I might be accused of reaching down into the gutter on this one, but recent events (hello Larry Craig!) make me think this story has a whiff of legitimacy.
Blogger Big Head DC is reporting that a male escort has had a relationship with U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), who abruptly announced his resignation recently.
Big Head DC identifies the gay male escort as Benjamin Nicholas, who did not wish to comment for the record. But the blog says e-mail and other evidence confirm that Nicholas and Lott have "met" on at least two occasions.
Nicholas is denying the relationship, but the story is making the mainstream press, including the Miami Herald.
For several years, word has been that the powerful Lott used his influence to protect brother-in-law Richard "Dickie" Scruggs during a federal investigation that led to the conviction of Paul Minor, a prominent Democratic donor. Now, we have Lott announcing his resignation and Scruggs being indicted all in one week.
Have GOPers learned of the emerging "gay" story and decided to throw both Lott and Scruggs under the bus? Is the Scruggs indictment really about the Bushies trying to distance themselves from another GOP gay train wreck?
Speaking of GOP gay train wrecks, have you seen this site? Makes you wonder just who Jeff Gannon was seeing on all of those visits to the White House. Yow!
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Dome Dilemma
Speaking of Larry Langford, Birmingham's new mayor is a big supporter of a domed stadium for our community. In fact, he already has proposed a tax plan that would help fund a dome.
Civic leaders have been discussing a domed stadium for 10 years or more. But before Langford moves forward with his plan, he needs to check out this story.
Major-league baseball's Tampa Bay Rays plan to build a new 34,000-seat open-air waterfront stadium with a retractable roof. The new facility will cost $450 million.
And what about Tropicana Field, the 17-year-old domed stadium where the Rays have been playing? Plans call for redeveloping the site into a mixed-use development of homes, shops, and offices. According to this story, the land that Tropicana Field rests upon is of great value. The stadium itself? Apparently it's not worth much more than a warm cup of spit.
And that's the truth Birmingham leaders seem to be ignoring. Domed stadiums are yesterday's news. They are being vacated, imploded, or redeveloped all over the country. People want to watch sporting events in open-air facilities, with retractable roofs as insurance against bad weather. People finally are realizing that domed stadiums are lousy places to watch a baseball, football, or basketball game. In fact, they aren't a good place to watch anything.
But retractable-roof stadiums are too expensive, some say. Well, the Tampa facility includes a fabric that sounds like it is less expensive than previous options. That stadium is expected to cost $450 million, and Langford is calling for a $500 million plan in Birmingham. The Langford plan involves more than a dome, but the dome is the big piece, and the Tampa story makes it seem that a retractable-roof facility would be feasible here.
Heck, the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, home to the Arizona Cardinals of the NFL, is considered absolute state of the art. And its price tag was $455 million.
But we need a multipurpose facility, Birmingham leaders say, a place where we can have sporting events and conventions. Again, multipurpose facilities, so popular in the '60s and '70s, are being bulldozed all over the country.
If Birmingham needs convention space, build a convention center. If it needs a sports facility, one that would replace ancient Legion Field, build a sports facility. An open-air stadium with a retractable roof would be the best plan to address both of those needs.
If the city can't afford to do it right, then I would suggest building the convention component and sprucing up Legion Field. Yes, it's not in a great part of town, but it's still a good place to watch a football game--much better than a dome would be.
Here's what makes no sense about a dome in Birmingham: Presumably the No. 1 sporting attraction would be college football--UAB, a bowl game, Alabama A&M vs. Alabama State, etc. The worst environment for college football in the country is in New Orleans, where Tulane plays in the Superdome. The second worst environment is at Minnesota, where the Gophers play in the godawful Metrodome.
One of the best things about college football in the South is the fall weather. Ninety percent of the time, it's beautiful. And you want people to go indoors to watch games?
Birmingham leaders need to consider the experience of East Tennessee State University. Students several months ago voted down a proposal that would have brought football back to the campus. The sport was dropped four years ago during a budget crunch because of escalating costs and declining attendance.
According to news reports, one of the major reasons for declining attendance was the school's domed stadium, which was home to the football team. Fans had come to consider it an unattractive place to watch football and stayed away in droves. A key part of the new proposal was funding for an open-air stadium.
Legal Schnauzer's message: Listen up Larry, ditch the dome and raise the roof. Open air is where it's at.
Civic leaders have been discussing a domed stadium for 10 years or more. But before Langford moves forward with his plan, he needs to check out this story.
Major-league baseball's Tampa Bay Rays plan to build a new 34,000-seat open-air waterfront stadium with a retractable roof. The new facility will cost $450 million.
And what about Tropicana Field, the 17-year-old domed stadium where the Rays have been playing? Plans call for redeveloping the site into a mixed-use development of homes, shops, and offices. According to this story, the land that Tropicana Field rests upon is of great value. The stadium itself? Apparently it's not worth much more than a warm cup of spit.
