsuit for conversion. Here is a description of the tort.
You will notice that when the taking of property is legal, as it was in Suzy's case and in my case, it can't be conversion unless the owner demands a return. And of course, Suzy did not ask for the return of her shoes, and my neighbor did not ask for the return of what he claimed were his whiffle balls, etc. But that did not stop Welly from filing a lawsuit--and it didn't stop Bill Swatek either.
And what about damages for Suzy? Well, she paid $75 for the shoes, so Welly says in his complaint that they cost $750. And punitive damages? Welly decides 60 times the compensatory damages would be about right, which would be $45,000. Add the two together, and Welly figures that Suzy is due $45,750 from the University of Mississippi for "converting" her shoes. And that doesn't take into account the claims against the officials, the SEC, and the University of Alabama.
"We could be lookin' at 4 or 5 mil total, Punkin'," Welly tells Suzy.
"Heck, Daddy, I would have chucked my high heels a long time ago if I'd known that," Suzy says.
Sound preposterous? It wouldn't to real-life judges in Alabama. I will show you how, at least in terms of "conversion," they would say the Suzy Q case is perfectly fine.
Hang in there with me. We're dealing with a lot of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor news at the moment. But when we get into specifics about the Legal Schnauzer case, you'll learn more about the absurdities of "conversion" in Alabama's courts.
Here's the deal: The University of Alabama was playing Ole Miss (that's the University of Mississippi for you folks from outside the South), and Bama appeared to be in good shape late in the game. Ole Miss, however, wasn't ready to pack it in.
The Rebels drove into Crimson Tide territory as the clock wound down and launched a long pass toward the end zone with only a few seconds left. The Ole Miss receiver outwrestled an Alabama defender and came down with the ball inside the 10-yard line for a remarkable catch. It looked like the Rebels would get one more play and a chance to tie or win the game.
But officials decided the play should be reviewed via instant replay. After about a five-minute delay, the referee announced that the play was being reversed because replay showed the Ole Miss receiver had gone out of bounds and been the first person to touch the ball when he came back in bounds, making him an ineligible receiver.
Alabama held on to win, and needless to say, Ole Miss fans weren't happy. Bottles, cans, cups and other debris rained onto the field from the student section. Press reports said the debris included a number of high-heeled shoes, evidently tossed by unhappy sorority girls.
So where does the legal issue come in? Believe it or not, the circumstances were similar to those involved in the lawsuit against yours truly, the Legal Schnauzer. Instead of objects being tossed onto a football field, my situation involved objects being tossed onto my property.
And that's what made me think of the legal possibilities presented by the unhappy Ole Miss fans.
Consider this scenario: Let's say an Ole Miss coed, we'll call her Suzy Sorority, heaved both of her high-heeled shoes onto the stadium turf and walked away barefooted after the Rebels heartbreaking loss. Let's say Suzy's father is the esteemed barrister J. Harwell Sorority, Esq., Ole Miss law school class of 1975.
"Welly," as he's known to his drinking buds, says, "Suzy Q, where are your shoes, Dahlin'?"
"I threw 'em on the field, Daddy," Suzy says. "I tried to hit that big ugly linebacker from Bama."
"Did you nail him?"
"No, but I almost got their zillionaire coach, that Saban guy."
"Gosh, Dahlin', that would have been even better."
"I know, Daddy, but now I don't have my high heels, and Justin wants to take me to the country club this weekend."
"You mean you didn't get your shoes back?"
"Well no, Daddy. How was I gonna get 'em back?"
"I can't get your shoes back, Sugah Plum, but I can get something bettah--lots of Benjamins."
And so J. Harwell Sorority sues the University of Mississippi for conversion. For good measure, he sues the officials for fraud, the Southeastern Conference for negligence, and the University of Alabama for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
You might ask, what's this "conversion" business? Why that's the charming little tort I got sued for, thanks to my neighbor, Mike McGarity, and his distinguished attorney, William E. Swatek.
Conversion might best be described as a civil form of theft. For example, if you loan your bicycle to someone and they refuse to return it, you probably would have a case for conversion. If you mistakenly take someone's coat from a restaurant and then refuse to give it back when they identify it, you would be in danger of a lawsuit for conversion. Here is a description of the tort.
You will notice that when the taking of property is legal, as it was in Suzy's case and in my case, it can't be conversion unless the owner demands a return. And of course, Suzy did not ask for the return of her shoes, and my neighbor did not ask for the return of what he claimed were his whiffle balls, etc. But that did not stop Welly from filing a lawsuit--and it didn't stop Bill Swatek either.
And what about damages for Suzy? Well, she paid $75 for the shoes, so Welly says in his complaint that they cost $750. And punitive damages? Welly decides 60 times the compensatory damages would be about right, which would be $45,000. Add the two together, and Welly figures that Suzy is due $45,750 from the University of Mississippi for "converting" her shoes. And that doesn't take into account the claims against the officials, the SEC, and the University of Alabama.
"We could be lookin' at 4 or 5 mil total, Punkin'," Welly tells Suzy.
"Heck, Daddy, I would have chucked my high heels a long time ago if I'd known that," Suzy says.
Sound preposterous? It wouldn't to real-life judges in Alabama. I will show you how, at least in terms of "conversion," they would say the Suzy Q case is perfectly fine.
Hang in there with me. We're dealing with a lot of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor news at the moment. But when we get into specifics about the Legal Schnauzer case, you'll learn more about the absurdities of "conversion" in Alabama's courts.
Bits and Pieces for $70, Alex
Lots of news on the justice front in Alabama today:
Case against Bessemer judge dismissed
A 56-count indictment against Bessemer Circuit Judge Dan King has been dismissed because it was not presented in open court as required by state law and the guidelines set out in the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Alabama Attorney General Troy King said he plans to continue pursuing the charges. Dan King evidently incurred the wrath of the AG by ruling in favor of gaming interests in a high-profile case. King's staff went through Bessemer Circuit Judge Teresa Petelos to get the indictment, and she testified in a hearing last week. This case is particularly interesting because all involved are Republicans. Wonder if Dan King has thought about changing parties. Also wonder why Troy King thought he could go through Petelos to get an indictment in the case, seemingly without following proper procedure.
Appeals court on Fuller's case again
A federal appeals court has told U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to act on former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy's request to be freed from prison while he appeals his bribery conviction. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Fuller should write an explanation of this earlier decision to deny an appeal bond. This is the second time we've been down this path in recent days. Fuller had to be ordered to write an explanation on a similar motion filed by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Fuller refused to release Siegelman, so Scrushy's chances appear to be dim. Any chance Fuller actually will do his job at some point without being forced to do it by an appeals court?
Hoover High School stays in spotlight
The grade-changing/football scandal at Hoover High School, famous through MTV's Two A Days, remains a hot topic. The Hoover City Council president is calling on the school board to take quick action on recommendations to punish or clear employees named in an investigation of improprieties. Meanwhile, on the sports page, attorney Russ Campbell is doing a pretty darn good job of defending the reputation of head coach Rush Propst. Early news reports hammered Propst after the Hoover report was released on Saturday. But Campbell makes a strong case for the notion that Propst is being inaccurately portrayed and says the coach wants to keep his job at Hoover.
Case against Bessemer judge dismissed
A 56-count indictment against Bessemer Circuit Judge Dan King has been dismissed because it was not presented in open court as required by state law and the guidelines set out in the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Alabama Attorney General Troy King said he plans to continue pursuing the charges. Dan King evidently incurred the wrath of the AG by ruling in favor of gaming interests in a high-profile case. King's staff went through Bessemer Circuit Judge Teresa Petelos to get the indictment, and she testified in a hearing last week. This case is particularly interesting because all involved are Republicans. Wonder if Dan King has thought about changing parties. Also wonder why Troy King thought he could go through Petelos to get an indictment in the case, seemingly without following proper procedure.
Appeals court on Fuller's case again
A federal appeals court has told U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to act on former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy's request to be freed from prison while he appeals his bribery conviction. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Fuller should write an explanation of this earlier decision to deny an appeal bond. This is the second time we've been down this path in recent days. Fuller had to be ordered to write an explanation on a similar motion filed by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Fuller refused to release Siegelman, so Scrushy's chances appear to be dim. Any chance Fuller actually will do his job at some point without being forced to do it by an appeals court?
Hoover High School stays in spotlight
The grade-changing/football scandal at Hoover High School, famous through MTV's Two A Days, remains a hot topic. The Hoover City Council president is calling on the school board to take quick action on recommendations to punish or clear employees named in an investigation of improprieties. Meanwhile, on the sports page, attorney Russ Campbell is doing a pretty darn good job of defending the reputation of head coach Rush Propst. Early news reports hammered Propst after the Hoover report was released on Saturday. But Campbell makes a strong case for the notion that Propst is being inaccurately portrayed and says the coach wants to keep his job at Hoover.
Rileys Feeling the Heat
Governor Bob Riley and his son Rob Riley (who is at the heart of Jill Simpson's Congressional testimony regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution) seem to be feeling heat from a lawsuit filed by a Montgomery insurance executive.
The Montgomery Advertiser reports that Rob Riley claims attorney Thomas T. Gallion III threatened the Riley administration. Gallion is suing the governor on behalf of insurance executive John W. Goff.
Francis X. Gilpin reports that Goff, a former Riley supporter, accuses the governor and others named in the suit of conspiring to drive him out of the worker's compensation insurance business. He claims the action came in retaliation for his reporting an alleged shakedown attempt to the state insurance commissioner.
And what language did Gallion use that so upset Rob Riley? Riley Jr. told Gilpin that Gallion had said "this is war" in relation to the lawsuit.
And that hurt little Robby's feelings? Good grief. Lawyers say stuff like that all the time don't they? And heck, you sue somebody, it's not fun and games; it is war. Take it from someone who has been sued for fraudulent reasons.
If little Robby is so sensitive, if big old mean Mr. Gallion hurts his feelings so much, I would suggest that little Robby take his Yale degree and go into another line of work.
We recently posted about the Goff lawsuit and the consternation it seems to be causing in the Riley camp. Of particular concern is the possibility that discovery could lead to information about Mississippi Choctaw gambling money and its tendency to find its way into the Riley campaign through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Gee, hope Gallion doesn't hurt Robby's feelings during the discovery process.
The Montgomery Advertiser reports that Rob Riley claims attorney Thomas T. Gallion III threatened the Riley administration. Gallion is suing the governor on behalf of insurance executive John W. Goff.
Francis X. Gilpin reports that Goff, a former Riley supporter, accuses the governor and others named in the suit of conspiring to drive him out of the worker's compensation insurance business. He claims the action came in retaliation for his reporting an alleged shakedown attempt to the state insurance commissioner.
And what language did Gallion use that so upset Rob Riley? Riley Jr. told Gilpin that Gallion had said "this is war" in relation to the lawsuit.
And that hurt little Robby's feelings? Good grief. Lawyers say stuff like that all the time don't they? And heck, you sue somebody, it's not fun and games; it is war. Take it from someone who has been sued for fraudulent reasons.
If little Robby is so sensitive, if big old mean Mr. Gallion hurts his feelings so much, I would suggest that little Robby take his Yale degree and go into another line of work.
We recently posted about the Goff lawsuit and the consternation it seems to be causing in the Riley camp. Of particular concern is the possibility that discovery could lead to information about Mississippi Choctaw gambling money and its tendency to find its way into the Riley campaign through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Gee, hope Gallion doesn't hurt Robby's feelings during the discovery process.
Hope for the Legal Profession
At times during my legal travails, I have asked myself, "What in the world is being taught in our law schools? Why do so many lawyers and judges seem to be morally challenged (at worst) or ethically indifferent (at best)? Do legal ethics classes have any impact at all?"
I'm starting to think maybe there is hope for the legal profession. Missouri lawyer Paul Benton Weeks is the latest to renew my faith in the justice system. His affidavit alleging both ethical and criminal misconduct by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller took both guts and a significant amount of effort. The affidavit is 39 pages long, and it's not an easy read. But it's worth the effort for anyone interested in matters of justice. Weeks' work is laced with intellectual rigor and moral clarity. Our justice system desperately needs more of both.
You can read the affidavit through this post, and it's at Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org.
And of course, we have Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, who recently testified before Congressional attorneys about her allegations that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated.
Glynn Wilson has an update about Simpson and how she is handling the stresses and challenges of speaking "truth to power." Simpson has faced relentless attacks from "Pravda of the South" (The Birmingham News), but she knew that kind of thing was coming. Any signs that her resolve is cracking? Sure doesn't seem like it.
I'm starting to think maybe there is hope for the legal profession. Missouri lawyer Paul Benton Weeks is the latest to renew my faith in the justice system. His affidavit alleging both ethical and criminal misconduct by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller took both guts and a significant amount of effort. The affidavit is 39 pages long, and it's not an easy read. But it's worth the effort for anyone interested in matters of justice. Weeks' work is laced with intellectual rigor and moral clarity. Our justice system desperately needs more of both.
You can read the affidavit through this post, and it's at Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org.
And of course, we have Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, who recently testified before Congressional attorneys about her allegations that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated.
Glynn Wilson has an update about Simpson and how she is handling the stresses and challenges of speaking "truth to power." Simpson has faced relentless attacks from "Pravda of the South" (The Birmingham News), but she knew that kind of thing was coming. Any signs that her resolve is cracking? Sure doesn't seem like it.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Unmasking Judge Fuller
A Springfield, Missouri, attorney has uncovered information that could have an impact on the Congressional investigation into the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. It also could spell legal trouble for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and an iconic Alabama businessman with ties to the Bush family.
The new charges should be of special interest to anyone with connections to the Retirement System of Alabama (RSA), which is run by CEO David G. Bronner.
Fuller oversaw the prosecution of Siegelman, who now is in federal prison following his conviction on corruption charges. But attorney Paul Benton Weeks, in an affidavit filed in 2003, states that Fuller himself is corrupt and should be investigated.
Weeks looked into Fuller's background as part of his work in Murray v. Scott & Sevier, a civil action that originated in Kansas but was transferred to federal court in Montgomery.
Murray first was assigned to Judge Ira DeMent, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that DeMent had a conflict and removed him from the case. Judge Myron Thompson then took over, but the case mysteriously wound up under Fuller.
Weeks, in his role as counsel for the plaintiffs, conducted standard research on Fuller's background and was "astonished" by what he found. Weeks' research, and the entire affidavit, are the focus of a post today by Scott Horton of Harper's.
Horton notes that Weeks sent his allegations regarding Fuller to Noel Hillman, then head of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. Writes Horton: "This means that at the time that Fuller was presiding over the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a prosecution brought by Noel Hillman's Public Integrity Section, he was or should have been the subject of an investigation by the Public Integrity Section. This presents a further appearance of impropriety both by Judge Fuller and by the prosecutors handling the case."
The Murray case revolves around the Montgomery-based Bass Anglers Sportsman's Society of America (B.A.S.S.), a national association of bass fishermen founded to protect the health of the nation's public fishing waters and to promote children's fishing programs.
Ray Scott, the founder of B.A.S.S., has deep ties to the Bush family, including current president, George W. Bush. In his 1999 biography, Scott wrote, "George W. told me that outside his father and family, the two men who had had the most profound effect on his life were Billy Graham and Ray Scott. One had taught him about faith and the other about bass fishing."
Bradley Murray, a lifetime member of B.A.S.S., filed a lawsuit against Ray Scott and associates in federal court in Wichita, Kansas, in 1992. The suit was transferred to Alabama in 1995.
Murray's lawsuit alleges that Scott and others stole more than $75 million from B.A.S.S., a nonprofit association, and transferred it to B.A.S.S. Inc., a for-profit corporation. "B.A.S.S. membership dues and the Society's magazine revenues come into B.A.S.S. (the Society), but instead of being spent on the Society's conservation and children's programs, Scott and his associates transfer all of the Society's funds from B.A.S.S. to B.A.S.S. Inc. and then into their pockets," the lawsuit says.
In his affidavit, Weeks says he was warned by someone in the Montgomery federal court clerk's office that, once the case was in Alabama, it was likely to be decided based on politics, not on its merits. Weeks' concerns about political influence on the case only heightened when he looked into Fuller's background.
Weeks found evidence that Fuller had:
* Conspired with a political associate to defraud RSA of $330,000;
* Embezzled and stolen government funds by giving an associate $70,000 for work that was not done;
* Committed perjury while testifying under oath before the RSA appeal board;
* Committed fraud upon the United States Senate and obstructed the Senate's attempt to thoroughly review his judicial nomination.
Who is Paul Benton Weeks? He graduated from the University of Missouri and earned his law degree at the University of Virginia. He has worked with G. Robert Blakey, one of the nation's leading authorities on white-collar crime, chief author of the federal racketeering laws, and a law professor at Notre Dame.
Unlike many of the lawyers I have encountered, Weeks takes legal ethics seriously. And he is not intimidated by judges. "Lawyers have a duty to report any apparent misconduct by a judge--especially when the evidence points to criminal misconduct," Weeks writes.
Like Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, Weeks has come forward at significant personal risk. "In the B.A.S.S. case, I have been harassed and my life threatened twice by Ray Scott," Weeks writes. "One of Mr. Scott's attorneys asked a friend of mine where my parents and sister lived."
One of Weeks' role models was Frank Johnson, the late federal judge from Alabama. "One of the finest federal judges in U.S. history was Alabama Judge Frank Johnson," Weeks writes. "More than once, Judge Johnson said that judges are not above the law and must be held accountable. If Judge Johnson were alive today, he would say that if Judge Fuller lied to the RSA or violated any criminal laws, then Fuller must be removed from federal office. Indeed, if Fuller lied or has violated any criminal laws, then Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States requires Fuller's removal from federal office."
So what does it all mean for the Congressional investigation into the Siegelman matter? Writes Horton: "The Siegelman case presents a bizarre spectacle: a political corruption prosecution which is itself profoundly corrupt. As time proceeds, the allegations against Siegelman appear more and more dubious, but the evidence of criminal wrongdoing by those who brought and handled the case is mounting."
The new charges should be of special interest to anyone with connections to the Retirement System of Alabama (RSA), which is run by CEO David G. Bronner.
Fuller oversaw the prosecution of Siegelman, who now is in federal prison following his conviction on corruption charges. But attorney Paul Benton Weeks, in an affidavit filed in 2003, states that Fuller himself is corrupt and should be investigated.
Weeks looked into Fuller's background as part of his work in Murray v. Scott & Sevier, a civil action that originated in Kansas but was transferred to federal court in Montgomery.
Murray first was assigned to Judge Ira DeMent, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that DeMent had a conflict and removed him from the case. Judge Myron Thompson then took over, but the case mysteriously wound up under Fuller.
Weeks, in his role as counsel for the plaintiffs, conducted standard research on Fuller's background and was "astonished" by what he found. Weeks' research, and the entire affidavit, are the focus of a post today by Scott Horton of Harper's.
Horton notes that Weeks sent his allegations regarding Fuller to Noel Hillman, then head of the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. Writes Horton: "This means that at the time that Fuller was presiding over the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a prosecution brought by Noel Hillman's Public Integrity Section, he was or should have been the subject of an investigation by the Public Integrity Section. This presents a further appearance of impropriety both by Judge Fuller and by the prosecutors handling the case."
The Murray case revolves around the Montgomery-based Bass Anglers Sportsman's Society of America (B.A.S.S.), a national association of bass fishermen founded to protect the health of the nation's public fishing waters and to promote children's fishing programs.
Ray Scott, the founder of B.A.S.S., has deep ties to the Bush family, including current president, George W. Bush. In his 1999 biography, Scott wrote, "George W. told me that outside his father and family, the two men who had had the most profound effect on his life were Billy Graham and Ray Scott. One had taught him about faith and the other about bass fishing."
Bradley Murray, a lifetime member of B.A.S.S., filed a lawsuit against Ray Scott and associates in federal court in Wichita, Kansas, in 1992. The suit was transferred to Alabama in 1995.
Murray's lawsuit alleges that Scott and others stole more than $75 million from B.A.S.S., a nonprofit association, and transferred it to B.A.S.S. Inc., a for-profit corporation. "B.A.S.S. membership dues and the Society's magazine revenues come into B.A.S.S. (the Society), but instead of being spent on the Society's conservation and children's programs, Scott and his associates transfer all of the Society's funds from B.A.S.S. to B.A.S.S. Inc. and then into their pockets," the lawsuit says.
In his affidavit, Weeks says he was warned by someone in the Montgomery federal court clerk's office that, once the case was in Alabama, it was likely to be decided based on politics, not on its merits. Weeks' concerns about political influence on the case only heightened when he looked into Fuller's background.
Weeks found evidence that Fuller had:
* Conspired with a political associate to defraud RSA of $330,000;
* Embezzled and stolen government funds by giving an associate $70,000 for work that was not done;
* Committed perjury while testifying under oath before the RSA appeal board;
* Committed fraud upon the United States Senate and obstructed the Senate's attempt to thoroughly review his judicial nomination.
Who is Paul Benton Weeks? He graduated from the University of Missouri and earned his law degree at the University of Virginia. He has worked with G. Robert Blakey, one of the nation's leading authorities on white-collar crime, chief author of the federal racketeering laws, and a law professor at Notre Dame.
Unlike many of the lawyers I have encountered, Weeks takes legal ethics seriously. And he is not intimidated by judges. "Lawyers have a duty to report any apparent misconduct by a judge--especially when the evidence points to criminal misconduct," Weeks writes.
Like Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, Weeks has come forward at significant personal risk. "In the B.A.S.S. case, I have been harassed and my life threatened twice by Ray Scott," Weeks writes. "One of Mr. Scott's attorneys asked a friend of mine where my parents and sister lived."
One of Weeks' role models was Frank Johnson, the late federal judge from Alabama. "One of the finest federal judges in U.S. history was Alabama Judge Frank Johnson," Weeks writes. "More than once, Judge Johnson said that judges are not above the law and must be held accountable. If Judge Johnson were alive today, he would say that if Judge Fuller lied to the RSA or violated any criminal laws, then Fuller must be removed from federal office. Indeed, if Fuller lied or has violated any criminal laws, then Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States requires Fuller's removal from federal office."
So what does it all mean for the Congressional investigation into the Siegelman matter? Writes Horton: "The Siegelman case presents a bizarre spectacle: a political corruption prosecution which is itself profoundly corrupt. As time proceeds, the allegations against Siegelman appear more and more dubious, but the evidence of criminal wrongdoing by those who brought and handled the case is mounting."
The Trouble with Neighbors
Birmingham elected a new mayor last week, and it reminded me of a small story that recently was in our local paper and caught the Schnauzer's alert eye. And in a perverse way, it sort of did my heart good.
The story involved Birmingham City Councilwoman Valerie Abbott (who ran for mayor) and her husband, Rod. (Abbott lost, by the way; the winner was Larry Langford, in a landslide.) The Abbotts live on Birmingham's Southside, in the Glen Iris area near UAB. And they seem to have had an ongoing problem with their neighbors, George and Teri Smith.
The Abbotts sued the Smiths last August, claiming their neighbors damaged their fence, posted a vulgar sign on it, and encroached on their property. The Smiths countersued, admitting to the sign and other activities, but claiming the Abbotts fence encroached on their property.
According to a Metro Brief in The Birmingham News, Rod Abbott said the parties reached an agreement in mediation, and the Abbotts were vindicated.
A News reader, David Wells of Eagle Point, took issue with the notion of the Abbotts' vindication. "The Smiths' story is as good as the Abbotts' and much more believable," Wells wrote in a letter to the editor. "Having known the Smiths for more than 20 years, I have no reason to question their honesty."
Based on court documents I've seen and a followup brief in the News, Wells might have a point. Under the settlement, the Abbotts paid $6,000 for about a five-foot strip of the Smiths' property that was inside the Abbotts' fence. That seems to indicate that somebody installed the fence improperly on the Smiths' property. Smith said the fence was put up before he moved into his home 12 years ago.
Why did all this catch the Schnauzer's eye? As I've noted, my legal nightmare started from this kind of neighbor problem. But I've got news for the Abbotts and the Smiths: Their spat is minor league compared to my feud that is straight from the big leagues. I bet nobody in the Abbott/Smith spat has eight criminal convictions. My neighbor, Mike McGarity, does.
And want to talk about fence problems? My neighbor built a fence that took in a strip of my property that was about 4 feet by 80 feet. In other words he took more than 300 square feet of my property, and he had it for six months before I realized what was wrong. Did I ever get a dime? Nope.
News reports and court documents say the Abbotts paid $6,000 for a five-foot strip of land. But it doesn't say what its overall dimensions were. Was it five feet wide? Five feet long? Five feet by five feet? Five square feet?
I don't know. But I do have this question: How much money should I have gotten for 300 to 400 square feet of property my neighbor stole for about six months--and it would have been probably forever if I hadn't noticed it? And when my wife and I paid $200 to have our yard resurveyed, proving he had stolen our property, he refused to reimburse us.
And the fence was only part of our neighbor problem. An extremely loud barking dog, adult trespassing, juvenile trespassing, vandalism, a lawsuit. The list goes on.
Think I will call the Abbotts and/or the Smiths and see if they want to trade neighbors.
So why do I take a perverse sort of pleasure in reading about the Abbotts and the Smiths? I don't know either couple and certainly have no ill will toward either. But at the risk of sounding terribly shallow, I guess it does me a little good to know that someone else has had to put up with some semblance of the headaches my wife and I have endured.
Does that make me a bad person?
And there is this: Numerous times since our legal woes began, I've looked to the sky and said, "Sweet Jesus, why did we ever buy a house in Shelby County?"(Answer: We liked the house, we liked the lot, and we thought the price was reasonable. And houses in our price range closer to town were mostly fixer-uppers, and neither one of us is particularly handy. After looking at umpteen expensive houses (to us) with all sorts of problems, we loved the idea that this house was in move-in condition. So we decided to bite the Highway-280 traffic bullet and buy a house in Shelby County. Yes, I'd heard it was a fairly conservative county, but I had no idea that meant it was run by a bunch of sociopaths. And yes, I knew the courthouse was in an inconvenient little hellhole called Columbiana. But I figured once we got our "home-buyery" stuff out of the way, we'd never have any reason to go there. Heck, neither my wife nor I had ever been involved in any kind of criminal or civil case. What reason would we ever have to go to the courthouse? Ah, the voice of youthful ignorance.)
You see, the Glen Iris neighborhood where the Abbotts and Smiths live is near UAB and the cool Five Points South area in Birmingham. It's an area of mostly older homes and considerable diversity--in terms of color, socioeconomics, and ideas. Artists live there. Academics live there. Heck, some honest-to-God Democrats live there!
Several times since our legal nightmare began, I've thought about Southside and said to myself, "That's where enlightened people live. We would have been so much better off buying a house there."
But now, thanks to the Abbotts and Smiths, I know that neighbor problems can happen most anywhere--even in enlightened neighborhoods.
I hope the Abbotts and Smiths will forgive me--and I hope God doesn't smite my soul for saying this--but I just might sleep a little better knowing they've had neighbor problems, too.
The story involved Birmingham City Councilwoman Valerie Abbott (who ran for mayor) and her husband, Rod. (Abbott lost, by the way; the winner was Larry Langford, in a landslide.) The Abbotts live on Birmingham's Southside, in the Glen Iris area near UAB. And they seem to have had an ongoing problem with their neighbors, George and Teri Smith.
The Abbotts sued the Smiths last August, claiming their neighbors damaged their fence, posted a vulgar sign on it, and encroached on their property. The Smiths countersued, admitting to the sign and other activities, but claiming the Abbotts fence encroached on their property.
According to a Metro Brief in The Birmingham News, Rod Abbott said the parties reached an agreement in mediation, and the Abbotts were vindicated.
A News reader, David Wells of Eagle Point, took issue with the notion of the Abbotts' vindication. "The Smiths' story is as good as the Abbotts' and much more believable," Wells wrote in a letter to the editor. "Having known the Smiths for more than 20 years, I have no reason to question their honesty."
Based on court documents I've seen and a followup brief in the News, Wells might have a point. Under the settlement, the Abbotts paid $6,000 for about a five-foot strip of the Smiths' property that was inside the Abbotts' fence. That seems to indicate that somebody installed the fence improperly on the Smiths' property. Smith said the fence was put up before he moved into his home 12 years ago.
Why did all this catch the Schnauzer's eye? As I've noted, my legal nightmare started from this kind of neighbor problem. But I've got news for the Abbotts and the Smiths: Their spat is minor league compared to my feud that is straight from the big leagues. I bet nobody in the Abbott/Smith spat has eight criminal convictions. My neighbor, Mike McGarity, does.
And want to talk about fence problems? My neighbor built a fence that took in a strip of my property that was about 4 feet by 80 feet. In other words he took more than 300 square feet of my property, and he had it for six months before I realized what was wrong. Did I ever get a dime? Nope.
News reports and court documents say the Abbotts paid $6,000 for a five-foot strip of land. But it doesn't say what its overall dimensions were. Was it five feet wide? Five feet long? Five feet by five feet? Five square feet?
I don't know. But I do have this question: How much money should I have gotten for 300 to 400 square feet of property my neighbor stole for about six months--and it would have been probably forever if I hadn't noticed it? And when my wife and I paid $200 to have our yard resurveyed, proving he had stolen our property, he refused to reimburse us.
And the fence was only part of our neighbor problem. An extremely loud barking dog, adult trespassing, juvenile trespassing, vandalism, a lawsuit. The list goes on.
Think I will call the Abbotts and/or the Smiths and see if they want to trade neighbors.
So why do I take a perverse sort of pleasure in reading about the Abbotts and the Smiths? I don't know either couple and certainly have no ill will toward either. But at the risk of sounding terribly shallow, I guess it does me a little good to know that someone else has had to put up with some semblance of the headaches my wife and I have endured.
Does that make me a bad person?
And there is this: Numerous times since our legal woes began, I've looked to the sky and said, "Sweet Jesus, why did we ever buy a house in Shelby County?"(Answer: We liked the house, we liked the lot, and we thought the price was reasonable. And houses in our price range closer to town were mostly fixer-uppers, and neither one of us is particularly handy. After looking at umpteen expensive houses (to us) with all sorts of problems, we loved the idea that this house was in move-in condition. So we decided to bite the Highway-280 traffic bullet and buy a house in Shelby County. Yes, I'd heard it was a fairly conservative county, but I had no idea that meant it was run by a bunch of sociopaths. And yes, I knew the courthouse was in an inconvenient little hellhole called Columbiana. But I figured once we got our "home-buyery" stuff out of the way, we'd never have any reason to go there. Heck, neither my wife nor I had ever been involved in any kind of criminal or civil case. What reason would we ever have to go to the courthouse? Ah, the voice of youthful ignorance.)
You see, the Glen Iris neighborhood where the Abbotts and Smiths live is near UAB and the cool Five Points South area in Birmingham. It's an area of mostly older homes and considerable diversity--in terms of color, socioeconomics, and ideas. Artists live there. Academics live there. Heck, some honest-to-God Democrats live there!
Several times since our legal nightmare began, I've thought about Southside and said to myself, "That's where enlightened people live. We would have been so much better off buying a house there."
But now, thanks to the Abbotts and Smiths, I know that neighbor problems can happen most anywhere--even in enlightened neighborhoods.
I hope the Abbotts and Smiths will forgive me--and I hope God doesn't smite my soul for saying this--but I just might sleep a little better knowing they've had neighbor problems, too.
Bronner and The Supremes
Speaking of the Alabama Supreme Court, one of the smartest cookies in Alabama is taking on the Supremes. And it makes for a good read.
We've already established that Tom Scarritt, editor of The Birmingham News, surely is one of the dimmest bulbs in a position of authority in Alabama. The anti-Scarritt, perhaps the smartest person in a position of authority in Alabama, is David G. Bronner, CEO of the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA).
Alabama ranks near the bottom of more quality-of-life categories than I can count. But by God, the RSA is one of the top outfits of its kind in the country. And Bronner deserves much of the credit for that.
People tend to listen when Bronner talks--for example, he said recently that he has worked with numerous governors and saw nothing in Don Siegelman's activities that were different from those of other Alabama chief executives. For now, though, Bronner is unhappy with the Alabama Supreme Court, and he lets the court have it in the October issue of Advisor, the RSA's newsletter.
You can read Bronner's piece in PDF format by clicking here and clicking on the October 2007 issue. The headline is: "A Repeat: The Alabama Supreme Court."
Bronner's article goes to the heart of the corporate culture that runs Alabama courts. He notes that a Montgomery jury in November 2003 awarded Alabama $103 million (compensatory damages) and $11.8 billion (punitive damages) in a case against ExxonMobil. Punitive damages were reduced to $3.5 billion on appeal, and the case went to mediation after another appeal.
"ExxonMobil walked out of the mediation and for two years the Alabama Supreme Court has done nothing!" Bronner writes. "It is past time for the Alabama Supreme Court to resolve this abuse of the people of Alabama."
We've already established that Tom Scarritt, editor of The Birmingham News, surely is one of the dimmest bulbs in a position of authority in Alabama. The anti-Scarritt, perhaps the smartest person in a position of authority in Alabama, is David G. Bronner, CEO of the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA).
Alabama ranks near the bottom of more quality-of-life categories than I can count. But by God, the RSA is one of the top outfits of its kind in the country. And Bronner deserves much of the credit for that.
People tend to listen when Bronner talks--for example, he said recently that he has worked with numerous governors and saw nothing in Don Siegelman's activities that were different from those of other Alabama chief executives. For now, though, Bronner is unhappy with the Alabama Supreme Court, and he lets the court have it in the October issue of Advisor, the RSA's newsletter.
You can read Bronner's piece in PDF format by clicking here and clicking on the October 2007 issue. The headline is: "A Repeat: The Alabama Supreme Court."
Bronner's article goes to the heart of the corporate culture that runs Alabama courts. He notes that a Montgomery jury in November 2003 awarded Alabama $103 million (compensatory damages) and $11.8 billion (punitive damages) in a case against ExxonMobil. Punitive damages were reduced to $3.5 billion on appeal, and the case went to mediation after another appeal.
"ExxonMobil walked out of the mediation and for two years the Alabama Supreme Court has done nothing!" Bronner writes. "It is past time for the Alabama Supreme Court to resolve this abuse of the people of Alabama."
Novationeering in Alabama
Folks who are interested in the Alabama justice system, and the way it is being undermined by the right wingers who run our state, should check out Novationeering, a blog by Alabamian Robby Scott Hill.
Hill lives in north Alabama (not far from Jill Simpson) and has an interesting background. He has a law degree and has worked in state government. He has seen the wily ways of Alabama neocons in an up-close and personal way. And he considers them to be dangerous folks--both literally and figuratively. He has coined the term "neocide" to describe the actions he believes neocons have taken against folks who threaten their hold on power.
Hill might not fit the total liberal profile; he is, for example, a proud gun owner--and evidently is quite handy with firearms (which might be a good skill for a Democrat in Alabama to possess). But progressives should find his take on justice-related issues most interesting.
* Here's a post about the Business Council of Alabama, the organization led by Bill Canary--he of the famous "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote.
* Here's a post about the makeup of the Alabama Supreme Court. Hill notes that, with possibly one exception, the court consists of justices who have worked in large law firms and represented corporate interests. There is virtually no one with any history of looking after working-class Alabamians.
* And finally, here is an intriguing post about the possible implications of the allegations made in Jill Simpson's testimony before Congress. There are possible criminal issues, Hill writes, that The Birmingham News has not been telling us about. Maybe this shines some light on why the News has been so desperate to discredit Ms. Simpson. And you will want to check out the comments on this post. Some very interesting stuff.
Hill lives in north Alabama (not far from Jill Simpson) and has an interesting background. He has a law degree and has worked in state government. He has seen the wily ways of Alabama neocons in an up-close and personal way. And he considers them to be dangerous folks--both literally and figuratively. He has coined the term "neocide" to describe the actions he believes neocons have taken against folks who threaten their hold on power.
Hill might not fit the total liberal profile; he is, for example, a proud gun owner--and evidently is quite handy with firearms (which might be a good skill for a Democrat in Alabama to possess). But progressives should find his take on justice-related issues most interesting.
* Here's a post about the Business Council of Alabama, the organization led by Bill Canary--he of the famous "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote.
* Here's a post about the makeup of the Alabama Supreme Court. Hill notes that, with possibly one exception, the court consists of justices who have worked in large law firms and represented corporate interests. There is virtually no one with any history of looking after working-class Alabamians.
* And finally, here is an intriguing post about the possible implications of the allegations made in Jill Simpson's testimony before Congress. There are possible criminal issues, Hill writes, that The Birmingham News has not been telling us about. Maybe this shines some light on why the News has been so desperate to discredit Ms. Simpson. And you will want to check out the comments on this post. Some very interesting stuff.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XVIII
Upon first trying to grasp Judge Henry Wingate's actions in the Paul Minor case, one might think the judge was looking to Mississippi state law because federal courts in the Fifth Circuit had been unclear on bribery law.
That does not appear to be the case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit could hardly be more clear than it was in U.S. v. Tomblin, 46 F. 3d 1369 (1995). We've already noted, in Bribery: A Primer, that there are two primary bribery statutes under federal law--18 U.S. Code 201, which has come to be seen as involving bribery of federal officials, and 18 U.S. Code 666 (federal-funds bribery), which can involve bribery of state officials. U.S. v. Mariano 983 F. 2d 1350 (1993) states that the two statutes virtually mirror one another, with the only differences being on matters of scope and jurisdiction.
Tomblin was a 201 case, but it clearly states the fundamental elements of a bribery case in the Fifth Circuit, and these elements hold true for a 666 case, such as the Minor prosecution.
The Tomblin court wrote: "Under the bribery statutes, the government must prove a quid pro quo, that is, that the official took money in return for an exercise of his official power. In order to convict a briber, the government must prove that the accused intended to bribe the official" For good measure, the court cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991).
Pretty clear language, wouldn't you say? So why was Judge Wingate messing around in Mississippi state law?
The Legal Schnauzer can come to only one answer: Federal law did not look good for the prosecution.
In one of our first posts on the Minor case, we noted that no one testified at trial to the existence of any agreement that the judges would give Minor favorable treatment. No letter, note, or e-mail, no physical evidence at all, was presented suggesting such an agreement. In other words, the government had zero evidence of a "something-for-something" transaction, the kind required under federal law--even in the Fifth Circuit.
No wonder Mississippi's relatively expansive bribery law, not requiring a quid pro quo, sounded good to the prosecution--and evidently to Wingate.
We will look in a moment at some possible motivations behind Wingate's odd handling of the Minor case. But first, let's go beyond his rulings on expert testimony and jury instructions to examine some more ingredients in a truly unsavory trial.
That does not appear to be the case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit could hardly be more clear than it was in U.S. v. Tomblin, 46 F. 3d 1369 (1995). We've already noted, in Bribery: A Primer, that there are two primary bribery statutes under federal law--18 U.S. Code 201, which has come to be seen as involving bribery of federal officials, and 18 U.S. Code 666 (federal-funds bribery), which can involve bribery of state officials. U.S. v. Mariano 983 F. 2d 1350 (1993) states that the two statutes virtually mirror one another, with the only differences being on matters of scope and jurisdiction.
Tomblin was a 201 case, but it clearly states the fundamental elements of a bribery case in the Fifth Circuit, and these elements hold true for a 666 case, such as the Minor prosecution.
The Tomblin court wrote: "Under the bribery statutes, the government must prove a quid pro quo, that is, that the official took money in return for an exercise of his official power. In order to convict a briber, the government must prove that the accused intended to bribe the official" For good measure, the court cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991).
Pretty clear language, wouldn't you say? So why was Judge Wingate messing around in Mississippi state law?
The Legal Schnauzer can come to only one answer: Federal law did not look good for the prosecution.
In one of our first posts on the Minor case, we noted that no one testified at trial to the existence of any agreement that the judges would give Minor favorable treatment. No letter, note, or e-mail, no physical evidence at all, was presented suggesting such an agreement. In other words, the government had zero evidence of a "something-for-something" transaction, the kind required under federal law--even in the Fifth Circuit.
No wonder Mississippi's relatively expansive bribery law, not requiring a quid pro quo, sounded good to the prosecution--and evidently to Wingate.
We will look in a moment at some possible motivations behind Wingate's odd handling of the Minor case. But first, let's go beyond his rulings on expert testimony and jury instructions to examine some more ingredients in a truly unsavory trial.
A Note on Comments
The Legal Schnauzer welcomes comments from readers, particularly from those who have something worthwhile to say.
Unfortunately, we've been getting a number of comments lately from folks who might be called "trolls." The comments usually are in the form of witticisms like "you're an idiot," "you're a moron," or "you're blog is worthless." In some instances, they are taking unsubstantiated shots at people other than me.
I don't mind legitimate criticism, but that kind of stuff trashes up a blog, and I've worked too hard to make this a creditable site to allow that to go on.
As a result, we've been experimenting with moderation of comments. In the process, I'm afraid I've accidentally deleted a view comments I intended to publish. My apologies to those readers. I'm going to do away with moderation for a few days, and see how it goes.