And that's the truth Birmingham leaders seem to be ignoring. Domed stadiums are yesterday's news. They are being vacated, imploded, or redeveloped all over the country. People want to watch sporting events in open-air facilities, with retractable roofs as insurance against bad weather. People finally are realizing that domed stadiums are lousy places to watch a baseball, football, or basketball game. In fact, they aren't a good place to watch anything.
But retractable-roof stadiums are too expensive, some say. Well, the Tampa facility includes a fabric that sounds like it is less expensive than previous options. That stadium is expected to cost $450 million, and Langford is calling for a $500 million plan in Birmingham. The Langford plan involves more than a dome, but the dome is the big piece, and the Tampa story makes it seem that a retractable-roof facility would be feasible here.
Heck, the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, home to the Arizona Cardinals of the NFL, is considered absolute state of the art. And its price tag was $455 million.
But we need a multipurpose facility, Birmingham leaders say, a place where we can have sporting events and conventions. Again, multipurpose facilities, so popular in the '60s and '70s, are being bulldozed all over the country.
If Birmingham needs convention space, build a convention center. If it needs a sports facility, one that would replace ancient Legion Field, build a sports facility. An open-air stadium with a retractable roof would be the best plan to address both of those needs.
If the city can't afford to do it right, then I would suggest building the convention component and sprucing up Legion Field. Yes, it's not in a great part of town, but it's still a good place to watch a football game--much better than a dome would be.
Here's what makes no sense about a dome in Birmingham: Presumably the No. 1 sporting attraction would be college football--UAB, a bowl game, Alabama A&M vs. Alabama State, etc. The worst environment for college football in the country is in New Orleans, where Tulane plays in the Superdome. The second worst environment is at Minnesota, where the Gophers play in the godawful Metrodome.
One of the best things about college football in the South is the fall weather. Ninety percent of the time, it's beautiful. And you want people to go indoors to watch games?
Birmingham leaders need to consider the experience of East Tennessee State University. Students several months ago voted down a proposal that would have brought football back to the campus. The sport was dropped four years ago during a budget crunch because of escalating costs and declining attendance.
According to news reports, one of the major reasons for declining attendance was the school's domed stadium, which was home to the football team. Fans had come to consider it an unattractive place to watch football and stayed away in droves. A key part of the new proposal was funding for an open-air stadium.
Legal Schnauzer's message: Listen up Larry, ditch the dome and raise the roof. Open air is where it's at.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Mississippi's Really Churning Now
A huge story is brewing in Mississippi, with the indictment of high-profile attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs and four other attorneys on bribery charges. The Scruggs case has possible connections to a number of issues we've spotlighted here at Legal Schnauzer.
Scruggs and the other defendants are charged with conspiring to bribe Circuit Judge Henry L. Lackey in exchange for a favorable ruling in a lawsuit involving legal fees in the representation of Hurricane Katrina victims.
The alleged conspiracy began in March 2007, and Lackey immediately reported the alleged bribery overture to federal authorities and then assisted with the FBI investigation. Evidence against the defendants includes computer e-mails, and the indictment includes excerpts from telephone conversations that evidently were recorded by federal authorities.
At issue in the lawsuit were $28 million in attorney fees from a mass settlement of State Farm policyholders' claims. A Jackson, MS, firm had sued Scruggs, alleging he was withholding money it was owed for work on the Katrina litigation.
The Scruggs indictment raises all kinds of interesting questions. Here are a few that come to mind:
* What, if anything, does this mean for the Paul Minor case, which we've covered extensively here at Legal Schnauzer? Minor and Scruggs were probably the two most successful trial attorneys in Mississippi. Minor was a major supporter of Democratic candidates and (along with two judges) was convicted on corruption charges earlier this year. Scruggs evidently gave to both Democrats and Republicans, and his brother-in-law is U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). He was investigated in the Minor case, but avoided an indictment then. We have shown that Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were wrongly convicted in a case that is being investigated by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. According to news reports, no written or audio evidence--and no oral testimony--indicated there was any bribery agreement in the Minor case. And since the judges' rulings in the underlying lawsuits were correct under the law, there could be no quid pro quo or corrupt intent as required under the law. Apparently, the Scruggs case does involve strong evidence of an agreement and a quid pro quo. Based on what I see at this early juncture, the charges in the two cases look remarkably similar, but the facts are very different. The Scruggs case appears to involve a legit bribery charge. It appears to be starkly different from the Minor case--and for that matter, the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.
* Did the brewing Scruggs indictment have anything to do with Trent Lott's announcement this week that he will resign with almost six full years left on his term in the Senate?