Would really prefer to have an open forum, where comments show up quickly. With moderation, comments might not show up for a while, and I'd rather not do it that way; makes it hard to have much give and take.
Of course, if "bomb throwers" want to send me an e-mail and let me know who they are, I would be more willing to give leeway on comments. But I'm beginning to think it's not a good policy to allow anonymous commenters to just bombs away, and other bloggers tell me this is a common problem on sites with political content.
Unfortunately, we've been getting a number of comments lately from folks who might be called "trolls." The comments usually are in the form of witticisms like "you're an idiot," "you're a moron," or "you're blog is worthless." In some instances, they are taking unsubstantiated shots at people other than me.
I don't mind legitimate criticism, but that kind of stuff trashes up a blog, and I've worked too hard to make this a creditable site to allow that to go on.
As a result, we've been experimenting with moderation of comments. In the process, I'm afraid I've accidentally deleted a view comments I intended to publish. My apologies to those readers. I'm going to do away with moderation for a few days, and see how it goes.
Would really prefer to have an open forum, where comments show up quickly. With moderation, comments might not show up for a while, and I'd rather not do it that way; makes it hard to have much give and take.
Of course, if "bomb throwers" want to send me an e-mail and let me know who they are, I would be more willing to give leeway on comments. But I'm beginning to think it's not a good policy to allow anonymous commenters to just bombs away, and other bloggers tell me this is a common problem on sites with political content.
A Donnybrook Coming to Alabama
A national watchdog group says a race for a spot on the Alabama Supreme Court is one of five nationwide that will merit close scrutiny in 2008.
Justice at Stake says the battle for Harold See's spot on the Alabama Supreme Court is expected to be both expensive and nasty. Weak campaign-finance laws, plus Alabama's standing as a key battleground in the fight between trial lawyers and business interests, will make the race particularly intriguing.
See won a spot on the court in 1996, in one of the early races that started the transformation of the Alabama Supreme Court from all-Democrat to all-Republican. (The court currently has one Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb.)
In The Birmingham News version of this story, Alabama Republic Party chair Mike Hubbard says it is important to elect conservative judges who will not "legislate from the bench."
I've got news for Hubbard. Our conservative judges already legislate from the bench. In fact, they do worse than that. They flat out cheat people, and we will lay out a prime example here at Legal Schnauzer.
If anyone from the Alabama Democratic Party is paying attention, this blog will provide you with irrefutable evidence that our current conservative appeals courts are corrupt. This should lay the groundwork for major gains by Democrats on Alabama courts over the next few years. But so far, I've seen no evidence that any Democrat in a position of authority has the cojones needed to unmask our corrupt conservative judges.
If someone in authority in the state Democratic party does not grow a spine, I see a Republican winning See's seat in a runaway. Citizens will continue to buy into Mike Hubbard's BS until Democrats show them a reason not to. One of the best reasons will be found right here at Legal Schnauzer.
Will Alabama Democrats stand up and fight the forces that our corrupting our justice system? I've seen no evidence of it yet.
Justice at Stake says the battle for Harold See's spot on the Alabama Supreme Court is expected to be both expensive and nasty. Weak campaign-finance laws, plus Alabama's standing as a key battleground in the fight between trial lawyers and business interests, will make the race particularly intriguing.
See won a spot on the court in 1996, in one of the early races that started the transformation of the Alabama Supreme Court from all-Democrat to all-Republican. (The court currently has one Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb.)
In The Birmingham News version of this story, Alabama Republic Party chair Mike Hubbard says it is important to elect conservative judges who will not "legislate from the bench."
I've got news for Hubbard. Our conservative judges already legislate from the bench. In fact, they do worse than that. They flat out cheat people, and we will lay out a prime example here at Legal Schnauzer.
If anyone from the Alabama Democratic Party is paying attention, this blog will provide you with irrefutable evidence that our current conservative appeals courts are corrupt. This should lay the groundwork for major gains by Democrats on Alabama courts over the next few years. But so far, I've seen no evidence that any Democrat in a position of authority has the cojones needed to unmask our corrupt conservative judges.
If someone in authority in the state Democratic party does not grow a spine, I see a Republican winning See's seat in a runaway. Citizens will continue to buy into Mike Hubbard's BS until Democrats show them a reason not to. One of the best reasons will be found right here at Legal Schnauzer.
Will Alabama Democrats stand up and fight the forces that our corrupting our justice system? I've seen no evidence of it yet.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
A Simpson/Schnauzer Comparison
Let's compare The Birmingham News' relentless attacks on the credibility of Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson to its nonexistent coverage of wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama.
Keep this in mind: A rational, semi-objective person could conclude that Simpson is working for the cause of justice. She is a lifelong Republican, testifying against powerful Republicans. She has evidently stepped forward at substantial personal cost and risk.
Meanwhile, a story about corrupt Republican judges has been available to the News for at least three or four years. I call it the Legal Schnauzer story. It's the story at the heart of this blog. And The Birmingham News has done absolutely nothing with it.
I've lost track of all the editors and reporters I've contacted at the News. The first person I contacted was Editor Tom Scarritt, and I met with him, briefly, in his office. I laid out my experience, and had numerous documents available to support my claims to wrongdoing by multiple Alalabama judges and attorneys, including opposing counsel William E. Swatek of Pelham. Scarritt did not ask one question; he did not look at one document. He made this statement: "I think you need to get an attorney who's as good as Bill Swatek."
That remains the single most ignorant statement I've ever heard another human being utter. Oh, that's the ticket: Let's hire an attorney who can match Swatek's almost 30-year record of unethical behavior. One problem, Tommy Boy: I'm not sure there is another lawyer in Alabama who can match Swatek's record of sleaze.
Scarritt's comment gives you some insight into the thinking that is behind those deadly dull columns he writes on Sundays.
Let's see, who else have I contacted? Editorial page editor Bob Blalock and reporters Brett Blackledge and Eric Velasco never responded to e-mails.
Blackledge, of course, won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Alabama's two-year colleges scandal and has been one of the prime attack dogs let loose on Jill Simpson. After Blackledge won the Pulitizer, the News made much of the fact that the story started from insiders with personal knowledge contacting Blackledge, and the reporter pursuing the information aggressively. Of course, the information pointed to wrongdoing by Democrats. Where is Blackledge when the wrongdoing involves Republicans? He's like a prairie dog who won't come up out of his hole.
No matter how many prizes Brett Blackledge wins, from where I sit, he appears to be nothing but a partisan hack. Would be happy to change my opinion of his work, if I ever see any reason to do so.
Montgomery-based reporter David White did respond once or twice to e-mails, but seemed skittish from the outset.
Columnist John Archibald seems to be the only person at the News who has some semblance of a testicle. He responded to an e-mail, and at first, seemed genuinely interested in the story. When I told him I had been forced to fight a bogus lawsuit for five-plus years, all because I had been the victim of a crime and had sought to have it prosecuted, Archibald said, "That's nuts."
No kidding. When I told him that Montgomery attorney Ray Vaughan, a former candidate for the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, had spoken out on the issue of Alabama's corrupt appellate courts, Archibald said he was interested in talking to Vaughan. To my knowledge no such conversation took place.
Archibald eventually quit responding to e-mails. When I posted a message on his blog, he ignored that.
Why is the Legal Schnauzer story toxic to The Birmingham News? Well, there are the obvious political reasons that we've noted. But I suspect there are "religious/political" reasons as well. You see, Victor Hanson II, the patriarch of the paper, attends the highly conservative and extremely wealthy Briarwood Presbyterian Church. And as I've noted in a previous post, I strongly suspect the church and one of its ministries, Briarwood Christian School, has played a central role in my legal travails.
And why would Briarwood intrude on my once-peaceful life? Did it have something to do with education, teaching, Bible study? Not on your life. It had to do with that great Southern passion--football.
Interestingly, I think there might be connections to Hoover High School, the subject of a major story in today's Birmingham News. The long-awaited report on wrongdoing connected to the high-profile Hoover program was released yesterday. More coming on the possible Hoover-Briarwood connection and my story.
And by the way, Scott Horton has done another masterful trashing of "The Pravda of the South." You can enjoy it here.
Keep this in mind: A rational, semi-objective person could conclude that Simpson is working for the cause of justice. She is a lifelong Republican, testifying against powerful Republicans. She has evidently stepped forward at substantial personal cost and risk.
Meanwhile, a story about corrupt Republican judges has been available to the News for at least three or four years. I call it the Legal Schnauzer story. It's the story at the heart of this blog. And The Birmingham News has done absolutely nothing with it.
I've lost track of all the editors and reporters I've contacted at the News. The first person I contacted was Editor Tom Scarritt, and I met with him, briefly, in his office. I laid out my experience, and had numerous documents available to support my claims to wrongdoing by multiple Alalabama judges and attorneys, including opposing counsel William E. Swatek of Pelham. Scarritt did not ask one question; he did not look at one document. He made this statement: "I think you need to get an attorney who's as good as Bill Swatek."
That remains the single most ignorant statement I've ever heard another human being utter. Oh, that's the ticket: Let's hire an attorney who can match Swatek's almost 30-year record of unethical behavior. One problem, Tommy Boy: I'm not sure there is another lawyer in Alabama who can match Swatek's record of sleaze.
Scarritt's comment gives you some insight into the thinking that is behind those deadly dull columns he writes on Sundays.
Let's see, who else have I contacted? Editorial page editor Bob Blalock and reporters Brett Blackledge and Eric Velasco never responded to e-mails.
Blackledge, of course, won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Alabama's two-year colleges scandal and has been one of the prime attack dogs let loose on Jill Simpson. After Blackledge won the Pulitizer, the News made much of the fact that the story started from insiders with personal knowledge contacting Blackledge, and the reporter pursuing the information aggressively. Of course, the information pointed to wrongdoing by Democrats. Where is Blackledge when the wrongdoing involves Republicans? He's like a prairie dog who won't come up out of his hole.
No matter how many prizes Brett Blackledge wins, from where I sit, he appears to be nothing but a partisan hack. Would be happy to change my opinion of his work, if I ever see any reason to do so.
Montgomery-based reporter David White did respond once or twice to e-mails, but seemed skittish from the outset.
Columnist John Archibald seems to be the only person at the News who has some semblance of a testicle. He responded to an e-mail, and at first, seemed genuinely interested in the story. When I told him I had been forced to fight a bogus lawsuit for five-plus years, all because I had been the victim of a crime and had sought to have it prosecuted, Archibald said, "That's nuts."
No kidding. When I told him that Montgomery attorney Ray Vaughan, a former candidate for the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, had spoken out on the issue of Alabama's corrupt appellate courts, Archibald said he was interested in talking to Vaughan. To my knowledge no such conversation took place.
Archibald eventually quit responding to e-mails. When I posted a message on his blog, he ignored that.
Why is the Legal Schnauzer story toxic to The Birmingham News? Well, there are the obvious political reasons that we've noted. But I suspect there are "religious/political" reasons as well. You see, Victor Hanson II, the patriarch of the paper, attends the highly conservative and extremely wealthy Briarwood Presbyterian Church. And as I've noted in a previous post, I strongly suspect the church and one of its ministries, Briarwood Christian School, has played a central role in my legal travails.
And why would Briarwood intrude on my once-peaceful life? Did it have something to do with education, teaching, Bible study? Not on your life. It had to do with that great Southern passion--football.
Interestingly, I think there might be connections to Hoover High School, the subject of a major story in today's Birmingham News. The long-awaited report on wrongdoing connected to the high-profile Hoover program was released yesterday. More coming on the possible Hoover-Briarwood connection and my story.
And by the way, Scott Horton has done another masterful trashing of "The Pravda of the South." You can enjoy it here.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Chicago Connections to Minor Case?
A federal court case in Chicago could wind up shining light on the Bush Justice Department and its targeting of Democrats who provided financial support to John Edwards. One such Democratic supporter could be Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, whose questionable conviction on bribery charges has been the subject of ample attention here at Legal Schnauzer.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports that a Chicago court has order the DOJ to turn over documents in a civil case, Beam v. Gonzalez.
Horton earlier reported that Bush supporters expected Edwards to be the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2004. That led to DOJ raids at the offices of several trial lawyers who were known to be supporters of Edwards.
Horton's latest post notes that similar raids also took place at financial institutions. One wonders if this might have occurred in Mississippi related to the Minor case.
The Minor prosecution has yet to be clearly identified as growing from these raids. But Minor was known as a strong Edwards supporter, and The New York Times this week identified his case as part of a growing list of questionable prosecutions by the Bush DOJ.
Horton also notes that the testimony of Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, released this week by the House Judiciary Committee, shines considerable light on unethical tactics used by the Bush DOJ.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports that a Chicago court has order the DOJ to turn over documents in a civil case, Beam v. Gonzalez.
Horton earlier reported that Bush supporters expected Edwards to be the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2004. That led to DOJ raids at the offices of several trial lawyers who were known to be supporters of Edwards.
Horton's latest post notes that similar raids also took place at financial institutions. One wonders if this might have occurred in Mississippi related to the Minor case.
The Minor prosecution has yet to be clearly identified as growing from these raids. But Minor was known as a strong Edwards supporter, and The New York Times this week identified his case as part of a growing list of questionable prosecutions by the Bush DOJ.
Horton also notes that the testimony of Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, released this week by the House Judiciary Committee, shines considerable light on unethical tactics used by the Bush DOJ.
Attacking Jill Simpson Again
The Birmingham News' effort to attack the credibility of Jill Simpson marches on.
Yesterday, reporters Mary Orndorff and Brett Blackledge took a crack at it. Today, it's Kim Chandler's turn.
Chandler quotes three lawyers close to Siegelman--Joe Espy, Bobby Segall, and Walter Braswell--as saying they were not aware of any deal to call off Siegelman's 2002 election challenge in exchange for an end to the federal investigation of Siegelman. Hey Kim, I hear Siegelman didn't tell his barber; might want to check that out.
Hard to tell what point the News is trying to make with this one. As was the case with Friday's stories, a careful reader can easily see that the story itself shoots down any notions that Simpson is untruthful.
On Friday, for example, the News' headline and lead paragraph made much of the fact that Simpson received help writing her affidavit. The reporters contrasted that with Simpson's earlier statements that she wrote the affidavit on her own. But then deep into the Friday story, the reporters state that Simpson did not like a draft prepared by attorney John Aaron and went on to write her own--just as Simpson had said all along.
Today's story makes much of three attorneys not knowing about any deal between Siegelman and GOP operatives. But deeper into the story one of the attorneys, Walter Braswell, is quoted as saying, "It's possible it could have happened and remained an entirely confidential matter with the late David Cromwell Johnson."
Chandler never quotes Espy or Segall, but says they claimed to know nothing about any deal. It seems to me that these attorneys, if they had an attorney-client relationship with Siegelman, shouldn't be saying anything about such matters. Current Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn of Mobile takes that approach, declining to comment about any possible deal.
The News states that Siegelman never publicly mentioned any such Republican overture during his two trials. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory is that Siegelman did not testify at either of his trials.
The News' strategy seems to be this: Write a long story, stick it on the front page with an inflammatory headline and lead graph, and then jump it inside and hope readers don't get to the parts that reveal there really is nothing to the story at all.
Pravda of the South indeed.
Yesterday, reporters Mary Orndorff and Brett Blackledge took a crack at it. Today, it's Kim Chandler's turn.
Chandler quotes three lawyers close to Siegelman--Joe Espy, Bobby Segall, and Walter Braswell--as saying they were not aware of any deal to call off Siegelman's 2002 election challenge in exchange for an end to the federal investigation of Siegelman. Hey Kim, I hear Siegelman didn't tell his barber; might want to check that out.
Hard to tell what point the News is trying to make with this one. As was the case with Friday's stories, a careful reader can easily see that the story itself shoots down any notions that Simpson is untruthful.
On Friday, for example, the News' headline and lead paragraph made much of the fact that Simpson received help writing her affidavit. The reporters contrasted that with Simpson's earlier statements that she wrote the affidavit on her own. But then deep into the Friday story, the reporters state that Simpson did not like a draft prepared by attorney John Aaron and went on to write her own--just as Simpson had said all along.
Today's story makes much of three attorneys not knowing about any deal between Siegelman and GOP operatives. But deeper into the story one of the attorneys, Walter Braswell, is quoted as saying, "It's possible it could have happened and remained an entirely confidential matter with the late David Cromwell Johnson."
Chandler never quotes Espy or Segall, but says they claimed to know nothing about any deal. It seems to me that these attorneys, if they had an attorney-client relationship with Siegelman, shouldn't be saying anything about such matters. Current Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn of Mobile takes that approach, declining to comment about any possible deal.
The News states that Siegelman never publicly mentioned any such Republican overture during his two trials. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory is that Siegelman did not testify at either of his trials.
The News' strategy seems to be this: Write a long story, stick it on the front page with an inflammatory headline and lead graph, and then jump it inside and hope readers don't get to the parts that reveal there really is nothing to the story at all.
Pravda of the South indeed.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Attacking Jill Simpson
Just when you think The Birmingham News can get no more slanted in its coverage of the Don Siegelman/U.S. attorneys story, the paper comes along and tops itself.
The News today produces two stories, which together must total around 60 column inches, about Jill Simpson's testimony before Congressional lawyers investigating selective prosecution in the Bush Justice Department.
The goal of the two stories seems abundantly clear: Attack Simpson's credibility in any way possible. Does it work? Not to this reader's eyes. It just makes the News, and its GOP puppeteers, look increasingly desperate.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has been calling the News "Pravda of the South" for some time now. Today's coverage adds to the evidence that the paper wholeheartedly deserves that title.
The first story, written by reporters Mary Orndorff and Brett Blackledge, starts on the front page and goes to a mammoth jump on page 7A. In the second story, a solo effort by Blackledge, the News' Pulitizer-Prize winning reporter seems dumbfounded by the notion that Simpson's Congressional testimony might contain information that was not present in her affidavit.
Let's examine the front-page story first. The News' headline breathlessly tells us "Simpson says she got help drafting affidavit." And lead paragraph reads:
"A Republican lawyer who earlier said she wrote her own sworn statement suggesting White House influence in former Gov. Don Siegelman's prosecution testified last month that she received help from Siegelman supporters, and helped provide research for defense lawyers."
The reporters note that in her Congressional testimony, Simpson says Alabaster, AL, attorney John Aaron drafted the first version of her affidavit. They then pull this quote from a July 6 interview with Simpson: "And mind you, I did not sit down with anyone and prepare this. I prepared this myself."
Gotcha! the News seems to be saying. But wait. Several paragraphs later we learn this:
"Simpson testified that she asked Aaron to help her write her affidavit. He gave her a draft that she didn't like, she said, so she sat down with her secretary to write her own."
Let's repeat, according to the News itself, "she sat down . . . to write her own." In other words, she did it herself, just like she said all along.
And the News' is apoplectic about the notion that Simpson communicated at various times with Siegelman supporters and critics of current Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Is that news? I thought it was pretty well understood, and well reported, that she had talked with members of the Siegelman/Scrushy defense team. And is it surprising that Riley critics, such as Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate, might contact Simpson after hearing about her affidavit? Not surprising to me.
Since I started this blog a little over four months ago, I've heard from numerous people, both in and outside Alabama, who have stories about being cheated in courts. What's the old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Kindred spirits tend to connect, and said connection does nothing to cast doubt on Jill Simpson's credibility.
The second story is almost comical. Blackledge is spasmodic at the notion that Simpson's testimony included information not in her affidavit.
Let's see, the affidavit, as I recall, was three or four pages long. The transcript of her Congressional testimony is 140-something pages long. The affidavit, like most affidavits I'm aware of, was narrowly tailored to a specific event. In the testimony, she was responding to questions about a wide range of events. Are we really surprised that one might contain information that the other didn't.
I have a little personal knowledge in this area. I signed two or three affidavits in my own court case. I don't remember all of the details about how it worked, but I seem to recall writing a detailed e-mail to my attorney who put it into the form of a legal document. I went to his office, reviewed it, and when I was satisfied with its accuracy, signed it before a notary. It was my statement, but you could say I had "help" with it.
The opposing party in my case filed an affidavit, and I'll run naked down Highway 280 at rush hour if he wrote a single word of it. But he signed it, attesting to its accuracy, so I guess that's OK, whether he wrote it or not.
One final thought: The News spends 50-60 column inches questioning Jill Simpson's credibility, but what about some other hard questions they could be asking? Why has Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, not responded to Congressional requests for documents related to the Siegelman prosecution? What about the circumstances behind the fire at Ms. Simpson's home and the totaling of her vehicle? Has the News looked into that? What about Republican operative Dan Gans who, according to published reports, is suspected of electronically tampering with election results in the 2o02 governor's race? And has the News ever interviewed Auburn University professor James Gundlach about his paper that strongly suggests the results of the 2002 race were tainted? If they have, it escapes my memory. And given the recent attention Gundlach's work has received in national publications, you would think his home-state newspaper might see fit to interview him now.
Pravda of the South? If the shoe fits . . .
The News today produces two stories, which together must total around 60 column inches, about Jill Simpson's testimony before Congressional lawyers investigating selective prosecution in the Bush Justice Department.
The goal of the two stories seems abundantly clear: Attack Simpson's credibility in any way possible. Does it work? Not to this reader's eyes. It just makes the News, and its GOP puppeteers, look increasingly desperate.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has been calling the News "Pravda of the South" for some time now. Today's coverage adds to the evidence that the paper wholeheartedly deserves that title.
The first story, written by reporters Mary Orndorff and Brett Blackledge, starts on the front page and goes to a mammoth jump on page 7A. In the second story, a solo effort by Blackledge, the News' Pulitizer-Prize winning reporter seems dumbfounded by the notion that Simpson's Congressional testimony might contain information that was not present in her affidavit.
Let's examine the front-page story first. The News' headline breathlessly tells us "Simpson says she got help drafting affidavit." And lead paragraph reads:
"A Republican lawyer who earlier said she wrote her own sworn statement suggesting White House influence in former Gov. Don Siegelman's prosecution testified last month that she received help from Siegelman supporters, and helped provide research for defense lawyers."
The reporters note that in her Congressional testimony, Simpson says Alabaster, AL, attorney John Aaron drafted the first version of her affidavit. They then pull this quote from a July 6 interview with Simpson: "And mind you, I did not sit down with anyone and prepare this. I prepared this myself."
Gotcha! the News seems to be saying. But wait. Several paragraphs later we learn this:
"Simpson testified that she asked Aaron to help her write her affidavit. He gave her a draft that she didn't like, she said, so she sat down with her secretary to write her own."
Let's repeat, according to the News itself, "she sat down . . . to write her own." In other words, she did it herself, just like she said all along.
And the News' is apoplectic about the notion that Simpson communicated at various times with Siegelman supporters and critics of current Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Is that news? I thought it was pretty well understood, and well reported, that she had talked with members of the Siegelman/Scrushy defense team. And is it surprising that Riley critics, such as Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate, might contact Simpson after hearing about her affidavit? Not surprising to me.
Since I started this blog a little over four months ago, I've heard from numerous people, both in and outside Alabama, who have stories about being cheated in courts. What's the old saying: The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Kindred spirits tend to connect, and said connection does nothing to cast doubt on Jill Simpson's credibility.
The second story is almost comical. Blackledge is spasmodic at the notion that Simpson's testimony included information not in her affidavit.
Let's see, the affidavit, as I recall, was three or four pages long. The transcript of her Congressional testimony is 140-something pages long. The affidavit, like most affidavits I'm aware of, was narrowly tailored to a specific event. In the testimony, she was responding to questions about a wide range of events. Are we really surprised that one might contain information that the other didn't.
I have a little personal knowledge in this area. I signed two or three affidavits in my own court case. I don't remember all of the details about how it worked, but I seem to recall writing a detailed e-mail to my attorney who put it into the form of a legal document. I went to his office, reviewed it, and when I was satisfied with its accuracy, signed it before a notary. It was my statement, but you could say I had "help" with it.
The opposing party in my case filed an affidavit, and I'll run naked down Highway 280 at rush hour if he wrote a single word of it. But he signed it, attesting to its accuracy, so I guess that's OK, whether he wrote it or not.
One final thought: The News spends 50-60 column inches questioning Jill Simpson's credibility, but what about some other hard questions they could be asking? Why has Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, not responded to Congressional requests for documents related to the Siegelman prosecution? What about the circumstances behind the fire at Ms. Simpson's home and the totaling of her vehicle? Has the News looked into that? What about Republican operative Dan Gans who, according to published reports, is suspected of electronically tampering with election results in the 2o02 governor's race? And has the News ever interviewed Auburn University professor James Gundlach about his paper that strongly suggests the results of the 2002 race were tainted? If they have, it escapes my memory. And given the recent attention Gundlach's work has received in national publications, you would think his home-state newspaper might see fit to interview him now.
Pravda of the South? If the shoe fits . . .
Mississippi Churning, Part XVII
Jury instructions regarding bribery (continued)
How did the defendants in the Paul Minor case get convicted in federal court based on state law?
Our first step is to recall that the two primary charges in the Minor case were federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud. Racketeering and conspiracy also were charged, but those are essentially spinoffs of the first two charges. The case revolved around bribery and mail fraud.
The "confusion" over federal and state law, I believe, arose from the honest-services mail fraud charges. (Remember that this charge often is central to corruption cases. Twenty of the 30-some charges in Alabama against Don Siegelman were for honest-services mail fraud; seven of the 14 charges in the Minor case were for mail fraud.)
Our second step is to understand that Mississippi is part of the Fifth U.S. Judicial Circuit, along with Louisiana and Texas. (Alabama is in the 11th Circuit, with Georgia and Florida.) Evidently the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has included some judges who are dedicated members of the Federalist Society because they came up with a dandy little opinion known as U.S. v. Brumley, 116 F. 3d 728 (1997).
I don't see a problem with the final result in the Brumley case. But the opinion itself is a truly lousy piece of judicial handiwork. (More later on what makes this opinion so wrongheaded.) But for now the key point is this: The Brumley court found that, in an honest-services mail fraud case under 18 U.S. Code 1346, the services in question "must be owed under state law and that the government must prove in a federal prosecution that they were in fact not delivered." The court went on to say, "The statute contemplates that there must first be a breach of a state-owed duty."
The Fifth Circuit parted with almost all other judicial circuits on this point. The Fifth-Circuit judges, in their deep-fried Southern thinking, evidently were concerned about the federal "gubmint" interfering with Dixie's corrupt public officials. In their Federalist Society minds, I think, Brumley struck a little blow in the "state's rights" war. (Forget, Hell!)
Rational judges in other circuits have pointed out that the Brumley ruling is pointless because it has long been held that the duty of honest services owed by government officials derives from fiduciary duties at common law. There was no reason for the Fifth-Circuit judges to get their Federalist panties all wadded up. But they did, and so we have the Brumley case in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi.
What did that mean in the Minor trial? A review of court documents shows that government lawyers in the case were high on Brumley. When you read the transcript, you can almost hear the chants, "State law! State law!"
And those chants found a receptive ear with Judge Wingate.
But here is a critical point: Brumley never said that a mail-fraud case must be based on a violation of state law. It said it must be based on a duty owed under state law. What did the court mean by that? It doesn't say. But it seems simple enough. The duties of a judge are clearly stated in Article 6, Section 155 of the Constitution of Mississippi.
So even Brumley, as poorly reasoned as it was, did not say anything about a violation of state law. But with the prosecution chanting "state law, state law," Wingate evidently decided, "Hey, that sounds good."
And why did the prosecutors seem so interested in state law? Well, they weren't thinking about honest-services mail fraud (the subject of the Brumley case). They were thinking about bribery. They knew, I feel certain, that's the charge that would resonate with the jury--particularly since Paul Minor was a wealthy Democrat, of all things. And they knew that Mississippi's state bribery law is more loosely worded than the federal statute (and case law) on bribery.
The state law can be found in Section 97-11-11 of Mississippi Code of 1972. It involves some mind-numbing legalese, but the key point is this: The state law does not require a quid pro quo in order to convict on bribery. As we've noted in a previous post, federal law most definitely does require a quid pro quo--a "something for something" transaction.
Why would prosecutors want to avoid the quid pro quo standard of federal law. Remember that federal law requires a "corrupt act." And an act is done corruptly "if it is done intentionally with an unlawful purpose."
What would that standard mean for the prosecution? It would mean determining the lawfulness, the correctness, of the judge's rulings in the underlying lawsuits. It would mean allowing expert witnesses who could easily show that the rulings were indeed lawful. And as we've already shown, Wingate wanted nothing to do with expert witnesses.
And so an idea was hatched. Take the "state duty" language of Brumley, morph it into "state law" language, and apply it not to honest-services mail fraud (where it started) but to bribery (where it would be most effective for the prosecution).
A neat switcheroo. And it worked. Three men were wrongly convicted because of it.
Think I'm nuts? Well, I've read major chunks of the trial transcript. And Wingate, after allowing extensive argument about the jury instructions, plainly says that he will write the instructions on his own. And what does he come up with? An instruction that he states is based on Mississippi's state bribery law. Even cites several examples of state case law from Mississippi.
The defendants' attorneys all objected to the bribery instruction, preserving the issue for appeal. But Wingate and the prosecution were of the same mind, regardless of what federal law says. This is one blogger who finds it hard to believe that was an accident.
How did the defendants in the Paul Minor case get convicted in federal court based on state law?
Our first step is to recall that the two primary charges in the Minor case were federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud. Racketeering and conspiracy also were charged, but those are essentially spinoffs of the first two charges. The case revolved around bribery and mail fraud.
The "confusion" over federal and state law, I believe, arose from the honest-services mail fraud charges. (Remember that this charge often is central to corruption cases. Twenty of the 30-some charges in Alabama against Don Siegelman were for honest-services mail fraud; seven of the 14 charges in the Minor case were for mail fraud.)
Our second step is to understand that Mississippi is part of the Fifth U.S. Judicial Circuit, along with Louisiana and Texas. (Alabama is in the 11th Circuit, with Georgia and Florida.) Evidently the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has included some judges who are dedicated members of the Federalist Society because they came up with a dandy little opinion known as U.S. v. Brumley, 116 F. 3d 728 (1997).
I don't see a problem with the final result in the Brumley case. But the opinion itself is a truly lousy piece of judicial handiwork. (More later on what makes this opinion so wrongheaded.) But for now the key point is this: The Brumley court found that, in an honest-services mail fraud case under 18 U.S. Code 1346, the services in question "must be owed under state law and that the government must prove in a federal prosecution that they were in fact not delivered." The court went on to say, "The statute contemplates that there must first be a breach of a state-owed duty."
The Fifth Circuit parted with almost all other judicial circuits on this point. The Fifth-Circuit judges, in their deep-fried Southern thinking, evidently were concerned about the federal "gubmint" interfering with Dixie's corrupt public officials. In their Federalist Society minds, I think, Brumley struck a little blow in the "state's rights" war. (Forget, Hell!)
Rational judges in other circuits have pointed out that the Brumley ruling is pointless because it has long been held that the duty of honest services owed by government officials derives from fiduciary duties at common law. There was no reason for the Fifth-Circuit judges to get their Federalist panties all wadded up. But they did, and so we have the Brumley case in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi.
What did that mean in the Minor trial? A review of court documents shows that government lawyers in the case were high on Brumley. When you read the transcript, you can almost hear the chants, "State law! State law!"
And those chants found a receptive ear with Judge Wingate.
But here is a critical point: Brumley never said that a mail-fraud case must be based on a violation of state law. It said it must be based on a duty owed under state law. What did the court mean by that? It doesn't say. But it seems simple enough. The duties of a judge are clearly stated in Article 6, Section 155 of the Constitution of Mississippi.
So even Brumley, as poorly reasoned as it was, did not say anything about a violation of state law. But with the prosecution chanting "state law, state law," Wingate evidently decided, "Hey, that sounds good."
And why did the prosecutors seem so interested in state law? Well, they weren't thinking about honest-services mail fraud (the subject of the Brumley case). They were thinking about bribery. They knew, I feel certain, that's the charge that would resonate with the jury--particularly since Paul Minor was a wealthy Democrat, of all things. And they knew that Mississippi's state bribery law is more loosely worded than the federal statute (and case law) on bribery.
The state law can be found in Section 97-11-11 of Mississippi Code of 1972. It involves some mind-numbing legalese, but the key point is this: The state law does not require a quid pro quo in order to convict on bribery. As we've noted in a previous post, federal law most definitely does require a quid pro quo--a "something for something" transaction.
Why would prosecutors want to avoid the quid pro quo standard of federal law. Remember that federal law requires a "corrupt act." And an act is done corruptly "if it is done intentionally with an unlawful purpose."
What would that standard mean for the prosecution? It would mean determining the lawfulness, the correctness, of the judge's rulings in the underlying lawsuits. It would mean allowing expert witnesses who could easily show that the rulings were indeed lawful. And as we've already shown, Wingate wanted nothing to do with expert witnesses.
And so an idea was hatched. Take the "state duty" language of Brumley, morph it into "state law" language, and apply it not to honest-services mail fraud (where it started) but to bribery (where it would be most effective for the prosecution).
A neat switcheroo. And it worked. Three men were wrongly convicted because of it.
Think I'm nuts? Well, I've read major chunks of the trial transcript. And Wingate, after allowing extensive argument about the jury instructions, plainly says that he will write the instructions on his own. And what does he come up with? An instruction that he states is based on Mississippi's state bribery law. Even cites several examples of state case law from Mississippi.
The defendants' attorneys all objected to the bribery instruction, preserving the issue for appeal. But Wingate and the prosecution were of the same mind, regardless of what federal law says. This is one blogger who finds it hard to believe that was an accident.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XVI
Jury instructions regarding bribery (continued)
In the previous post in our Mississippi Churning series, we noted that the defendants in the Paul Minor case apparently were convicted in federal court on jury instructions that were based on state law.
You don't need a degree from Harvard Law School to know that shouldn't happen. My research indicates it wasn't an accident. That raises serious questions about U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate's handling of the Minor trial. And it adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the Minor case was a "political hit," similar to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama that is the subject of a Congressional investigation.
So far, the Congressional investigation is focusing on the Siegelman case, the Georgia Thompson case (Wisconsin), and the Cyril Wecht case (Pennsylvania). My knowledge of those three cases is not perfect. But my research on the Minor case makes me think it might be the most flagrant political hit of them all.
Here's why. If attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted in federal court on jury instructions grounded in state law, how wrongheaded is that?
Consider this scenario: You are at a basketball game, and a player gets the ball right under the basket and hits a layup. The official signals that the basket is good for three points. The opposing coach goes berserk and hollers at the ref: "What the heck is going on?" The ref pulls a rule book out of his pocket and shows the coach: "See, a field goal is worth three points." The coach is beside himself. "That's a football rule book, you ding dong. A field goal is worth three points in football. This is a sport we know as basketball. A field goal in our sport--at least one made from way inside the three-point line--is worth two points." "Hey, I'm in charge here," the ref says. "Sit down and shut up."
The legal equivalent of that scenario appears to have happened in the Paul Minor case. All the evidence I've seen indicates that the defendants had excellent attorneys. I suspect they knew they were being railroaded. But if you argue too vociferously with a basketball official, you get thrown out of the game. You argue too vociferously with a judge, you get thrown in jail.
Remember the old Saturday Night Live routine with Dan Aykroyd: "Jane, you ignorant slut." Try that line on a judge, and he or she is not likely to be amused.
How could federal and state law get mixed up in a high-profile case like the Paul Minor trial? you might ask. Henry Wingate is a federal judge; he couldn't be that dumb.
It's not a matter of being dumb. You can read the trial transcript and quickly see that Judge Wingate has a keen intellect. And it's possible that in many of his cases, he has acted in a lawful and honorable way. But we live in an era where the Bush Justice Department, and people who think like the people who run the Bush Justice Department, are in charge. These people have an agenda, and they will not let quaint concepts like the law and justice and right and wrong get in the way.
In my own case, in Alabama state courts, Republican judges made rulings that were every bit as absurd as the one made by the basketball official above. In fact, in my very first post on this blog, I used a sports analogy to illustrate just how blatantly corrupt these judges were.
They clearly had an agenda. And I see no reason to think that Judge Henry Wingate, if the proper amount of pressure or incentive were applied, couldn't have an agenda too--and act on it.
What is the agenda of these true believers of the GOP? It is to take out and ruin key people who have an agenda that differs from their own. In Alabama, one such person, a person with political clout, was Don Siegelman. In Mississippi, one such person, a person with financial clout, was Paul Minor. Both now are in federal prison. And people like Richard Scrushy (in Alabama) and Wes Teel and John Whitfield (in Mississippi) got caught in the crossfire--collateral damage, if you will.
So, enough theory and philosophy from your humble Schnauzer. Let's get back to the nuts and bolts of the Paul Minor case, particularly the issue of alleged federal crimes and misused state law.
The story behind this little mishap takes some twists and turns. But hang in there with me. I think you will find it interesting. It's a classic example of how a judge can cause a "jury of your peers" to find you guilty of a crime you didn't commit at all.
In the previous post in our Mississippi Churning series, we noted that the defendants in the Paul Minor case apparently were convicted in federal court on jury instructions that were based on state law.
You don't need a degree from Harvard Law School to know that shouldn't happen. My research indicates it wasn't an accident. That raises serious questions about U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate's handling of the Minor trial. And it adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting that the Minor case was a "political hit," similar to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama that is the subject of a Congressional investigation.
So far, the Congressional investigation is focusing on the Siegelman case, the Georgia Thompson case (Wisconsin), and the Cyril Wecht case (Pennsylvania). My knowledge of those three cases is not perfect. But my research on the Minor case makes me think it might be the most flagrant political hit of them all.
Here's why. If attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted in federal court on jury instructions grounded in state law, how wrongheaded is that?
Consider this scenario: You are at a basketball game, and a player gets the ball right under the basket and hits a layup. The official signals that the basket is good for three points. The opposing coach goes berserk and hollers at the ref: "What the heck is going on?" The ref pulls a rule book out of his pocket and shows the coach: "See, a field goal is worth three points." The coach is beside himself. "That's a football rule book, you ding dong. A field goal is worth three points in football. This is a sport we know as basketball. A field goal in our sport--at least one made from way inside the three-point line--is worth two points." "Hey, I'm in charge here," the ref says. "Sit down and shut up."
The legal equivalent of that scenario appears to have happened in the Paul Minor case. All the evidence I've seen indicates that the defendants had excellent attorneys. I suspect they knew they were being railroaded. But if you argue too vociferously with a basketball official, you get thrown out of the game. You argue too vociferously with a judge, you get thrown in jail.
Remember the old Saturday Night Live routine with Dan Aykroyd: "Jane, you ignorant slut." Try that line on a judge, and he or she is not likely to be amused.
How could federal and state law get mixed up in a high-profile case like the Paul Minor trial? you might ask. Henry Wingate is a federal judge; he couldn't be that dumb.
It's not a matter of being dumb. You can read the trial transcript and quickly see that Judge Wingate has a keen intellect. And it's possible that in many of his cases, he has acted in a lawful and honorable way. But we live in an era where the Bush Justice Department, and people who think like the people who run the Bush Justice Department, are in charge. These people have an agenda, and they will not let quaint concepts like the law and justice and right and wrong get in the way.
In my own case, in Alabama state courts, Republican judges made rulings that were every bit as absurd as the one made by the basketball official above. In fact, in my very first post on this blog, I used a sports analogy to illustrate just how blatantly corrupt these judges were.
They clearly had an agenda. And I see no reason to think that Judge Henry Wingate, if the proper amount of pressure or incentive were applied, couldn't have an agenda too--and act on it.
What is the agenda of these true believers of the GOP? It is to take out and ruin key people who have an agenda that differs from their own. In Alabama, one such person, a person with political clout, was Don Siegelman. In Mississippi, one such person, a person with financial clout, was Paul Minor. Both now are in federal prison. And people like Richard Scrushy (in Alabama) and Wes Teel and John Whitfield (in Mississippi) got caught in the crossfire--collateral damage, if you will.
So, enough theory and philosophy from your humble Schnauzer. Let's get back to the nuts and bolts of the Paul Minor case, particularly the issue of alleged federal crimes and misused state law.
The story behind this little mishap takes some twists and turns. But hang in there with me. I think you will find it interesting. It's a classic example of how a judge can cause a "jury of your peers" to find you guilty of a crime you didn't commit at all.
Spotlight Shines on Minor Case
Adam Cohen writes about the Paul Minor case in today's editorial section of The New York Times.
Cohen notes some of the key issues, and alarming ironies, involved in the Minor case. "Mississippi's loose campaign finance laws allow lawyers and companies to contribute heavily to the judges they appear before. That is terrible for justice, since the courts are teeming with perfectly legal conflicts of interest. It also creates an ideal climate for partisan selective prosecution. Since everyone is making contributions and nurturing friendships that look questionable, a prosecutor can haul any lawyer and judge he doesn't like before a grand jury and charge corruption."
Cohen draws connections between the Minor case and the Don Siegelman (Alabama) and Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin) prosecutions. Like Siegelman, Minor was tried twice. The first time around, Minor beat many of the charges, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on others. "Federal prosecutors went after him again, and this time Mr. Minor was convicted on vague allegations of trying to get 'an unfair advantage' from judges--the very thing Mississippi's lax campaign finance laws are set up to allow.