* Could the FBI investigation in the Scruggs case have turned up evidence that Lott pushed the feds toward Minor and away from Scruggs the first time around?
* Is new Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey having a positive impact, actually bringing a sense of justice to the U.S. Justice Department?
* Is the work of honest attorneys such as Scott Horton, Jill Simpson, and Paul Benton Weeks related to the Don Siegelman case having a positive cumulative effect? Have they helped set a ball in motion that is beginning to steamroll toward justice--and toward big trouble for folks who have been abusing our justice system in recent years?
Scruggs and the other defendants are charged with conspiring to bribe Circuit Judge Henry L. Lackey in exchange for a favorable ruling in a lawsuit involving legal fees in the representation of Hurricane Katrina victims.
The alleged conspiracy began in March 2007, and Lackey immediately reported the alleged bribery overture to federal authorities and then assisted with the FBI investigation. Evidence against the defendants includes computer e-mails, and the indictment includes excerpts from telephone conversations that evidently were recorded by federal authorities.
At issue in the lawsuit were $28 million in attorney fees from a mass settlement of State Farm policyholders' claims. A Jackson, MS, firm had sued Scruggs, alleging he was withholding money it was owed for work on the Katrina litigation.
The Scruggs indictment raises all kinds of interesting questions. Here are a few that come to mind:
* What, if anything, does this mean for the Paul Minor case, which we've covered extensively here at Legal Schnauzer? Minor and Scruggs were probably the two most successful trial attorneys in Mississippi. Minor was a major supporter of Democratic candidates and (along with two judges) was convicted on corruption charges earlier this year. Scruggs evidently gave to both Democrats and Republicans, and his brother-in-law is U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS). He was investigated in the Minor case, but avoided an indictment then. We have shown that Minor and judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were wrongly convicted in a case that is being investigated by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. According to news reports, no written or audio evidence--and no oral testimony--indicated there was any bribery agreement in the Minor case. And since the judges' rulings in the underlying lawsuits were correct under the law, there could be no quid pro quo or corrupt intent as required under the law. Apparently, the Scruggs case does involve strong evidence of an agreement and a quid pro quo. Based on what I see at this early juncture, the charges in the two cases look remarkably similar, but the facts are very different. The Scruggs case appears to involve a legit bribery charge. It appears to be starkly different from the Minor case--and for that matter, the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.
* Did the brewing Scruggs indictment have anything to do with Trent Lott's announcement this week that he will resign with almost six full years left on his term in the Senate?
* Could the FBI investigation in the Scruggs case have turned up evidence that Lott pushed the feds toward Minor and away from Scruggs the first time around?
* Is new Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey having a positive impact, actually bringing a sense of justice to the U.S. Justice Department?
* Is the work of honest attorneys such as Scott Horton, Jill Simpson, and Paul Benton Weeks related to the Don Siegelman case having a positive cumulative effect? Have they helped set a ball in motion that is beginning to steamroll toward justice--and toward big trouble for folks who have been abusing our justice system in recent years?
A Sickening Case of Animal Cruelty
It's well established that we here at Legal Schnauzer are animal lovers.
My wife and I came up with this blog as a way to honor the memory of Murphy, our miniature schnauzer who brightened our lives so much for 11 years and helped us survive the legal nightmare that is described in these pages.
Our cover schnauzer is a handsome fellow from Australia named Gumpie Poo. (Thanks to Valleyview Dogs of Queensland, Australia.) This blog has attracted far more attention than I ever dreamed possible. And I think a big reason for that is the photo of Gumpie Poo. Who could see the photo of the vibrant, ultra virile Gumpster and not want to come on in and look around?
So I could not help but react with a special kind of rage and revulsion at this story about a beagle that was skinned alive by an alleged human being in Alabama.
The beagle, Anne, belonged to a family in Vinemont, Alabama, and she was skinned alive on her back and side. She was later euthanized. Buttercup, another beagle that belonged to the family, suffered minor cuts, evidently at the hands of the same cretin.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is offering a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or people responsible for the crime.
If the case ever goes to trial, the perpetrator better hope my wife and I are not on the jury. In fact, I suspect many Alabamians would have a hard time letting this creep get off easy.
My wife and I came up with this blog as a way to honor the memory of Murphy, our miniature schnauzer who brightened our lives so much for 11 years and helped us survive the legal nightmare that is described in these pages.
Our cover schnauzer is a handsome fellow from Australia named Gumpie Poo. (Thanks to Valleyview Dogs of Queensland, Australia.) This blog has attracted far more attention than I ever dreamed possible. And I think a big reason for that is the photo of Gumpie Poo. Who could see the photo of the vibrant, ultra virile Gumpster and not want to come on in and look around?
So I could not help but react with a special kind of rage and revulsion at this story about a beagle that was skinned alive by an alleged human being in Alabama.
The beagle, Anne, belonged to a family in Vinemont, Alabama, and she was skinned alive on her back and side. She was later euthanized. Buttercup, another beagle that belonged to the family, suffered minor cuts, evidently at the hands of the same cretin.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is offering a $2,500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or people responsible for the crime.
If the case ever goes to trial, the perpetrator better hope my wife and I are not on the jury. In fact, I suspect many Alabamians would have a hard time letting this creep get off easy.
The Plague of Indifference
Elie Wiesel--Holocaust survivor, author, and Nobel Peace Prize winner--spoke at Birmingham-Southern College last night. Not surprisingly, he had some profound things to say about the state of the world.
This quote particularly jumps out:
"If someone is suffering and I don't respond, what kind of humanity do I have," Wiesel said. "The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference. The opposite of education is not ignorance, but indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, but indifference. The opposite of life is not death, but indifference."
As I seek to apply those thoughts to my own experiences, I come up with these questions:
* Why did Alabama attorney William E. Swatek, who has a 30-year record of unethical conduct, file a bogus lawsuit against me? Was he counting on public indifference to let him get away with it.?
* Why did Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves intentionally make unlawful rulings in the case and why did Alabama appellate judges allow those rulings to stand? Were they counting on public indifference to let them get away with it?
* Why did Karl Rove, Bill Canary, Alberto Gonzalez, and other GOP operatives turn the U.S. Justice Department into a cesspool of corruption, in the process turning men like Don Siegelman (in Alabama), Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield (in Mississippi) into political prisoners? Were they counting on public indifference to let them get away with it?
* And here's the biggie: Are Swatek, Joiner, Rove and Co. correct? Will public indifference let them get away with it?
This quote particularly jumps out:
"If someone is suffering and I don't respond, what kind of humanity do I have," Wiesel said. "The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference. The opposite of education is not ignorance, but indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, but indifference. The opposite of life is not death, but indifference."
As I seek to apply those thoughts to my own experiences, I come up with these questions:
* Why did Alabama attorney William E. Swatek, who has a 30-year record of unethical conduct, file a bogus lawsuit against me? Was he counting on public indifference to let him get away with it.?
* Why did Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves intentionally make unlawful rulings in the case and why did Alabama appellate judges allow those rulings to stand? Were they counting on public indifference to let them get away with it?
* Why did Karl Rove, Bill Canary, Alberto Gonzalez, and other GOP operatives turn the U.S. Justice Department into a cesspool of corruption, in the process turning men like Don Siegelman (in Alabama), Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield (in Mississippi) into political prisoners? Were they counting on public indifference to let them get away with it?
* And here's the biggie: Are Swatek, Joiner, Rove and Co. correct? Will public indifference let them get away with it?
Bob Riley: Law? What Law?
Alabama Governor Bob Riley has never been one to let the law keep him from doing what he wants to do. And that seems to be what happened when Riley appointed George F. Bowman to fill Larry Langford's seat on the Jefferson County. (The seat opened when Langford was elected mayor of Birmingham.)
Never mind that the law apparently does not give Riley the authority to appoint Langford's successor.
Fairfield, Alabama, resident Fred Plump has filed a lawsuit contending that Riley lacks authority in the Langford matter and has asked a federal court to remove Bowman from office.
The bipartisan Jefferson County Election Commission set a special election because its members maintain the state law that gives the governor the power to fill county-commission vacancies by appointment specifically excludes counties that have their own special election rules, as does Jefferson County.
Riley made a similar appointment in 2005, and a panel of federal judges ruled the appointment violated the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Riley's candidate was removed, and a special election was held.
"It is all about thwarting the democratic process that was already under way with an election set for February 5," said Joe Turnham, chair of the Alabama Democratic Party. "Now Governor Riley has pushed the issue into federal court."
With his hardheadedness and disdain for the rule of law, Riley is seeming more and more like Alabama's very own version of George W. Bush.
Never mind that the law apparently does not give Riley the authority to appoint Langford's successor.
Fairfield, Alabama, resident Fred Plump has filed a lawsuit contending that Riley lacks authority in the Langford matter and has asked a federal court to remove Bowman from office.
The bipartisan Jefferson County Election Commission set a special election because its members maintain the state law that gives the governor the power to fill county-commission vacancies by appointment specifically excludes counties that have their own special election rules, as does Jefferson County.
Riley made a similar appointment in 2005, and a panel of federal judges ruled the appointment violated the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Riley's candidate was removed, and a special election was held.
"It is all about thwarting the democratic process that was already under way with an election set for February 5," said Joe Turnham, chair of the Alabama Democratic Party. "Now Governor Riley has pushed the issue into federal court."