"The case fits a familiar pattern. The corruption Mr. Minor was charged with was disturbingly vague, as it was with Ms. Thompson, whose only 'crime' was awarding a contract to the lowest bidder, and Mr. Siegelman, who was convicted for fairly routine political behavior."
Cohen notes the curious timing of the prosecutions. The first Minor prosecution came as Governor Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, was running for re-election against Republican Haley Barbour. "Republicans spent heavily to tie Mr. Musgrove to Mr. Minor, and Mr. Musgrove was defeated," Cohen writes.
In Wisconsin, Thompson's trial coincided with Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's re-election campaign, with Republicans linking Thompson to Doyle. And Siegelman's prosecution looks like it was timed to prevent him from becoming governor again.
"Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and many other key players in the United States attorneys scandal are gone," Cohen writes. "But Congress has a lot more work to do in uncovering the damage they have done to the justice system."
Cohen notes some of the key issues, and alarming ironies, involved in the Minor case. "Mississippi's loose campaign finance laws allow lawyers and companies to contribute heavily to the judges they appear before. That is terrible for justice, since the courts are teeming with perfectly legal conflicts of interest. It also creates an ideal climate for partisan selective prosecution. Since everyone is making contributions and nurturing friendships that look questionable, a prosecutor can haul any lawyer and judge he doesn't like before a grand jury and charge corruption."
Cohen draws connections between the Minor case and the Don Siegelman (Alabama) and Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin) prosecutions. Like Siegelman, Minor was tried twice. The first time around, Minor beat many of the charges, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on others. "Federal prosecutors went after him again, and this time Mr. Minor was convicted on vague allegations of trying to get 'an unfair advantage' from judges--the very thing Mississippi's lax campaign finance laws are set up to allow.
"The case fits a familiar pattern. The corruption Mr. Minor was charged with was disturbingly vague, as it was with Ms. Thompson, whose only 'crime' was awarding a contract to the lowest bidder, and Mr. Siegelman, who was convicted for fairly routine political behavior."
Cohen notes the curious timing of the prosecutions. The first Minor prosecution came as Governor Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, was running for re-election against Republican Haley Barbour. "Republicans spent heavily to tie Mr. Musgrove to Mr. Minor, and Mr. Musgrove was defeated," Cohen writes.
In Wisconsin, Thompson's trial coincided with Democratic Governor Jim Doyle's re-election campaign, with Republicans linking Thompson to Doyle. And Siegelman's prosecution looks like it was timed to prevent him from becoming governor again.
"Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and many other key players in the United States attorneys scandal are gone," Cohen writes. "But Congress has a lot more work to do in uncovering the damage they have done to the justice system."
All Roads Lead to Rove
The release of the transcript of Jill Simpson's testimony before Congressional attorneys provides even more evidence to show that White House strategist Karl Rove was at the heart of political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department, with the Don Siegelman case front and center.
Adam Zagorin, of Time magazine, has a second major report on GOP machinations in Alabama, and Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that Zagorin's piece adds to a mountain of evidence that has been pointing to Rove for some time.
"The external evidence perfectly matches the allegations--the vigor of the prosecutorial inquiry was measured perfectly to whether Siegelman was going to contest the GOP's grip on the Alabama statehouse," Horton writes. "Moreover, Karl Rove's fingerprints are now well documented, and they are all over the Siegelman case."
Horton goes on to point out the pivotal role certain Alabama newspapers have played in trying to counter the Simpson testimony. "We should also consider the role played by The Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register in this entire affair, including their reporting the last couple of days. Given these recent revelations it seems to me that these papers were active participants in the coverup and the original plan to take down Siegelman."
So what does Simpson's testimony mean? "For months, the Alabama Republican machine has attempted to brush off claims about Rove's involvement as some sort of fantastic speculation," Horton writes. "Those efforts have just been exploded. We are one step closer to understanding why Karl Rove left the White House, and perhaps also why Alberto Gonzalez stepped down as attorney general. The Siegelman case is emerging, as we predicted, as the most damning exhibit yet in the story of the Bush Administration's use of the Justice Department as a partisan political tool."
A key word in that last sentence, I think, is "yet." As more and more information comes out about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, I think we will see it rival the Siegelman case as the most flagrant example of a "political hit" by the Bush DOJ.
We turn to the Minor case next.
Adam Zagorin, of Time magazine, has a second major report on GOP machinations in Alabama, and Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that Zagorin's piece adds to a mountain of evidence that has been pointing to Rove for some time.
"The external evidence perfectly matches the allegations--the vigor of the prosecutorial inquiry was measured perfectly to whether Siegelman was going to contest the GOP's grip on the Alabama statehouse," Horton writes. "Moreover, Karl Rove's fingerprints are now well documented, and they are all over the Siegelman case."
Horton goes on to point out the pivotal role certain Alabama newspapers have played in trying to counter the Simpson testimony. "We should also consider the role played by The Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register in this entire affair, including their reporting the last couple of days. Given these recent revelations it seems to me that these papers were active participants in the coverup and the original plan to take down Siegelman."
So what does Simpson's testimony mean? "For months, the Alabama Republican machine has attempted to brush off claims about Rove's involvement as some sort of fantastic speculation," Horton writes. "Those efforts have just been exploded. We are one step closer to understanding why Karl Rove left the White House, and perhaps also why Alberto Gonzalez stepped down as attorney general. The Siegelman case is emerging, as we predicted, as the most damning exhibit yet in the story of the Bush Administration's use of the Justice Department as a partisan political tool."
A key word in that last sentence, I think, is "yet." As more and more information comes out about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, I think we will see it rival the Siegelman case as the most flagrant example of a "political hit" by the Bush DOJ.
We turn to the Minor case next.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Jill Simpson: On the Record
The full transcript of Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson before Congressional lawyers was released today. Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, highlights key points in Simpson's testimony, outlining the role of Karl Rove, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, and Riley's son Rob, in the prosecution of Don Siegelman.
One question that comes to the Schnauzer's mind: Does Simpson's testimony add significant evidence to support the idea that the 2002 gubernatorial election in Alabama was stolen? Will Congress take a closer look at that issue and the paper written by Auburn University professor James Gundlach, which strongly indicates that computer handiwork was used to change the election results?
Time magazine is following up its original story, with another piece, this time focusing on Karl Rove's involvement in the Siegelman case.
One question that comes to the Schnauzer's mind: Does Simpson's testimony add significant evidence to support the idea that the 2002 gubernatorial election in Alabama was stolen? Will Congress take a closer look at that issue and the paper written by Auburn University professor James Gundlach, which strongly indicates that computer handiwork was used to change the election results?
Time magazine is following up its original story, with another piece, this time focusing on Karl Rove's involvement in the Siegelman case.
Exposing the GOP Slime Machine
Part of the transcript of Dana Jill Simpson's testimony before Congressional lawyers was leaked yesterday, and it is a historic document. Simpson exposes the sleaze and depravity at the heart of Republican politics in Alabama, and she does it in a way that has never been done before.
It surely pained the honchos at The Birmingham News to report this story. In fact, they never explain how they obtained an advance copy of the transcript. But Simpson's testimony about the machinations behind the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman evidently provided a stench so strong that even the News could not ignore it.
Actually, as we will see in a bit, the News' coverage probably is an attempt to slant the news rather than report it.
Key points from Simpson's sworn testimony:
* Rob Riley, the son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, told her that Siegelman ended his challenge of Bob Riley's gubernatorial victory in 2002 after receiving assurances that "they would not further prosecute him with the Justice Department." Excuse me while I vomit. And does this not qualify as extortion?
* Bob Riley met with White House strategist Karl Rove about the Siegelman prosecution.
* Rob Riley had frequent contact with Rove.
* Rob Riley and others discussed Rove's direct involvement in the Siegelman prosecution.
* Rob Riley told her in early 2005 that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller would "hang Don Siegelman."
* Rob Riley told her that he knew Fuller was going to get the Siegelman case nine months before an indictment came down.
* Rob Riley told her in early 2005 that "they had come up with an idea to prosecute Don Siegelman with Richard Scrushy" after the initial charges against Siegelman were dropped. Riley told Simpson it was a good idea because "nobody likes Richard Scrushy, and he thought that would ensure a conviction for Don Siegelman."
* I had to guffaw at this: Caroline Lynch, a lawyer for committee Republicans, asked Simpson why she wouldn't take such serious charges to someone, like the Alabama State Bar. Are you kidding me? Lynch obviously doesn't know a thing about the Alabama State Bar. It's pretty much a worthless outfit, and the chances of the State Bar actually taking action on something this explosive? Virtually nil. Heck, I've sent the State Bar information about an attorney with a 30-year record of unethical behavior, and my new information included clear evidence of federal crimes. Did the State Bar do anything? Sent me a letter saying they wouldn't even investigate. Lynch is either disingenuous, clueless, or a little of both.
An effort naturally is under way to discredit Simpson. Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal reports that the entire transcript was supposed to be released today. But portions of it were leaked by Republican committee members to certain news organizations, evidently in an effort to discredit Simpson. The leak violated terms of an agreement Simpson had with the committee.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, saw the leak coming and does his usual splendid job of taking apart the News' slanted reporting.
It surely pained the honchos at The Birmingham News to report this story. In fact, they never explain how they obtained an advance copy of the transcript. But Simpson's testimony about the machinations behind the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman evidently provided a stench so strong that even the News could not ignore it.
Actually, as we will see in a bit, the News' coverage probably is an attempt to slant the news rather than report it.
Key points from Simpson's sworn testimony:
* Rob Riley, the son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, told her that Siegelman ended his challenge of Bob Riley's gubernatorial victory in 2002 after receiving assurances that "they would not further prosecute him with the Justice Department." Excuse me while I vomit. And does this not qualify as extortion?
* Bob Riley met with White House strategist Karl Rove about the Siegelman prosecution.
* Rob Riley had frequent contact with Rove.
* Rob Riley and others discussed Rove's direct involvement in the Siegelman prosecution.
* Rob Riley told her in early 2005 that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller would "hang Don Siegelman."
* Rob Riley told her that he knew Fuller was going to get the Siegelman case nine months before an indictment came down.
* Rob Riley told her in early 2005 that "they had come up with an idea to prosecute Don Siegelman with Richard Scrushy" after the initial charges against Siegelman were dropped. Riley told Simpson it was a good idea because "nobody likes Richard Scrushy, and he thought that would ensure a conviction for Don Siegelman."
* I had to guffaw at this: Caroline Lynch, a lawyer for committee Republicans, asked Simpson why she wouldn't take such serious charges to someone, like the Alabama State Bar. Are you kidding me? Lynch obviously doesn't know a thing about the Alabama State Bar. It's pretty much a worthless outfit, and the chances of the State Bar actually taking action on something this explosive? Virtually nil. Heck, I've sent the State Bar information about an attorney with a 30-year record of unethical behavior, and my new information included clear evidence of federal crimes. Did the State Bar do anything? Sent me a letter saying they wouldn't even investigate. Lynch is either disingenuous, clueless, or a little of both.
An effort naturally is under way to discredit Simpson. Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal reports that the entire transcript was supposed to be released today. But portions of it were leaked by Republican committee members to certain news organizations, evidently in an effort to discredit Simpson. The leak violated terms of an agreement Simpson had with the committee.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, saw the leak coming and does his usual splendid job of taking apart the News' slanted reporting.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XV
In our previous post in the "Mississippi Churning" serious, we examined U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate's numerous strange decisions, rulings that virtually ensured that attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield would be convicted. We return to the subject of Judge Wingate:
Expert witnesses (continued)
Wingate did not allow expert witnesses to testify for the defense, and that alone, might have ensured a conviction. It's tough to win a criminal case, when you are not allowed to defend yourself, when the single most critical point in the government's case against you goes unrebutted. And that's what happened in the Minor case, thanks to Wingate.
Was Wingate's decision to bar expert testimony grounded in law? It's hard to see how? The Federal Rules of Evidence indicate that courts should be welcoming of opinion evidence. Regarding Rule 704, the notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules states: "The basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, in these rules is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact."
This certainly does not mean that any gooberhead should be allowed to give an opinion in court. But the two primary expert witnesses the defense planned to call had an almost combined 80 years of experience in their specialty areas.
How desperate was Wingate to ensure that these two witnesses did not testify? He said both would run afoul of Rule 704(b), which has to do with opinions about a criminal defendant's mental state. On one of the witnesses, Al Hopkins, Wingate did not give a reason for saying there were 704(b) problems. On the other, Jim George, Wingate said he was rejecting the testimony because it would involve opinions about the "mental impressions" of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Yes, you heard that right. Just how warped was Wingate's reasoning? We know that Rule 704(b) applies to opinions about the mental state of criminal defendants. In George's case, he was to testify about defendant judge John Whitfield, showing that Whitfield's rulings were correct under the law. George was not to testify about Whitfield's mental state, but at least Whitfield was a criminal defendant. Had the judge cited "mental impressions" regarding Whitfield, he would have been in the right ballpark. But the Mississippi Supreme Court, a criminal defendant? That ballpark is somewhere on Jupiter.
So regarding the rejection of expert testimony for the defense, we are left with this question: Is Henry Wingate incompetent or is he corrupt?
Jury instructions regarding bribery
We noted in an earlier post that the process used to develop jury instructions is convoluted, baffling, and downright ineffective. That certainly was the case in the Paul Minor prosecution. And nowhere were jury instructions more critical than in the area of bribery.
The defendants were charged with federal-funds bribery under 18 U.S. Code 666. In our post, "Bribery: A Primer," we outlined the elements of the offense. According to U.S. v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150 (1993) and numerous other federal cases, the heart of the offense is a quid pro quo. That means there was a "something for something" transaction at the heart of the crime.
But here is a critical portion of Wingate's jury instructions on bribery:
"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."
In plain English, Wingate instructed the jury that the defendants could be found guilty of bribery even if there was no quid pro quo. This clearly is contrary to federal law.
So where did Wingate come up with this? In Mississippi state law. And who pushed this idea on him? The government prosecutors, of course. And who were they working for? The Bush Department of Justice.
I can hear some of you now. "Schnauzer, you mean to tell me that the defendants were charged with federal bribery, in federal court, but they were convicted based on a jury instruction from Mississippi state law? Surely you can't be serious!"
Yes, I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
Need proof? That's coming up.
Expert witnesses (continued)
Wingate did not allow expert witnesses to testify for the defense, and that alone, might have ensured a conviction. It's tough to win a criminal case, when you are not allowed to defend yourself, when the single most critical point in the government's case against you goes unrebutted. And that's what happened in the Minor case, thanks to Wingate.
Was Wingate's decision to bar expert testimony grounded in law? It's hard to see how? The Federal Rules of Evidence indicate that courts should be welcoming of opinion evidence. Regarding Rule 704, the notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules states: "The basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, in these rules is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact."
This certainly does not mean that any gooberhead should be allowed to give an opinion in court. But the two primary expert witnesses the defense planned to call had an almost combined 80 years of experience in their specialty areas.
How desperate was Wingate to ensure that these two witnesses did not testify? He said both would run afoul of Rule 704(b), which has to do with opinions about a criminal defendant's mental state. On one of the witnesses, Al Hopkins, Wingate did not give a reason for saying there were 704(b) problems. On the other, Jim George, Wingate said he was rejecting the testimony because it would involve opinions about the "mental impressions" of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Yes, you heard that right. Just how warped was Wingate's reasoning? We know that Rule 704(b) applies to opinions about the mental state of criminal defendants. In George's case, he was to testify about defendant judge John Whitfield, showing that Whitfield's rulings were correct under the law. George was not to testify about Whitfield's mental state, but at least Whitfield was a criminal defendant. Had the judge cited "mental impressions" regarding Whitfield, he would have been in the right ballpark. But the Mississippi Supreme Court, a criminal defendant? That ballpark is somewhere on Jupiter.
So regarding the rejection of expert testimony for the defense, we are left with this question: Is Henry Wingate incompetent or is he corrupt?
Jury instructions regarding bribery
We noted in an earlier post that the process used to develop jury instructions is convoluted, baffling, and downright ineffective. That certainly was the case in the Paul Minor prosecution. And nowhere were jury instructions more critical than in the area of bribery.
The defendants were charged with federal-funds bribery under 18 U.S. Code 666. In our post, "Bribery: A Primer," we outlined the elements of the offense. According to U.S. v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150 (1993) and numerous other federal cases, the heart of the offense is a quid pro quo. That means there was a "something for something" transaction at the heart of the crime.
But here is a critical portion of Wingate's jury instructions on bribery:
"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."
In plain English, Wingate instructed the jury that the defendants could be found guilty of bribery even if there was no quid pro quo. This clearly is contrary to federal law.
So where did Wingate come up with this? In Mississippi state law. And who pushed this idea on him? The government prosecutors, of course. And who were they working for? The Bush Department of Justice.
I can hear some of you now. "Schnauzer, you mean to tell me that the defendants were charged with federal bribery, in federal court, but they were convicted based on a jury instruction from Mississippi state law? Surely you can't be serious!"
Yes, I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
Need proof? That's coming up.
Siegelman Case in the Spotlight
Lots of news today related to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman:
Simpson and 60 Minutes
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that 60 Minutes has interviewed Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson about her role in exposing the political nature of the Siegelman prosecution. Federal prison officials evidently are refusing to allow an on-camera interview with Siegelman. One wonders if Leura Canary will go on camera to explain her "recusal" and her refusal to turn over documents to Congress.
Sacking Sessions?
The Alabama Democratic Party says U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) should recuse himself from any investigation into the Siegelman case and possible selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. The Democrats' statement comes in the wake of Time magazine's revelations that Alabama developer Lanny Young, a key witness in the Siegelman prosecution, made illegal contributions to Sessions and fellow Alabama Republican Bill Pryor. Here is Glynn Wilson's take on the story.
Going Around Fuller
Siegelman's attorneys have filed a response to U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller's ruling denying Siegelman's release from federal prison pending appeal. The response alleges that Fuller failed to act according to instructions from the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Here is Glynn Wilson's take, along with the complete Siegelman response.
What Money Laundering?
Laura McGann, of TPM Muckraker, has this incredulous take on the response of Siegelman prosecutors to Time's revelations about illegal contributions to prominent Republicans. The allegations, if proven true, would amount to money laundering, according to Time. McGann notes the "see-no-evil" approach federal prosecutors seem to be taking to possible wrongdoing by Republicans.
Simpson and 60 Minutes
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that 60 Minutes has interviewed Alabama attorney Dana Jill Simpson about her role in exposing the political nature of the Siegelman prosecution. Federal prison officials evidently are refusing to allow an on-camera interview with Siegelman. One wonders if Leura Canary will go on camera to explain her "recusal" and her refusal to turn over documents to Congress.
Sacking Sessions?
The Alabama Democratic Party says U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) should recuse himself from any investigation into the Siegelman case and possible selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. The Democrats' statement comes in the wake of Time magazine's revelations that Alabama developer Lanny Young, a key witness in the Siegelman prosecution, made illegal contributions to Sessions and fellow Alabama Republican Bill Pryor. Here is Glynn Wilson's take on the story.
Going Around Fuller
Siegelman's attorneys have filed a response to U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller's ruling denying Siegelman's release from federal prison pending appeal. The response alleges that Fuller failed to act according to instructions from the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Here is Glynn Wilson's take, along with the complete Siegelman response.
What Money Laundering?
Laura McGann, of TPM Muckraker, has this incredulous take on the response of Siegelman prosecutors to Time's revelations about illegal contributions to prominent Republicans. The allegations, if proven true, would amount to money laundering, according to Time. McGann notes the "see-no-evil" approach federal prosecutors seem to be taking to possible wrongdoing by Republicans.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Teflon Bob Sweepstakes
We get too serious on this blog sometimes. (OK, we're too serious almost all of the time.) But let's correct that by having a contest.
We will base our contest on the following press release, in which the Alabama Democratic Party helpfully points out that Governor Bob Riley has packed Alabama's Joint Patriotic Immigration Commission with his own major contributors. M.J. Ellington, of the Decatur Daily, provides solid coverage on the issue.
The gist of the story: Four of Riley's seven appointments, including the group's chairman, gave at least $390,000 in campaign contributions (personally or through PACs and lobbyists) to Riley since 2005. Even a Republican member of the commission, Scott Beason of Gardendale, admitted that "special interests" had figured out a way to take over the group.
I'm sure this question might have occurred to some of you: How is Riley's appointment of these contributors to a state board different from Don Siegelman's appointment of contributor Richard Scrushy to a state board?
One difference: Siegelman is in federal prison because of his appointment, and Riley remains the Teflon governor. But there we go getting serious again.