With his hardheadedness and disdain for the rule of law, Riley is seeming more and more like Alabama's very own version of George W. Bush.
The Langford Files
I don't live in the Birmingham city limits, but I work there, and I very much want to see the city thrive. In fact, I don't see how our community, and our state for that matter, can reach its potential without a thriving Birmingham.
The city is not thriving at the moment. Published reports indicate Birmingham is losing 5.6 percent of its population per year. And there are proposals to close a number of city schools because of a declining population. Middle and upper-class black families evidently are following their white counterparts to the suburbs.
Clearly, Birmingham needs bold and effective leadership. Newly elected Mayor Larry Langford has the bold part down pat. And it looks like he will get a chance to prove the effective part now that Jefferson County Judge Allwin Horn has ruled in Langford's favor in an election contest by runnerup Patrick Cooper.
Horn ruled that Langford met residency requirements to run for mayor. Langford still owns a home in Fairfield, Alabama, but signed a lease on a loft in downtown Birmingham in June 2007.
Cooper said he plans to file an appeal.
This case has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer because your humble blogger has a case pending before Judge Horn--on a matter that grew from the bogus lawsuit filed against me by a neighbor in Shelby County, a lawsuit that is at the heart of this blog.
So far, I've been extremely unimpressed with Judge Horn. He is a Republican, and like every other Republican judge I've encountered in Alabama, he seems more than willing to make rulings based on politics rather than the law. I will be posting details soon about Horn's actions in my case.
But my experiences with him make me wonder about his motives in the Langford ruling. News reports say Langford and others have been interviewed as part of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into Jefferson County sewer-bond activities. A number of local pundits have stated that it's only a matter of time before Langford is indicted.
Is it possible that Alabama's GOP henchmen want to lift Langford up, making it easier to chop him down? Is it possible that Langford, by being mayor, becomes an even more attractive target for the SEC and perhaps the Bush Justice Department? Did these political considerations play a part in Horn's ruling?
Wouldn't surprise me if they did.
One interesting note about the Langford ruling, which is available here. Horn did cite at least one statutory law and about a half dozen examples of case law. That differs from my experience with him. I've seen him make rulings, ones that don't square with the actual law, where he appears to have made no attempt to conduct any research. More on that coming soon.
The city is not thriving at the moment. Published reports indicate Birmingham is losing 5.6 percent of its population per year. And there are proposals to close a number of city schools because of a declining population. Middle and upper-class black families evidently are following their white counterparts to the suburbs.
Clearly, Birmingham needs bold and effective leadership. Newly elected Mayor Larry Langford has the bold part down pat. And it looks like he will get a chance to prove the effective part now that Jefferson County Judge Allwin Horn has ruled in Langford's favor in an election contest by runnerup Patrick Cooper.
Horn ruled that Langford met residency requirements to run for mayor. Langford still owns a home in Fairfield, Alabama, but signed a lease on a loft in downtown Birmingham in June 2007.
Cooper said he plans to file an appeal.
This case has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer because your humble blogger has a case pending before Judge Horn--on a matter that grew from the bogus lawsuit filed against me by a neighbor in Shelby County, a lawsuit that is at the heart of this blog.
So far, I've been extremely unimpressed with Judge Horn. He is a Republican, and like every other Republican judge I've encountered in Alabama, he seems more than willing to make rulings based on politics rather than the law. I will be posting details soon about Horn's actions in my case.
But my experiences with him make me wonder about his motives in the Langford ruling. News reports say Langford and others have been interviewed as part of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into Jefferson County sewer-bond activities. A number of local pundits have stated that it's only a matter of time before Langford is indicted.
Is it possible that Alabama's GOP henchmen want to lift Langford up, making it easier to chop him down? Is it possible that Langford, by being mayor, becomes an even more attractive target for the SEC and perhaps the Bush Justice Department? Did these political considerations play a part in Horn's ruling?
Wouldn't surprise me if they did.
One interesting note about the Langford ruling, which is available here. Horn did cite at least one statutory law and about a half dozen examples of case law. That differs from my experience with him. I've seen him make rulings, ones that don't square with the actual law, where he appears to have made no attempt to conduct any research. More on that coming soon.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Birmingham's Next American Idol?
We've had fun posting occasionally about Taylor Hicks, Birmingham's American Idol 2006. There really isn't much of a connection between Hicks and our usual subject matter here--sleazy attorneys, corrupt judges, etc.
But Hicks did play basketball at Hoover High School, and I've written about a possible connection between Hoover football and my legal tale of woe. That's a pretty weak thread, I'll admit. But hey, my wife's a Taylor Hicks fan, and she turned me into a Taylor Hicks fan, so I don't need much of an excuse to write about the high priest of the "Soul Patrol."
And besides, I need a break now and then from our usual subject matter, which can get a bit grim. Hicks represents an Alabama feel-good story that I am only too happy to help spread.
To my untrained ears, Hicks is more than just a feel-good story. I've listened with great regularity to his major-label debut, and his two independent CDs, and I'm convinced the guy is a significant talent.
Yes, Hicks has a distinctive whiskey tenor and a charismatic stage presence. And he's pretty good on at least two instruments--harmonica and guitar. But I'm most impressed with his writing talent. Some might say that Hicks is unpolished as a songwriter. But there is good basic stuff there. A big-time producer, Matt Serletic, took three of Hicks' original tunes--Soul Thing, The Deal, and Hell of a Day--and turned them into true gems. In fact, many reviewers said that the best songs on the Taylor Hicks CD were those three originals.
So it's established that we here at Legal Schnauzer are big Taylor Hicks supporters. But the point of this post is to alert the public that Birmingham might have another American Idol in the works. And he happens to be a guy I've seen on the football field quite a bit.
Sam Hunt, the starting quarterback this year for the UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) Blazers, happens to be a pretty talented musician. Steve Irvine, of The Birmingham News, recently wrote about Hunt and his possible future in music.
I follow UAB athletics, and I had heard that Hunt could sing and play guitar a little. But I figured he was a "hobby level" musician. On a local telecast of a recent UAB game, there was a halftime feature about Hunt, including him playing and singing. Heck, I thought, this guy's good.
Evidently, I'm not the only one who thinks so. He played before about 200 people at a Fellowship of Christian Athletes talent show, and he was lead vocalist at a recent performance by the UAB Gospel Choir.
Hunt's teammates are impressed. "I tried to get Sam to go on American Idol when they came to Birmingham," cornerback Zach Britten said. "I forgot what happened--the practice schedule or what. But Sam can sing, man. I think he would have made it."
I've had a chance to speak to Hunt a time or two, and he seems like a genuinely nice guy. Plus, he's disgustingly handsome, which wouldn't hurt on Idol. In the photo that ran with the News story (not available on the Web version), Hunt has a tousled-hair thing going on that makes him look like a CCR-era John Fogerty.
Hunt was a solid college football player, but he doesn't figure to have an NFL future. UAB struggled to a 2-10 record this season.
But who knows what might happen on the music front? Hunt says he gravitates toward a mixture of country, blues, rock, and gospel. "I would like to play music in the future," Hunt said. "I've seen a lot of really good players and singers who are trying to make it and aren't necessarily making it. That's a hard business to get into. But it would be awesome to do that."
Here is Hunt's bio from the UAB football Web site. The Blazers wrapped up their 2007 season Saturday with a 46-39 loss at Marshall. Hunt completed 13 of 24 passes for 189 yards and one touchdown and ran eight times for 64 yards.
But Hicks did play basketball at Hoover High School, and I've written about a possible connection between Hoover football and my legal tale of woe. That's a pretty weak thread, I'll admit. But hey, my wife's a Taylor Hicks fan, and she turned me into a Taylor Hicks fan, so I don't need much of an excuse to write about the high priest of the "Soul Patrol."
And besides, I need a break now and then from our usual subject matter, which can get a bit grim. Hicks represents an Alabama feel-good story that I am only too happy to help spread.
To my untrained ears, Hicks is more than just a feel-good story. I've listened with great regularity to his major-label debut, and his two independent CDs, and I'm convinced the guy is a significant talent.
Yes, Hicks has a distinctive whiskey tenor and a charismatic stage presence. And he's pretty good on at least two instruments--harmonica and guitar. But I'm most impressed with his writing talent. Some might say that Hicks is unpolished as a songwriter. But there is good basic stuff there. A big-time producer, Matt Serletic, took three of Hicks' original tunes--Soul Thing, The Deal, and Hell of a Day--and turned them into true gems. In fact, many reviewers said that the best songs on the Taylor Hicks CD were those three originals.
So it's established that we here at Legal Schnauzer are big Taylor Hicks supporters. But the point of this post is to alert the public that Birmingham might have another American Idol in the works. And he happens to be a guy I've seen on the football field quite a bit.
Sam Hunt, the starting quarterback this year for the UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) Blazers, happens to be a pretty talented musician. Steve Irvine, of The Birmingham News, recently wrote about Hunt and his possible future in music.
I follow UAB athletics, and I had heard that Hunt could sing and play guitar a little. But I figured he was a "hobby level" musician. On a local telecast of a recent UAB game, there was a halftime feature about Hunt, including him playing and singing. Heck, I thought, this guy's good.
Evidently, I'm not the only one who thinks so. He played before about 200 people at a Fellowship of Christian Athletes talent show, and he was lead vocalist at a recent performance by the UAB Gospel Choir.