So here's our contest. Which will happen first: The Bush DOJ investigating Bob Riley and his stacked immigration commission or the total melting of the polar icecaps?
Cast your votes now, and the winner will receive . . . hmmm, we might have a problem with our prize. The Legal Schnauzer is rather poor at the moment, thanks to corrupt Republican judges in Alabama.
But how about this for a prize? Dinner (or lunch or breakfast) for two at the Steak 'n Shake in fashionable Prattville, AL. Having been bred in the Midwest, the Schnauzer is a huge fan of Steak 'n Shake. For those of you who are not familiar with this classic of the heartland, you can learn more here.
The company now is based in Indianapolis. But it started in Normal, IL, and my wife and I had the good fortune of eating at the very first Steak 'n Shake a few years ago before it met the wrecking ball.
How good is Steak 'n Shake. My wife would probably tell you that the best thing about being married to me (maybe the only good thing) is that I grew up in a town with a Steak 'n Shake. When we go back to my hometown, she couldn't care less about seeing my family. (Can't say I blame her; bunch of right wingers.) She just wants to go to one of the Steak 'n Shakes, particularly the one with the old-timey classic decor.
For mysterious reasons, Birmingham has never been graced with a Steak 'n Shake. But rumor has it that is about to change. If it does, it will be the best thing to hit our fair city since Gene Bartow brought us athletics at UAB.
So there's the prize. Maybe I'll write a government grant to see if someone will pay for it. You know how we Democrats are? Always looking for a handout from big government.
We will base our contest on the following press release, in which the Alabama Democratic Party helpfully points out that Governor Bob Riley has packed Alabama's Joint Patriotic Immigration Commission with his own major contributors. M.J. Ellington, of the Decatur Daily, provides solid coverage on the issue.
The gist of the story: Four of Riley's seven appointments, including the group's chairman, gave at least $390,000 in campaign contributions (personally or through PACs and lobbyists) to Riley since 2005. Even a Republican member of the commission, Scott Beason of Gardendale, admitted that "special interests" had figured out a way to take over the group.
I'm sure this question might have occurred to some of you: How is Riley's appointment of these contributors to a state board different from Don Siegelman's appointment of contributor Richard Scrushy to a state board?
One difference: Siegelman is in federal prison because of his appointment, and Riley remains the Teflon governor. But there we go getting serious again.
So here's our contest. Which will happen first: The Bush DOJ investigating Bob Riley and his stacked immigration commission or the total melting of the polar icecaps?
Cast your votes now, and the winner will receive . . . hmmm, we might have a problem with our prize. The Legal Schnauzer is rather poor at the moment, thanks to corrupt Republican judges in Alabama.
But how about this for a prize? Dinner (or lunch or breakfast) for two at the Steak 'n Shake in fashionable Prattville, AL. Having been bred in the Midwest, the Schnauzer is a huge fan of Steak 'n Shake. For those of you who are not familiar with this classic of the heartland, you can learn more here.
The company now is based in Indianapolis. But it started in Normal, IL, and my wife and I had the good fortune of eating at the very first Steak 'n Shake a few years ago before it met the wrecking ball.
How good is Steak 'n Shake. My wife would probably tell you that the best thing about being married to me (maybe the only good thing) is that I grew up in a town with a Steak 'n Shake. When we go back to my hometown, she couldn't care less about seeing my family. (Can't say I blame her; bunch of right wingers.) She just wants to go to one of the Steak 'n Shakes, particularly the one with the old-timey classic decor.
For mysterious reasons, Birmingham has never been graced with a Steak 'n Shake. But rumor has it that is about to change. If it does, it will be the best thing to hit our fair city since Gene Bartow brought us athletics at UAB.
So there's the prize. Maybe I'll write a government grant to see if someone will pay for it. You know how we Democrats are? Always looking for a handout from big government.
Bob Riley and Quid Pro Quo
The current issue of Time magazine has a major story about the Bush Justice Department and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The article, in the country's premier newsweekly, has understandably put the prosecution team on the defensive.
One point, made by prosecutor Steve Feaga, jumps out at the Legal Schnauzer. Feaga struggles to explain why allegations by witness Lanny Young against Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor were ignored while those against Siegelman, a Democrat, were taken with the utmost seriousness. That sure as heck sounds like selective prosecution, the subject of a Congressional investigation.
But wait, there is an explanation.
Acording to Feaga, Young never claimed to get anything in return for the contributions to Sessions and Pryor while he did make such allegations about Siegelman. "At the time Lanny was detailing having made contributions to other public officials, he characterized these contributions as legitimate. There was no understanding he would get something for them," Feaga says.
Hmmm. Feaga is saying there was no quid pro quo in the Sessions and Pryor cases, but there was in the Siegelman case.
Quid pro quo is a Latin term meaning "something for something." If a quid pro quo was not present in the Sessions and Pryor cases, I know of a case involving a Republican where one clearly was involved.
I'm talking about the well-known biotech deal in Huntsville, engineered by Alabama Governor Bob Riley. That case certainly involved something (a nice campaign contribution for Teflon Bob) for something (scads of state money for a biotech center in Huntsville, bypassing the state's biomedical center in Birmingham at UAB).
Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo, there's a quid pro quo. Somebody call Steve Feaga and his compadre Louis Franklin. I'm sure they will jump right on this case.
And by the way, talk about a double standard with the Bush DOJ. In Alabama, the Bushies are extremely concerned about the lack of a quid pro quo when charges are leveled at Republicans. In Mississippi, in the Paul Minor prosecution, Democrats were prosecuted and convicted even though a quid pro quo clearly did not exist. In fact, the jury instructions specifically told jurors that a quid pro quo did not have to exist.
I kid you not, and we will be laying this out in detail in the coming days.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about state courts, where the law in Alabama might differ from that in Mississippi. We're talking about federal court, under the big top. And yet one standard exists for quid pro quo in Alabama (involving Republicans) and another exists in Mississippi (for Democrats).
Remember Scott Horton's phrase--moral collapse. That's what we're talking about here.
One point, made by prosecutor Steve Feaga, jumps out at the Legal Schnauzer. Feaga struggles to explain why allegations by witness Lanny Young against Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor were ignored while those against Siegelman, a Democrat, were taken with the utmost seriousness. That sure as heck sounds like selective prosecution, the subject of a Congressional investigation.
But wait, there is an explanation.
Acording to Feaga, Young never claimed to get anything in return for the contributions to Sessions and Pryor while he did make such allegations about Siegelman. "At the time Lanny was detailing having made contributions to other public officials, he characterized these contributions as legitimate. There was no understanding he would get something for them," Feaga says.
Hmmm. Feaga is saying there was no quid pro quo in the Sessions and Pryor cases, but there was in the Siegelman case.
Quid pro quo is a Latin term meaning "something for something." If a quid pro quo was not present in the Sessions and Pryor cases, I know of a case involving a Republican where one clearly was involved.
I'm talking about the well-known biotech deal in Huntsville, engineered by Alabama Governor Bob Riley. That case certainly involved something (a nice campaign contribution for Teflon Bob) for something (scads of state money for a biotech center in Huntsville, bypassing the state's biomedical center in Birmingham at UAB).
Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo, there's a quid pro quo. Somebody call Steve Feaga and his compadre Louis Franklin. I'm sure they will jump right on this case.
And by the way, talk about a double standard with the Bush DOJ. In Alabama, the Bushies are extremely concerned about the lack of a quid pro quo when charges are leveled at Republicans. In Mississippi, in the Paul Minor prosecution, Democrats were prosecuted and convicted even though a quid pro quo clearly did not exist. In fact, the jury instructions specifically told jurors that a quid pro quo did not have to exist.
I kid you not, and we will be laying this out in detail in the coming days.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about state courts, where the law in Alabama might differ from that in Mississippi. We're talking about federal court, under the big top. And yet one standard exists for quid pro quo in Alabama (involving Republicans) and another exists in Mississippi (for Democrats).
Remember Scott Horton's phrase--moral collapse. That's what we're talking about here.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Louis Franklin Strikes Again
Louis Franklin, acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, just can't seem to stay away from issuing press releases. Every time, he issues a press release, he comes across as dishonest, hypersensitive, and unprofessional. And it gives folks like Scott Horton of Harper's and Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork World News & Journal a chance to take him apart.
A suggestion for Mr. Franklin: Leave public relations to the professionals. If you did ask a public-relations professional, he or she would tell you to keep your mouth shut and do your job.
But Sweet Lou can't resist the opportunity to issue a press release. This time it comes in the wake of revelations by Time magazine that the Bush Department of Justice ignored statements by Lanny Young that pointed to wrongdoing by Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor while acting on Young's allegations against Democrat Don Siegelman.
This gives us another chance to enjoy a literary pummeling administered to Sweet Lou by Horton and Wilson.
Wilson guffaws at Franklin's charges related to "out-of-state" reporters, noting that numerous in-state media outlets, including his Web site, the Anniston Star, the Decatur Daily, and the Tuscaloosa News, have questioned the prosecution and the government's refusal to release documents to Congress.
Wilson also guffaws at Franklin's claim of recusal by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. "So show us the documents, and especially the backdated recusal motion, stop hiding behind a dead court reporter for refusing to release any of the records in this case, and most especially the trial transcript."
Franklin has the audacity to suggest that Siegelman's defense lawyers should have filed a motion charging selective prosecution. Franklin conveniently forgets to mention that the government had filed a motion in limine to block the defense from raising such issues. And who signed the motion? Why, Sweet Lou himself.
Seems Franklin is familiar with both selective prosecution and selective memory. Does this man have a shred of credibility left with any living being?
As for Horton, he has so much good material that he needs two posts to attack the absurdities in Franklin's press release. Horton compares Franklin to Victor Hugo's character Javert and notes the similarities between Franklin's protests about "out-of-state" reporters to the charges about "outside agitators" seeking justice in Alabama during the Civil Rights era. Horton also notes that more national reporters, including those from 60 Minutes, are paying attention to the Siegelman case. No wonder Sweet Lou's shorts are feeling tight.
Horton points out the in-state editorial writers who are questioning the government's handling of the Siegelman case and notes that more such editorials are expected in the coming days.
Finally, Horton truly cuts to the chase with this:
A suggestion for Mr. Franklin: Leave public relations to the professionals. If you did ask a public-relations professional, he or she would tell you to keep your mouth shut and do your job.
But Sweet Lou can't resist the opportunity to issue a press release. This time it comes in the wake of revelations by Time magazine that the Bush Department of Justice ignored statements by Lanny Young that pointed to wrongdoing by Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor while acting on Young's allegations against Democrat Don Siegelman.
This gives us another chance to enjoy a literary pummeling administered to Sweet Lou by Horton and Wilson.
Wilson guffaws at Franklin's charges related to "out-of-state" reporters, noting that numerous in-state media outlets, including his Web site, the Anniston Star, the Decatur Daily, and the Tuscaloosa News, have questioned the prosecution and the government's refusal to release documents to Congress.
Wilson also guffaws at Franklin's claim of recusal by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. "So show us the documents, and especially the backdated recusal motion, stop hiding behind a dead court reporter for refusing to release any of the records in this case, and most especially the trial transcript."
Franklin has the audacity to suggest that Siegelman's defense lawyers should have filed a motion charging selective prosecution. Franklin conveniently forgets to mention that the government had filed a motion in limine to block the defense from raising such issues. And who signed the motion? Why, Sweet Lou himself.
Seems Franklin is familiar with both selective prosecution and selective memory. Does this man have a shred of credibility left with any living being?
As for Horton, he has so much good material that he needs two posts to attack the absurdities in Franklin's press release. Horton compares Franklin to Victor Hugo's character Javert and notes the similarities between Franklin's protests about "out-of-state" reporters to the charges about "outside agitators" seeking justice in Alabama during the Civil Rights era. Horton also notes that more national reporters, including those from 60 Minutes, are paying attention to the Siegelman case. No wonder Sweet Lou's shorts are feeling tight.
Horton points out the in-state editorial writers who are questioning the government's handling of the Siegelman case and notes that more such editorials are expected in the coming days.
Finally, Horton truly cuts to the chase with this:
"Javert is part of a culture of moral collapse and decrepitude. A culture that has taken a vise-like grip on the Justice Department in the Bush Administration."
Moral collapse is exactly right. Such a collapse is at the heart of the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi, a subject we will return to in a bit. And it is at the heart of my Legal Schnauzer case, which is the whole reason for this blog getting started.
What do a I mean by moral collapse in my case?
I'm talking about judges in Shelby County, Alabama--Ron Jackson, J. Michael Joiner, and G. Dan Reeves--repeatedly making unlawful rulings, butchering statutory, procedural, and case law in the process.
I'm talking about a rogue attorney--William E. Swatek--who has an almost 30-year record of unethical actions in Alabama courts. And yet, because his son Dax Swatek is a "consultant" and campaign manager for Republican governor Bob Riley, Bill Swatek is free to file fraudulent lawsuits without any fear of being held accountable.
And for good measure, Bill Swatek's client--my neighbor Mike McGarity--has a criminal record dating back some 30 years, with at least eight convictions that I'm aware of. And yet self-righteous, tough-on-crime, "strict constructionist" Republican judges repeatedly make unlawful rulings in his favor.
And finally, I'm talking about Alabama's appellate courts, which have been stacked with Republicans thanks to the efforts of Karl Rove and William Canary. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court are every bit as corrupt as their brethren in Shelby County. Appellate judges abuse the state's "no-opinion affirmance" rule to uphold bogus trial-court findings without having to issue explanations that are not supported by law.
Moral collapse indeed. Hopefully the Congressional investigation will shine a light on it. You can rest assured we will shine a light on it here at Legal Schnauzer.
Friday, October 5, 2007
More Siegelman/Minor Connections
Two profoundly important posts today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, shining much needed light on the machinations of the Bush Justice Department.
First, Horton addresses the prosecution of attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield in Mississippi. "In many respects the case against Minor looks like a rehashing of the prosecution of Governor Don E. Siegelman next door in Alabama," Horton writes.
Horton highlights several key points about the Minor case:
* The charges brought by the government were sloppy and almost incomprehensible. Most public-corruption cases involve a quid pro quo, but that was not present here and was not even required by the judge.
* Circumstances around the selection of Judge Henry Wingate were "mysterious," and Wingate's conduct of the case was "aberrational." (Much more on this coming in Horton's blog and here at Legal Schnauzer.)
* Mississippi lawyer Richard Scruggs, like Minor, made loans to Mississippi judges but was not prosecuted. Of course, Scruggs tends to support Republicans more than Democrats (Minor is an ardent Democrat), and Scruggs' brother-in-law is U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), who might have played an improper role in protecting Scruggs.
* FBI special agent Matthew Campbell, a forensic-accountancy expert, was reassigned after questioning Scruggs' ties to Lott. Campbell was replaced by Kevin Rust, who according to campaign-finance records, supported a Chamber of Commerce-supported judge.
(Note: Since one of the pluses of having a blog is getting to toot your own horn from time to time, we feel compelled to mention that Horton kindly references the Legal Schnauzer in today's post. The mention comes in blurb/footnote No. 3.)
Horton's second major post today focuses on Time magazine's report about the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama.
This information jumped out at your humble blogger? Horton says he knows of at least three cases where people have raised complaints about Republican wrongdoing in Alabama only to be ignored by the Justice Department. If the complainant persists, he or she begins to receive threats.
You can add me to that list. I've had that very experience, and I will be providing readers with the details very soon.
First, Horton addresses the prosecution of attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield in Mississippi. "In many respects the case against Minor looks like a rehashing of the prosecution of Governor Don E. Siegelman next door in Alabama," Horton writes.
Horton highlights several key points about the Minor case:
* The charges brought by the government were sloppy and almost incomprehensible. Most public-corruption cases involve a quid pro quo, but that was not present here and was not even required by the judge.
* Circumstances around the selection of Judge Henry Wingate were "mysterious," and Wingate's conduct of the case was "aberrational." (Much more on this coming in Horton's blog and here at Legal Schnauzer.)
* Mississippi lawyer Richard Scruggs, like Minor, made loans to Mississippi judges but was not prosecuted. Of course, Scruggs tends to support Republicans more than Democrats (Minor is an ardent Democrat), and Scruggs' brother-in-law is U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), who might have played an improper role in protecting Scruggs.
* FBI special agent Matthew Campbell, a forensic-accountancy expert, was reassigned after questioning Scruggs' ties to Lott. Campbell was replaced by Kevin Rust, who according to campaign-finance records, supported a Chamber of Commerce-supported judge.
(Note: Since one of the pluses of having a blog is getting to toot your own horn from time to time, we feel compelled to mention that Horton kindly references the Legal Schnauzer in today's post. The mention comes in blurb/footnote No. 3.)
Horton's second major post today focuses on Time magazine's report about the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama.
This information jumped out at your humble blogger? Horton says he knows of at least three cases where people have raised complaints about Republican wrongdoing in Alabama only to be ignored by the Justice Department. If the complainant persists, he or she begins to receive threats.
You can add me to that list. I've had that very experience, and I will be providing readers with the details very soon.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XIV
I suspect that many people who followed the Paul Minor case accept that the trial was handled correctly. There are a couple of reasons for that, I think:
* The "Show Me the Money" reason--Many folks hear that an attorney was helping guarantee loans for judges before whom he had cases, and they say, "Hey, that's bribery."
* The "Jury of Their Peers" reason--Americans tend to think of the jury system as sacrosanct. "If a jury of his peers found him guilty of belching after supper, well he must have belched after supper." (Based on my own experience before a jury, I take a more critical view. I don't think it would be terribly difficult for someone in power to manipulate the jury pool or even taint the jury itself. But that's a subject for another day.)
Many Americans might not fully grasp the following notion: A jury is only as sound as the judge it serves. The judge's demeanor, the evidence and testimony he allows, his jury instructions . . . all of that has a profound impact on the verdict a jury renders.
So how did U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate perform in the Paul Minor trial. A charitable view would hold that Wingate's actions were strange, even flaky. A less-charitable view would hold that Wingate, a Republican appointee, took affirmative steps to ensure that the defendants--all with strong connections to the Democratic Party--were found guilty.
Let's examine Wingate's handling of the Paul Minor trial in several key areas:
Expert witnesses
The critical point in the trial came when Wingate ruled that expert witnesses for the defense could not testify. This essentially ensured that Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield could not defend themselves. And Wingate's ruling is not grounded in law--or common sense.
The two key charges against the defendants were federal-funds bribery (18 U.S. Code 666) and honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346). And recall these key points from our previous posts: (1) The loans Minor helped guarantee for the judges were allowed under Mississippi law; (2) Such "things of value" can only become a bribe if they are given corruptly, meaning that a quid pro quo is involved--the thing is given in exchange for influencing the judge's lawful duty; (3) Mail fraud cannot be present unless the public actually is deprived of its right to honest services.
The "things of value" (loan guarantees), in and of themselves, were legal. So the key question became: Were the judges improperly influenced in performing their lawful duty? And the expert witnesses were to testify that the lawsuits at the heart of the government's case were decided correctly, based on the facts and the law.
The defense tried to call two experts, one for each lawsuit that was at the heart of the government's case. One expert, Jim George, was to testify about admiralty law, which was the focus of the Archie Marks case. The other expert, Al Hopkins, was to testify about bad-faith insurance law, the focus of The Peoples Bank case.
* The "Show Me the Money" reason--Many folks hear that an attorney was helping guarantee loans for judges before whom he had cases, and they say, "Hey, that's bribery."
* The "Jury of Their Peers" reason--Americans tend to think of the jury system as sacrosanct. "If a jury of his peers found him guilty of belching after supper, well he must have belched after supper." (Based on my own experience before a jury, I take a more critical view. I don't think it would be terribly difficult for someone in power to manipulate the jury pool or even taint the jury itself. But that's a subject for another day.)
Many Americans might not fully grasp the following notion: A jury is only as sound as the judge it serves. The judge's demeanor, the evidence and testimony he allows, his jury instructions . . . all of that has a profound impact on the verdict a jury renders.
So how did U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate perform in the Paul Minor trial. A charitable view would hold that Wingate's actions were strange, even flaky. A less-charitable view would hold that Wingate, a Republican appointee, took affirmative steps to ensure that the defendants--all with strong connections to the Democratic Party--were found guilty.
Let's examine Wingate's handling of the Paul Minor trial in several key areas:
Expert witnesses
The critical point in the trial came when Wingate ruled that expert witnesses for the defense could not testify. This essentially ensured that Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield could not defend themselves. And Wingate's ruling is not grounded in law--or common sense.