Hunt's teammates are impressed. "I tried to get Sam to go on American Idol when they came to Birmingham," cornerback Zach Britten said. "I forgot what happened--the practice schedule or what. But Sam can sing, man. I think he would have made it."
I've had a chance to speak to Hunt a time or two, and he seems like a genuinely nice guy. Plus, he's disgustingly handsome, which wouldn't hurt on Idol. In the photo that ran with the News story (not available on the Web version), Hunt has a tousled-hair thing going on that makes him look like a CCR-era John Fogerty.
Hunt was a solid college football player, but he doesn't figure to have an NFL future. UAB struggled to a 2-10 record this season.
But who knows what might happen on the music front? Hunt says he gravitates toward a mixture of country, blues, rock, and gospel. "I would like to play music in the future," Hunt said. "I've seen a lot of really good players and singers who are trying to make it and aren't necessarily making it. That's a hard business to get into. But it would be awesome to do that."
Here is Hunt's bio from the UAB football Web site. The Blazers wrapped up their 2007 season Saturday with a 46-39 loss at Marshall. Hunt completed 13 of 24 passes for 189 yards and one touchdown and ran eight times for 64 yards.
Coverage of the Courts
The recent story about a bird lover in Texas who shot and killed a cat illustrates a problem with press coverage of our courts.
Why did the story make The New York Times? I love cats, and birds, but did that story really deserve that kind of national attention?
Well, I have theory about the way the press covers courts. Most articles about courts will fall into one of a few categories:
* Something horrible happened--think murder, rape, child molestation.
* Someone famous was involved--think Winona Ryder and shoplifting.
* Someone powerful was involved--think Larry Craig.
* Large amounts of money were involved--think Enron.
* Something unusual, bizarre, or ironic was involved--think bird lover shoots cat.
But what about stories that go to the very core of our justice system, stories about corrupt judges, abusive prosecutors, or unethical attorneys. What about stories about judicial rulings that are clearly contrary to established law? Why do judges take these actions, and how are citizens harmed by them?
I would guess that such stories are out there every week, in all 50 states. But how many daily newspapers or TV news programs cover them?
Consider coverage of two stories we've followed closely here at Legal Schnauzer. When former Governor Don Siegelman and HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy were on trial in Alabama, it was a major story. It involved a defendant with power and a defendant with money. But once they were convicted, the state's press lost interest. Critically important stories about the conflicts of Judge Mark Fuller and prosecutorial abuses by Leura Canary's office have drawn little attention.
The same thing has happened with the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. The trial itself was big news--it involved lots of money and lots of power. A few national journalists (Scott Horton of Harper's, Adam Cohen of The New York Times) and a few members of the alternative press have reported on the raging conflicts of prosecutor Dunn Lampton and the numerous unlawful rulings by Judge Henry Wingate. But that story, so far, has gone largely unreported in the mainstream Mississippi press.
Why did the story make The New York Times? I love cats, and birds, but did that story really deserve that kind of national attention?
Well, I have theory about the way the press covers courts. Most articles about courts will fall into one of a few categories:
* Something horrible happened--think murder, rape, child molestation.
* Someone famous was involved--think Winona Ryder and shoplifting.
* Someone powerful was involved--think Larry Craig.
* Large amounts of money were involved--think Enron.
* Something unusual, bizarre, or ironic was involved--think bird lover shoots cat.
But what about stories that go to the very core of our justice system, stories about corrupt judges, abusive prosecutors, or unethical attorneys. What about stories about judicial rulings that are clearly contrary to established law? Why do judges take these actions, and how are citizens harmed by them?
I would guess that such stories are out there every week, in all 50 states. But how many daily newspapers or TV news programs cover them?
Consider coverage of two stories we've followed closely here at Legal Schnauzer. When former Governor Don Siegelman and HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy were on trial in Alabama, it was a major story. It involved a defendant with power and a defendant with money. But once they were convicted, the state's press lost interest. Critically important stories about the conflicts of Judge Mark Fuller and prosecutorial abuses by Leura Canary's office have drawn little attention.
The same thing has happened with the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. The trial itself was big news--it involved lots of money and lots of power. A few national journalists (Scott Horton of Harper's, Adam Cohen of The New York Times) and a few members of the alternative press have reported on the raging conflicts of prosecutor Dunn Lampton and the numerous unlawful rulings by Judge Henry Wingate. But that story, so far, has gone largely unreported in the mainstream Mississippi press.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Why Did Trent Lott Really Resign?
A lot of folks are speculating about the reasons for Senator Trent Lott's resignation. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had his usual interesting take on the subject.
Most commentators have focused on changes in lobbying laws or Lott's loss of power under the flailing GOP. Some have even suggested the good senator simply needs to make more cash than his lowly Congressional gig brings home. And some have said, "Hey, lots of Republicans are retiring. It's just a trend."