The two key charges against the defendants were federal-funds bribery (18 U.S. Code 666) and honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346). And recall these key points from our previous posts: (1) The loans Minor helped guarantee for the judges were allowed under Mississippi law; (2) Such "things of value" can only become a bribe if they are given corruptly, meaning that a quid pro quo is involved--the thing is given in exchange for influencing the judge's lawful duty; (3) Mail fraud cannot be present unless the public actually is deprived of its right to honest services.
The "things of value" (loan guarantees), in and of themselves, were legal. So the key question became: Were the judges improperly influenced in performing their lawful duty? And the expert witnesses were to testify that the lawsuits at the heart of the government's case were decided correctly, based on the facts and the law.
The defense tried to call two experts, one for each lawsuit that was at the heart of the government's case. One expert, Jim George, was to testify about admiralty law, which was the focus of the Archie Marks case. The other expert, Al Hopkins, was to testify about bad-faith insurance law, the focus of The Peoples Bank case.
Were the experts qualified? You be the judge. According to court documents, George had practiced in the area of admiralty law for about 35 years. As a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates, he had certified some 50 admiralty trials to verdict. He had published 41 articles in the area of admiralty law. He had been appointed as an expert in admiralty law by the federal district court in New Orleans. Hopkins was no Johnny-come-lately either. He had been practicing insurance law since 1965. He was a member of the Defense Research Institute and had lectured on insurance-coverage law.
Why did Wingate disallow two experts of such stature? The reasoning he gave in court documents was essentially the same for both. Even though George and Hopkins had an almost combined 80 years of experience in their specialty areas, Wingate found that they used improper methodology.
Regarding The Peoples Bank case, Wingate found that Hopkins' testimony would conflict with the findings of the Mississippi Supreme Court in a related case--even though the Supreme Court ruling in question came well after the time period, and the case, Hopkins was to testify about.
Strangest of all, Wingate found that the testimony of both experts would conflict with Rule 704 (b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. As a layperson, it's hard to sit here and state that an experienced federal judge is wrong. But that is the only conclusion I can come to on this one.
Rule 704 (b), in layman's terms, holds that an expert witness may not state an opinion as to whether a criminal defendant did or did not have the mental state constituting an element of the crime charged.
Regarding The Peoples Bank case, Hopkins was to testify that Judge Wes Teel's rulings were correct based on the facts and the law. In other words, Hopkins was to perform a legal analysis of the underlying lawsuit. Seems pretty simple, exactly the kind of thing an expert witness is supposed to do. But the government argued that this would involve Hopkins' interpreting Teel's state of mind. Unbelievably, Wingate bought the government's argument. And he gave no explanation, other than to say that Hopkins' testimony would "run afoul of Rule 704(b)."
Wingate's reasoning on George's proposed testimony was even more strange. George was to testify that Judge John Whitfield's rulings in the Archie Marks case were correct based on the law. He also was to note that the Mississippi Supreme Court had upheld Whitfield on 12 of 13 issues raised on appeal. The only difference? The Supreme Court reduced the damages, although it stated that Whitfield had ample evidence to support a large damages award.
But Wingate rejected George's testimony because it was "an effort to provide mental impressions of the Supreme Court." Now remember, Rule 704(b) has to do with expert testimony about the mental impressions of defendants. The Mississippi Supreme Court was hardly a defendant in the Archie Marks case.
One can only why and how Judge Wingate came up with this line of reasoning.
But that's not the only screwy ruling Wingate made. In fact, we're just getting warmed up. More to come.
The Siegelman Prosecution Unmasked
Time magazine today is breaking a major story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, and it should have profound implications for the Congressional investigation of the Bush Department of Justice.
Adam Zagorin's story focuses on Lanny Young, a lobbyist and landfill developer who was the central witness in the case against Siegelman. Time has obtained investigative records showing that Young not only presented damning evidence about Siegelman (a Democrat), but also fingered Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor.
While Siegelman wound up being prosecuted and convicted on corruption charges, Justice Department officials evidently never looked into Young's allegations against Sessions and Pryor.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, has this take on the breaking story.
Sessions, a U.S. Senator, and Pryor, then Alabama's attorney general and now a federal judge, were deeply involved in wrongdoing, according to Young. Records show Young telling prosecutors that he had used intermediaries to arrange gifts of $5,000 to $15,000 to the Sessions campaign.
"If true, Young's statements describe political money laundering that would be a clear violation of federal law," Zagorin writes. "In 1996 when Young said he had made the contributions, it was illegal to give a candidate more than $1,000 for a primary or general campaign."
Young also offered details about donations totaling $12,000 to $15,000 to Pryor's campaign for state attorney general. Again, Young used intermediaries to disguise the contributions.
Zagorin quotes Laurie Levenson, an expert in legal ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Certainly prosecutors would face a professional obligation to check out or verify the allegations in this case," Levenson says. "Not doing so would represent a potential abuse of prosecutorial discretion." The key, she says, is whether prosecutors chose not to pursue evidence of criminal activity by Republicans because of political bias or a conflict of interest.
The Time article makes the political bias abundantly clear. And the Siegelman case is not the only example of such bias out there. We will lay out a similar scenario here at Legal Schnauzer, although our case will cover two states (Alabama and Mississippi) and a different branch of government (the judiciary).
For the past two weeks or so, we've been laying out a series of posts about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Minor and two judges (all with Democratic leanings) were convicted on corruption charges, but we've shown that the case was wrongly decided and probably pursued for political reasons by the Bush DOJ. And we've shown that U.S. Circuit Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee, played a critical role in ensuring that the defendants would be convicted, contrary to the facts and law in the case.
Meanwhile, in Alabama, yours truly has a case involving attorneys and Republican judges who truly did act corruptly. The evidence is overwhelming that the judges violated their duty under the law, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars.
So far, the Bush DOJ's level of interest in the Legal Schnauzer case has been about the same as it was in the Sessions and Pryor cases. Zero.
But we will show how Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to try to keep our case below the surface. Does Alice Martin meet the level of ethics for prosecutors outlined by Ms. Levenson above? Not on your life. And we will be laying out the case against Martin in the weeks and months ahead.
Thanks to Time magazine, the Bushies' skulduggery regarding Sessions and Pryor has been exposed. The mission of this blog is to expose similar GOP skulduggery in the Legal Schnauzer case.
Adam Zagorin's story focuses on Lanny Young, a lobbyist and landfill developer who was the central witness in the case against Siegelman. Time has obtained investigative records showing that Young not only presented damning evidence about Siegelman (a Democrat), but also fingered Republicans Jeff Sessions and Bill Pryor.
While Siegelman wound up being prosecuted and convicted on corruption charges, Justice Department officials evidently never looked into Young's allegations against Sessions and Pryor.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, has this take on the breaking story.
Sessions, a U.S. Senator, and Pryor, then Alabama's attorney general and now a federal judge, were deeply involved in wrongdoing, according to Young. Records show Young telling prosecutors that he had used intermediaries to arrange gifts of $5,000 to $15,000 to the Sessions campaign.
"If true, Young's statements describe political money laundering that would be a clear violation of federal law," Zagorin writes. "In 1996 when Young said he had made the contributions, it was illegal to give a candidate more than $1,000 for a primary or general campaign."
Young also offered details about donations totaling $12,000 to $15,000 to Pryor's campaign for state attorney general. Again, Young used intermediaries to disguise the contributions.
Zagorin quotes Laurie Levenson, an expert in legal ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Certainly prosecutors would face a professional obligation to check out or verify the allegations in this case," Levenson says. "Not doing so would represent a potential abuse of prosecutorial discretion." The key, she says, is whether prosecutors chose not to pursue evidence of criminal activity by Republicans because of political bias or a conflict of interest.
The Time article makes the political bias abundantly clear. And the Siegelman case is not the only example of such bias out there. We will lay out a similar scenario here at Legal Schnauzer, although our case will cover two states (Alabama and Mississippi) and a different branch of government (the judiciary).
For the past two weeks or so, we've been laying out a series of posts about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Minor and two judges (all with Democratic leanings) were convicted on corruption charges, but we've shown that the case was wrongly decided and probably pursued for political reasons by the Bush DOJ. And we've shown that U.S. Circuit Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee, played a critical role in ensuring that the defendants would be convicted, contrary to the facts and law in the case.
Meanwhile, in Alabama, yours truly has a case involving attorneys and Republican judges who truly did act corruptly. The evidence is overwhelming that the judges violated their duty under the law, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars.
So far, the Bush DOJ's level of interest in the Legal Schnauzer case has been about the same as it was in the Sessions and Pryor cases. Zero.
But we will show how Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to try to keep our case below the surface. Does Alice Martin meet the level of ethics for prosecutors outlined by Ms. Levenson above? Not on your life. And we will be laying out the case against Martin in the weeks and months ahead.
Thanks to Time magazine, the Bushies' skulduggery regarding Sessions and Pryor has been exposed. The mission of this blog is to expose similar GOP skulduggery in the Legal Schnauzer case.
Judging the Judge
It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in determining the outcome of the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
Yes, this was a jury trial. And yes, the jurors found Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield guilty on all counts. But Wingate's footprints can be found all over the path that led to conviction.
And keep in mind this was the second trial on the corruption charges, both overseen by Judge Henry Wingate. In the first, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted on all charges, while the jury acquitted the other three defendants on some charges and was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on others.
So who is Henry Wingate?
For one, he is a historic figure in Mississippi. He became the first African-American appointed to the state's federal bench in 1985. He was nominated to his seat in the Southern District of Mississippi by President Ronald Reagan.
Wingate was born in Jackson, MS, earned his undergraduate degree at Grinnell College and his law degree at Yale University. He served in the U.S. Navy, worked in private practice, served as both an assistant district attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney, and taught at Mississippi College School of Law.
The Wingate nomination was not greeted with wholehearted support. Critics noted that, prior to his appointment on the federal bench, Wingate never had served as a judge at any level. Critics noted that Reagan passed over numerous veteran state judges in order to appoint Wingate.
Let's see: An African-American with thin credentials, appointed to the bench by a Republican president. A similar storyline would play out on the national stage when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.
Is Henry Wingate a Clarence Thomas wannabe? Sources in Mississippi tell me that Wingate was considered for a position on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. President George W. Bush chose someone else this time around, but one must wonder if Wingate still wants that job. And that position is just one step below the U.S. Supreme Court.
Could Wingate solidify his conservative bonafides by seeing to it that a prominent trial lawyer and two "pro-plaintiff" judges wound up in federal prison? One might think that could enhance his status with the Bushies.
So did Judge Henry Wingate act corruptly in his handling of the Paul Minor trial? A strong case could be made that he did. Wingate left behind a litany of strange rulings, enough to make one wonder if political considerations, more than justice, seized the day.
Indications are that the Minor case is attracting the attention of Congressional investigators who are looking into possible selective prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice.
We already know about Congress' interest in the Don Siegelman (Alabama), Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin), and Cyril Wecht (Pennsylvania) cases. Don't be surprised if the prosecution of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield joins them.
Yes, this was a jury trial. And yes, the jurors found Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield guilty on all counts. But Wingate's footprints can be found all over the path that led to conviction.
And keep in mind this was the second trial on the corruption charges, both overseen by Judge Henry Wingate. In the first, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted on all charges, while the jury acquitted the other three defendants on some charges and was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on others.
So who is Henry Wingate?
For one, he is a historic figure in Mississippi. He became the first African-American appointed to the state's federal bench in 1985. He was nominated to his seat in the Southern District of Mississippi by President Ronald Reagan.
Wingate was born in Jackson, MS, earned his undergraduate degree at Grinnell College and his law degree at Yale University. He served in the U.S. Navy, worked in private practice, served as both an assistant district attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney, and taught at Mississippi College School of Law.
The Wingate nomination was not greeted with wholehearted support. Critics noted that, prior to his appointment on the federal bench, Wingate never had served as a judge at any level. Critics noted that Reagan passed over numerous veteran state judges in order to appoint Wingate.
Let's see: An African-American with thin credentials, appointed to the bench by a Republican president. A similar storyline would play out on the national stage when Clarence Thomas was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.
Is Henry Wingate a Clarence Thomas wannabe? Sources in Mississippi tell me that Wingate was considered for a position on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. President George W. Bush chose someone else this time around, but one must wonder if Wingate still wants that job. And that position is just one step below the U.S. Supreme Court.
Could Wingate solidify his conservative bonafides by seeing to it that a prominent trial lawyer and two "pro-plaintiff" judges wound up in federal prison? One might think that could enhance his status with the Bushies.
So did Judge Henry Wingate act corruptly in his handling of the Paul Minor trial? A strong case could be made that he did. Wingate left behind a litany of strange rulings, enough to make one wonder if political considerations, more than justice, seized the day.
Indications are that the Minor case is attracting the attention of Congressional investigators who are looking into possible selective prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice.
We already know about Congress' interest in the Don Siegelman (Alabama), Georgia Thompson (Wisconsin), and Cyril Wecht (Pennsylvania) cases. Don't be surprised if the prosecution of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield joins them.
Bribery: A Primer
Before we look at U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate and his numerous strange rulings in the Paul Minor case, let's examine the subject of bribery.
Bribery is one of those words that is easy to throw around without really knowing what it means. At the risk of stepping into a social minefield, I would compare it to the way people sometimes say, "Abortion is murder."
Regardless of how one feels about the abortion-rights debate, the above statement is demonstrably incorrect. Murder is a legal term that involves specific elements that must be present in order to add up to a criminal act. Those elements are not present in abortion.
But back to the question at hand: What is bribery at the federal level?
First, a little history. Prior to 1984, the primary federal bribery statute was 18 U.S. Code 201. That statute came to be viewed by many courts as prohibiting only the bribery of federal officials. So Congress enacted 18 U.S. Code 666, which is titled "Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds."
With the new statute on the books, federal prosecutors could tackle corruption cases that did not involve federal officials. The case could involve state and local officials--governors, judges, mayors--as long as it involved a program receiving a certain level of federal funds.
The authors of one article referred to 666 as "the mark of the devil in the federal criminal code." Many who side with the defense bar consider 666 to be dangerously, and perhaps unconstitutionally, vague. But the statute has held up, becoming a potent weapon for prosecutors in corruption cases.
The 666 statute was at the heart of both the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
So how do we come to grips with this little booger? In a nutshell, the four elements of bribery under 666 are:
1. A corrupt act;
2. The offering of something of value;
3. The intent to influence or be influenced in a transaction "involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;" and
4. Federal funding to the entity involved exceeding $10,000 within the year surrounding the corrupt act.
Numbers 2, 3, and 4 don't sound so hard. I imagine those are pretty easily proved in most cases. But the toughie is Number 1.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have learned this: When the statutory language gets murky--and it often does--turn to the case law. And what do we find there?
One of the best cases I've found is United States v. Mariano, 983 F. 2d 1150 (1993). First, it notes that the fundamental elements in the two bribery statutes--201 and 666--virtually mirror one another. And it states that corruptly giving anything of value involves "the intent of 'influencing any official act' or 'inducing the official to violate his or her lawful duty.'"
So there you have it: Giving an official "anything of value" can only be a bribe if it is done in exchange for the official being influenced in his or her duty.
This is what legal types call a "quid pro quo." And it must be present for an act to constitute federal bribery.
Bribery is one of those words that is easy to throw around without really knowing what it means. At the risk of stepping into a social minefield, I would compare it to the way people sometimes say, "Abortion is murder."
Regardless of how one feels about the abortion-rights debate, the above statement is demonstrably incorrect. Murder is a legal term that involves specific elements that must be present in order to add up to a criminal act. Those elements are not present in abortion.
But back to the question at hand: What is bribery at the federal level?
First, a little history. Prior to 1984, the primary federal bribery statute was 18 U.S. Code 201. That statute came to be viewed by many courts as prohibiting only the bribery of federal officials. So Congress enacted 18 U.S. Code 666, which is titled "Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds."
With the new statute on the books, federal prosecutors could tackle corruption cases that did not involve federal officials. The case could involve state and local officials--governors, judges, mayors--as long as it involved a program receiving a certain level of federal funds.
The authors of one article referred to 666 as "the mark of the devil in the federal criminal code." Many who side with the defense bar consider 666 to be dangerously, and perhaps unconstitutionally, vague. But the statute has held up, becoming a potent weapon for prosecutors in corruption cases.
The 666 statute was at the heart of both the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
So how do we come to grips with this little booger? In a nutshell, the four elements of bribery under 666 are:
1. A corrupt act;
2. The offering of something of value;
3. The intent to influence or be influenced in a transaction "involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;" and
4. Federal funding to the entity involved exceeding $10,000 within the year surrounding the corrupt act.
Numbers 2, 3, and 4 don't sound so hard. I imagine those are pretty easily proved in most cases. But the toughie is Number 1.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have learned this: When the statutory language gets murky--and it often does--turn to the case law. And what do we find there?
One of the best cases I've found is United States v. Mariano, 983 F. 2d 1150 (1993). First, it notes that the fundamental elements in the two bribery statutes--201 and 666--virtually mirror one another. And it states that corruptly giving anything of value involves "the intent of 'influencing any official act' or 'inducing the official to violate his or her lawful duty.'"
So there you have it: Giving an official "anything of value" can only be a bribe if it is done in exchange for the official being influenced in his or her duty.
This is what legal types call a "quid pro quo." And it must be present for an act to constitute federal bribery.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Battle of Mississippi
A superb piece today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, about the forces that led to the prosecution of attorney Paul Minor and three judges in Mississippi.
Horton lays out the role pro-business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the tobacco industry, played in a struggle to reshape Mississippi courts. He compares this to Karl Rove's highly successful 1990s campaign to put pro-business Republicans in charge of Alabama courts.
The plan, Horton writes, was to replicate that strategy next door in Mississippi. "But after the effort failed, to the great surprise of its proponents, a desire for revenge seems to have taken hold," Horton writes. "It was not revenge for revenge's sake. Rather its objective was unmistakable: punish the Mississippi trial lawyers who took the Chamber on and won. Humiliate them. And dry up the campaign funding resources that were fueling the opposition to the Chamber. And suddenly the Mississippi trial lawyers and their judicial allies found themselves facing an even hungrier and more powerful foe: the Bush White House's Department of Justice."
The No. 1 target of the Bush DOJ? Paul Minor, who had become a wealthy Democratic benefactor through successful litigation against the tobacco and asbestos industries, plus personal-injury and wrongful-death cases. The method? Charge that Minor and plaintiff-friendly judges were corrupt.
Judicial targets were Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Circuit Judge John Whitfield, and Chancery Judge Wes Teel. After a first trial resulted in no guilty verdicts (and a clean acquittal for Diaz), the Bush DOJ pursued a retrial that ended with convictions of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel.
Horton says 2000 was a key date in the effort to attack trial lawyers and "pro-plaintiff" judges in Mississippi. That's when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign to roll back class-action lawsuits in a number of key states, including Mississippi, Washington, Illinois, and West Virginia.
The Chamber funneled about $1 million into Mississippi judicial races in 2002, using front organizations to hide the source of the funds. (Irony note: The key reason evidently for the conviction of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel was the alleged concealment of their financial dealings.)
State courts ruled that the Chamber's effort violated Mississippi election laws. The Chamber turned to U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, the justice responsible for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and he overturned the injunction and allowed the Chamber's campaign to proceed.
Trial lawyers were forced to develop a counter campaign, even though their financial resources could not match those of the pro-business interests. But when the trial lawyers held off the Chamber, Horton writes, bitterness set in among business groups. They turned to a friendly DOJ in the Bush administration, and as a result, Minor, Whitfield, and Teel now are in federal prison on convictions for bribery, honest-services mail fraud, and related charges.
We have spent the past couple of weeks here at Legal Schnauzer showing that the Minor prosecution was unjustified under the law and the case itself was unlawfully decided. The person at the center of this was U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee who oversaw the trial.
Soon, we turn our attention to Judge Wingate and his curious handling of the retrial in the Paul Minor case.
Horton lays out the role pro-business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the tobacco industry, played in a struggle to reshape Mississippi courts. He compares this to Karl Rove's highly successful 1990s campaign to put pro-business Republicans in charge of Alabama courts.
The plan, Horton writes, was to replicate that strategy next door in Mississippi. "But after the effort failed, to the great surprise of its proponents, a desire for revenge seems to have taken hold," Horton writes. "It was not revenge for revenge's sake. Rather its objective was unmistakable: punish the Mississippi trial lawyers who took the Chamber on and won. Humiliate them. And dry up the campaign funding resources that were fueling the opposition to the Chamber. And suddenly the Mississippi trial lawyers and their judicial allies found themselves facing an even hungrier and more powerful foe: the Bush White House's Department of Justice."
The No. 1 target of the Bush DOJ? Paul Minor, who had become a wealthy Democratic benefactor through successful litigation against the tobacco and asbestos industries, plus personal-injury and wrongful-death cases. The method? Charge that Minor and plaintiff-friendly judges were corrupt.
Judicial targets were Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Circuit Judge John Whitfield, and Chancery Judge Wes Teel. After a first trial resulted in no guilty verdicts (and a clean acquittal for Diaz), the Bush DOJ pursued a retrial that ended with convictions of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel.
Horton says 2000 was a key date in the effort to attack trial lawyers and "pro-plaintiff" judges in Mississippi. That's when the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign to roll back class-action lawsuits in a number of key states, including Mississippi, Washington, Illinois, and West Virginia.
The Chamber funneled about $1 million into Mississippi judicial races in 2002, using front organizations to hide the source of the funds. (Irony note: The key reason evidently for the conviction of Minor, Whitfield, and Teel was the alleged concealment of their financial dealings.)
State courts ruled that the Chamber's effort violated Mississippi election laws. The Chamber turned to U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, the justice responsible for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, and he overturned the injunction and allowed the Chamber's campaign to proceed.
Trial lawyers were forced to develop a counter campaign, even though their financial resources could not match those of the pro-business interests. But when the trial lawyers held off the Chamber, Horton writes, bitterness set in among business groups. They turned to a friendly DOJ in the Bush administration, and as a result, Minor, Whitfield, and Teel now are in federal prison on convictions for bribery, honest-services mail fraud, and related charges.
We have spent the past couple of weeks here at Legal Schnauzer showing that the Minor prosecution was unjustified under the law and the case itself was unlawfully decided. The person at the center of this was U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee who oversaw the trial.
Soon, we turn our attention to Judge Wingate and his curious handling of the retrial in the Paul Minor case.
Mississippi Churning, Part XIII
In the most recent post in our "Mississippi Churning" series, we noted the state has made a serious effort at campaign-finance reform in the wake of the Paul Minor prosecution.
And how has this effort turned out? Well, it's a story that is rich in irony.
Remember that it was a Republican-led justice department that initiated an investigation and charged that Minor, an attorney, had bribed three Mississippi judges in exchange for favorable rulings. Minor and the two attorneys who were convicted along with him just happened to be Democratic supporters (in a state with nonpartisan judicial elections).
As we noted in earlier posts, the loan guarantees that Minor helped arrange for the judges were allowed by Mississippi law at the time in question. They still are allowed, within certain limits.
But with the government alleging that such lawful arrangements were "bribes," Mississippians evidently decided to change their laws. Current law caps donations to judicial candidates at $5,000 by a single donor.
State officials quickly saw the limit was of little use. Political high rollers-including major corporations and wealthy trial lawyers--could sidestep the limit by making donations to special tax-exempt political action committees, known as "527s." Those fund-raising entities then sent money directly to state candidates.
In 2004, Secretary of State Eric Clark and Attorney General Jim Hood tried to close this loophole in Mississippi. But guess who vetoed the campaign-finance reform bill? None other than Republican governor Haley Barbour. He objected because the bill limited corporate donations to political action committees. (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, August 28, 2005.)
To quote that great Alabamian Gomer Pyle: "Shazam!" A Republican supports corporate interests!
Does that remind anyone of Alabama Republican governor Bob Riley, who touts ethics at one moment, and vetoes an ethics bill the next?
Let's review some of the ground we've covered. The loan guarantees that Minor helped arrange were allowed by Mississippi law. So his financial contributions, in and of themselves, were not bribes at all. Under the law, they only become bribes if they have a corrupt purpose--to improperly influence the rulings of judges.
And our research--and the 12 posts leading up to this one--have shown there was no corrupt purpose because the judges' rulings in the underlying lawsuits were correctly decided. In other words, Minor's clients received favorable rulings not because of any "bribes" but because the facts and the law indicated that they should receive favorable rulings.
So with this as background, and knowing of Barber's veto on campaign-finance reform, let's ponder this question: Are Republicans really interested in limiting contributions to judicial candidates?
Answer: They are when Democrats make them.
And how has this effort turned out? Well, it's a story that is rich in irony.
Remember that it was a Republican-led justice department that initiated an investigation and charged that Minor, an attorney, had bribed three Mississippi judges in exchange for favorable rulings. Minor and the two attorneys who were convicted along with him just happened to be Democratic supporters (in a state with nonpartisan judicial elections).
As we noted in earlier posts, the loan guarantees that Minor helped arrange for the judges were allowed by Mississippi law at the time in question. They still are allowed, within certain limits.
But with the government alleging that such lawful arrangements were "bribes," Mississippians evidently decided to change their laws. Current law caps donations to judicial candidates at $5,000 by a single donor.
State officials quickly saw the limit was of little use. Political high rollers-including major corporations and wealthy trial lawyers--could sidestep the limit by making donations to special tax-exempt political action committees, known as "527s." Those fund-raising entities then sent money directly to state candidates.
In 2004, Secretary of State Eric Clark and Attorney General Jim Hood tried to close this loophole in Mississippi. But guess who vetoed the campaign-finance reform bill? None other than Republican governor Haley Barbour. He objected because the bill limited corporate donations to political action committees. (Jackson Clarion-Ledger, August 28, 2005.)
To quote that great Alabamian Gomer Pyle: "Shazam!" A Republican supports corporate interests!
Does that remind anyone of Alabama Republican governor Bob Riley, who touts ethics at one moment, and vetoes an ethics bill the next?
Let's review some of the ground we've covered. The loan guarantees that Minor helped arrange were allowed by Mississippi law. So his financial contributions, in and of themselves, were not bribes at all. Under the law, they only become bribes if they have a corrupt purpose--to improperly influence the rulings of judges.
And our research--and the 12 posts leading up to this one--have shown there was no corrupt purpose because the judges' rulings in the underlying lawsuits were correctly decided. In other words, Minor's clients received favorable rulings not because of any "bribes" but because the facts and the law indicated that they should receive favorable rulings.
So with this as background, and knowing of Barber's veto on campaign-finance reform, let's ponder this question: Are Republicans really interested in limiting contributions to judicial candidates?
Answer: They are when Democrats make them.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Siegelman, Minor, and Tobacco
We've noted a number of similarities between the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
But perhaps the most fascinating connection involves the tobacco industry.
Both Siegelman and Minor, ardent Democrats, have histories of taking on the tobacco industry--and coming out on top. Meanwhile, a number of high-profile Republicans from Alabama and Mississippi, some with national profiles, have been ardent supporters of the tobacco industry. They also have been loyal Bushies.
Did Siegelman and Minor's willingness to fight Big Tobacco--and their audacity to win--make them targets of the Bush Justice Department? Is that essentially the reason both men currently are in federal prison?
Let's look at some history. The national effort to fight the tobacco industry, and force it to help pay for the costs associated with smoking-related illnesses, started in Mississippi. Mike Moore, then attorney general of Mississippi, was out front in the battle, and the two most prominent trial attorneys involved in the Magnolia State were Paul Minor and Richard "Dickie" Scruggs.
Negotiations between states and the tobacco industry ended in 1997 with a $368.5 billion out-of-court settlement proposal involving 40 state lawsuits. Mississippi received almost $4 billion from the settlement, and Minor received fees that helped make him a wealthy man--and a prominent benefactor for Democratic political candidates.
While Minor had the support of Mississippi's attorney general in the battle against Big Tobacco, Siegelman received nothing but interference from Bill Pryor, then Alabama's attorney general. Siegelman helped sue tobacco companies on behalf of the University of South Alabama and initially had UAB, the state's flagship medical campus, also involved. But UAB backed out at Pryor's urging.
Pryor adamantly opposed suing the industry, calling it bad law motivated by greedy trial lawyers, according to a report in the Mobile Press-Register. But Siegelman pushed forward, and Alabama wound up with $3.2 billion to be paid over 25 years.
That evidently did not sit well with Pryor. When Siegelman became governor of Alabama, Pryor wasted little time in initiating a criminal investigation of the administration. Pryor's effort eventually led to an investigation and prosecution of Siegelman by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
And how did Pryor fare with the Bushies? Not bad. Despite strong opposition from Democrats, he received a lifetime appointment as a federal judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Across the border in Mississippi, the imprint of Big Tobacco remains huge. The state's governor is Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican National Committee. And what did Barbour do between his gig as RNC chair and his gig as Mississippi governor? He worked as a lobbyist in Washington--for tobacco companies.
Let's consider the career arcs of Siegelman and Minor for a moment. Siegelman was a remarkably successful Democrat in Alabama, at a time when the state was turning more and more Republican. In fact, it became common practice for the state's prominent Democrats to change parties (hello, Richard Shelby!). But Siegelman remained loyal to his roots, rising to the state's highest office. And where has it landed him? In federal prison.
As for Minor, he was more of a behind-the-scenes figure politically. But in many ways, his financial clout made him a more important figure in Mississippi than Siegelman was in Alabama. Minor took on the tobacco industry and the asbestos industry, and took cases for working-class folks like Archie Marks and Richard Ladner. Where has it landed him? In federal prison.
Now imagine this? What if Don Siegelman had followed the crowd and switched parties? Where would he be now? Finishing up a second term as Alabama's governor? Preparing for a run at the U.S. Senate? Being talked about as a vice presidential, or even presidential, candidate? Anyone think he would be in federal prison?
And Paul Minor? What if he had chosen to represent Phillip Morris instead of Archie Marks? Minor would still be a wealthy man, maybe even a wealthier man. Anyone think he would be in federal prison?
But perhaps the most fascinating connection involves the tobacco industry.
Both Siegelman and Minor, ardent Democrats, have histories of taking on the tobacco industry--and coming out on top. Meanwhile, a number of high-profile Republicans from Alabama and Mississippi, some with national profiles, have been ardent supporters of the tobacco industry. They also have been loyal Bushies.
Did Siegelman and Minor's willingness to fight Big Tobacco--and their audacity to win--make them targets of the Bush Justice Department? Is that essentially the reason both men currently are in federal prison?
Let's look at some history. The national effort to fight the tobacco industry, and force it to help pay for the costs associated with smoking-related illnesses, started in Mississippi. Mike Moore, then attorney general of Mississippi, was out front in the battle, and the two most prominent trial attorneys involved in the Magnolia State were Paul Minor and Richard "Dickie" Scruggs.
Negotiations between states and the tobacco industry ended in 1997 with a $368.5 billion out-of-court settlement proposal involving 40 state lawsuits. Mississippi received almost $4 billion from the settlement, and Minor received fees that helped make him a wealthy man--and a prominent benefactor for Democratic political candidates.
While Minor had the support of Mississippi's attorney general in the battle against Big Tobacco, Siegelman received nothing but interference from Bill Pryor, then Alabama's attorney general. Siegelman helped sue tobacco companies on behalf of the University of South Alabama and initially had UAB, the state's flagship medical campus, also involved. But UAB backed out at Pryor's urging.
Pryor adamantly opposed suing the industry, calling it bad law motivated by greedy trial lawyers, according to a report in the Mobile Press-Register. But Siegelman pushed forward, and Alabama wound up with $3.2 billion to be paid over 25 years.
That evidently did not sit well with Pryor. When Siegelman became governor of Alabama, Pryor wasted little time in initiating a criminal investigation of the administration. Pryor's effort eventually led to an investigation and prosecution of Siegelman by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
And how did Pryor fare with the Bushies? Not bad. Despite strong opposition from Democrats, he received a lifetime appointment as a federal judge on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Across the border in Mississippi, the imprint of Big Tobacco remains huge. The state's governor is Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican National Committee. And what did Barbour do between his gig as RNC chair and his gig as Mississippi governor? He worked as a lobbyist in Washington--for tobacco companies.
Let's consider the career arcs of Siegelman and Minor for a moment. Siegelman was a remarkably successful Democrat in Alabama, at a time when the state was turning more and more Republican. In fact, it became common practice for the state's prominent Democrats to change parties (hello, Richard Shelby!). But Siegelman remained loyal to his roots, rising to the state's highest office. And where has it landed him? In federal prison.
As for Minor, he was more of a behind-the-scenes figure politically. But in many ways, his financial clout made him a more important figure in Mississippi than Siegelman was in Alabama. Minor took on the tobacco industry and the asbestos industry, and took cases for working-class folks like Archie Marks and Richard Ladner. Where has it landed him? In federal prison.
Now imagine this? What if Don Siegelman had followed the crowd and switched parties? Where would he be now? Finishing up a second term as Alabama's governor? Preparing for a run at the U.S. Senate? Being talked about as a vice presidential, or even presidential, candidate? Anyone think he would be in federal prison?
And Paul Minor? What if he had chosen to represent Phillip Morris instead of Archie Marks? Minor would still be a wealthy man, maybe even a wealthier man. Anyone think he would be in federal prison?
Siegelman/Minor Connections
Thanks to Atlanta-based blogger Dana Blankenhorn for spotlighting our work at Legal Schnauzer on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Blankenhorn is a veteran reporter and blogger who is particularly well known for his work in business journalism. He has a blog called "Voic.us," which focuses on the work of bloggers in the South, and he spotlights the Minor case in his latest Mississippi roundup.
Blankenhorn does an excellent job of summarizing key points we've made about the Minor case. And he draws parallels between it and the more well known Siegelman case. In fact, you might say the Minor case is the Dave Clark Five to Siegelman's The Beatles.
But Blankenhorn notes that the Minor case appears to show that "the Bush political 'hit' on Siegelman was not a one-off, but part of a concerted--and so far successful--effort to subvert democracy and justice in the Deep South."
As the Siegelman case prepares to take center stage in a Congressional investigation, we've received word that the Minor case will receive significant national attention in the next few days.
Blankenhorn is a veteran reporter and blogger who is particularly well known for his work in business journalism. He has a blog called "Voic.us," which focuses on the work of bloggers in the South, and he spotlights the Minor case in his latest Mississippi roundup.
Blankenhorn does an excellent job of summarizing key points we've made about the Minor case. And he draws parallels between it and the more well known Siegelman case. In fact, you might say the Minor case is the Dave Clark Five to Siegelman's The Beatles.
But Blankenhorn notes that the Minor case appears to show that "the Bush political 'hit' on Siegelman was not a one-off, but part of a concerted--and so far successful--effort to subvert democracy and justice in the Deep South."
As the Siegelman case prepares to take center stage in a Congressional investigation, we've received word that the Minor case will receive significant national attention in the next few days.
Bits and Pieces for $70, Alex
Congress Takes on Siegelman Case
The case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be part of an upcoming Congressional hearing into possible selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News and Journal, has followed the Siegelman case closely and has this take on the latest news. So far, the focus appears to be on the Siegelman case, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania. Let's hope the investigation becomes broader than that. As we are showing here at Legal Schnauzer, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi cries out for scrutiny. And my own case, involving unlawful rulings by multiple Republican judges in Alabama, is a classic case of suppression of a prosecution. Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to sweep my case under the proverbial rug. We will be posting more details on that soon.
The Malice of Alice
Speaking of Alice Martin, I thought about her today after reading this story in the business section of The Birmingham News. It's about a local ad agency that has developed a campaign for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The campaign is designed to help raise awareness of various consumer mail-fraud schemes. That's what the postal inspection service does--it looks into consumer fraud. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate white-collar crime, such as honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. But Alice Martin took my detailed complaint about judicial wrongdoing and sent it to the postal inspection service. That's what I mean about sweeping my case under the rug. And I have far more details that I will be posting soon about the malice of Alice.
Dollars and Scholars
In earlier posts, we cited the ongoing investigation at Hoover High School as an example of how expensive a problem can get when lawyers get involved. The Hoover School System hired former federal judge Sam Pointer Jr. to investigate allegations of grade changing related to Hoover's renowned football program, the focus of MTV's Two A Days. So what's the latest legal tab for the Hoover folks? We learn today that it amounts to $151,153, based on 757 billable hours. Don't know about you, but that would put a serious ouch in my pocket book. And don't you think that money could have bought an awful lot of textbooks or computers or band outfits--or shoulder pads and helmets, for that matter?
A True Shocker
The most shocking news of all today is that the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission is actually doing something. This most worthless of Alabama agencies has been investigating Mobile circuit judge Herman Thomas for a variety of ethical violations. Among the charges against Thomas are claims from prisoners that he spanked them. Thomas must have really been a bad boy if he actually screwed up enough to draw the JIC's attention. I've filed multiple complaints regarding corrupt judges in Shelby County, and the JIC never lifted a finger to look into any of them. I figured the commission made the Maytag Repairman look like an overachiever. But it turns out the JIC actually does something once in a while. Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo! And get this: Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson is pursuing a separate investigation into whether Thomas issued biased rulings favoring certain friends. Well, snip my pickle again! That's the way things are done on a regular basis in Shelby County. You mean there's something wrong with that? What's with this Tyson character? Why is he actually doing his job? What are the chances that Shelby County DA Robby Owens will look into wrongdoing by judges in his district? I would say Britney Spears has a better chance of being named Mother of the Year.
The case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be part of an upcoming Congressional hearing into possible selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News and Journal, has followed the Siegelman case closely and has this take on the latest news. So far, the focus appears to be on the Siegelman case, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania. Let's hope the investigation becomes broader than that. As we are showing here at Legal Schnauzer, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi cries out for scrutiny. And my own case, involving unlawful rulings by multiple Republican judges in Alabama, is a classic case of suppression of a prosecution. Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to sweep my case under the proverbial rug. We will be posting more details on that soon.
The Malice of Alice
Speaking of Alice Martin, I thought about her today after reading this story in the business section of The Birmingham News. It's about a local ad agency that has developed a campaign for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The campaign is designed to help raise awareness of various consumer mail-fraud schemes. That's what the postal inspection service does--it looks into consumer fraud. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate white-collar crime, such as honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. But Alice Martin took my detailed complaint about judicial wrongdoing and sent it to the postal inspection service. That's what I mean about sweeping my case under the rug. And I have far more details that I will be posting soon about the malice of Alice.
Dollars and Scholars
In earlier posts, we cited the ongoing investigation at Hoover High School as an example of how expensive a problem can get when lawyers get involved. The Hoover School System hired former federal judge Sam Pointer Jr. to investigate allegations of grade changing related to Hoover's renowned football program, the focus of MTV's Two A Days. So what's the latest legal tab for the Hoover folks? We learn today that it amounts to $151,153, based on 757 billable hours. Don't know about you, but that would put a serious ouch in my pocket book. And don't you think that money could have bought an awful lot of textbooks or computers or band outfits--or shoulder pads and helmets, for that matter?
A True Shocker
The most shocking news of all today is that the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission is actually doing something. This most worthless of Alabama agencies has been investigating Mobile circuit judge Herman Thomas for a variety of ethical violations. Among the charges against Thomas are claims from prisoners that he spanked them. Thomas must have really been a bad boy if he actually screwed up enough to draw the JIC's attention. I've filed multiple complaints regarding corrupt judges in Shelby County, and the JIC never lifted a finger to look into any of them. I figured the commission made the Maytag Repairman look like an overachiever. But it turns out the JIC actually does something once in a while. Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo! And get this: Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson is pursuing a separate investigation into whether Thomas issued biased rulings favoring certain friends. Well, snip my pickle again! That's the way things are done on a regular basis in Shelby County. You mean there's something wrong with that? What's with this Tyson character? Why is he actually doing his job? What are the chances that Shelby County DA Robby Owens will look into wrongdoing by judges in his district? I would say Britney Spears has a better chance of being named Mother of the Year.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XII
The Paul Minor case in Mississippi has helped shine a spotlight on the issue of campaign contributions to judges. And more litigants are questioning the impartiality of judges, asking them to recuse themselves.
From January 2003 to August 2004, when the Minor case was very much in the news, 110 motions were filed asking justices on the Mississippi Supreme Court to recuse themselves. A variety of reasons were cited, including campaign donations. Justices approved seven of the 110 requests.
The Minor case focused on contributions and loan guarantees from a lawyer to judges. But the issue goes beyond interactions between those in the legal community. Here are a couple of examples where litigants called into question the impartiality of judges:
Edwin Welsh of Madison, MS, saw the state high court rule against him in a dispute with his former employers, the owners of a wireless company. In seeking rehearing
From January 2003 to August 2004, when the Minor case was very much in the news, 110 motions were filed asking justices on the Mississippi Supreme Court to recuse themselves. A variety of reasons were cited, including campaign donations. Justices approved seven of the 110 requests.
The Minor case focused on contributions and loan guarantees from a lawyer to judges. But the issue goes beyond interactions between those in the legal community. Here are a couple of examples where litigants called into question the impartiality of judges:
Edwin Welsh of Madison, MS, saw the state high court rule against him in a dispute with his former employers, the owners of a wireless company. In seeking rehearing