Well, I don't think most of the retiring folks just got re-elected last year. I don't think most of them hold a safe seat of power till 2012, as Lott does.
So the Legal Schnauzer was just sitting here, ears alert, wondering: What if Trent Lott's resignation has something to do with the Paul Minor case in Mississippi? The Minor case has been the subject of a 25-part series here at our humble blog. (Gee, 25 parts? We must care about this case.)
I decided to turn to the much trusted Scott Horton at Harper's.org. And what to my wandering eyes did appear? This most intriguing post, noting that Horton's sources say FBI agents currently are raiding the law office of Mississippi attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who is Lott's brother-in-law.
Scruggs, you may recall, joins Paul Minor as probably the two most successful trial lawyers in Mississippi. Both have made financial contributions to state judges, which are perfectly legal under Mississippi law. But Scruggs, who is Lott's relative and a major donor to Republicans, was never prosecuted. Minor, a major donor to Democrats and a thorn in the side of numerous corporations (tobacco, asbestos, oil), was prosecuted and convicted, along with "pro plaintiff" (read Democrat) judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
What's going on with the raid at Scruggs' office? Is he going to get nailed for committing crimes, just as Minor did?
I can only guess, but I don't think that's what is happening. Did Scruggs give financial help to state judges? Evidently, yes. Did he receive favorable rulings from said judges? Probably yes. But as we have noted in our "Mississippi Churning" series, that is not a crime. It is only a crime if Scruggs receives a ruling in his favor that is "corrupt" and "unlawful."
The lawsuits at the heart of the Minor case were decided correctly by the judges. The fact they were in Minor's "favor" is irrelevant under the law.
So my guess? I don't think Dickie Scruggs is a criminal any more than Paul Minor is a criminal. But could evidence at Scruggs' firm show that Trent Lott took steps to protect Scruggs while siccing federal investigators on Minor?
You never know with the Bush Justice Department. But that is the question that should be asked.
And we do have a new attorney general in Michael Mukasey. Perhaps he actually is interested in justice, unlike his predecessor, Alberto Gonzalez--who helped turn the Justice Department into a disgusting sewer.
Is Mukasey the guy to drain the swamp? We can hope. And if that's the case, I know the offices of several state judges in Alabama he needs to raid. I think I feel an e-mail coming.
Most commentators have focused on changes in lobbying laws or Lott's loss of power under the flailing GOP. Some have even suggested the good senator simply needs to make more cash than his lowly Congressional gig brings home. And some have said, "Hey, lots of Republicans are retiring. It's just a trend."
Well, I don't think most of the retiring folks just got re-elected last year. I don't think most of them hold a safe seat of power till 2012, as Lott does.
So the Legal Schnauzer was just sitting here, ears alert, wondering: What if Trent Lott's resignation has something to do with the Paul Minor case in Mississippi? The Minor case has been the subject of a 25-part series here at our humble blog. (Gee, 25 parts? We must care about this case.)
I decided to turn to the much trusted Scott Horton at Harper's.org. And what to my wandering eyes did appear? This most intriguing post, noting that Horton's sources say FBI agents currently are raiding the law office of Mississippi attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who is Lott's brother-in-law.
Scruggs, you may recall, joins Paul Minor as probably the two most successful trial lawyers in Mississippi. Both have made financial contributions to state judges, which are perfectly legal under Mississippi law. But Scruggs, who is Lott's relative and a major donor to Republicans, was never prosecuted. Minor, a major donor to Democrats and a thorn in the side of numerous corporations (tobacco, asbestos, oil), was prosecuted and convicted, along with "pro plaintiff" (read Democrat) judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
What's going on with the raid at Scruggs' office? Is he going to get nailed for committing crimes, just as Minor did?
I can only guess, but I don't think that's what is happening. Did Scruggs give financial help to state judges? Evidently, yes. Did he receive favorable rulings from said judges? Probably yes. But as we have noted in our "Mississippi Churning" series, that is not a crime. It is only a crime if Scruggs receives a ruling in his favor that is "corrupt" and "unlawful."
The lawsuits at the heart of the Minor case were decided correctly by the judges. The fact they were in Minor's "favor" is irrelevant under the law.
So my guess? I don't think Dickie Scruggs is a criminal any more than Paul Minor is a criminal. But could evidence at Scruggs' firm show that Trent Lott took steps to protect Scruggs while siccing federal investigators on Minor?
You never know with the Bush Justice Department. But that is the question that should be asked.
And we do have a new attorney general in Michael Mukasey. Perhaps he actually is interested in justice, unlike his predecessor, Alberto Gonzalez--who helped turn the Justice Department into a disgusting sewer.
Is Mukasey the guy to drain the swamp? We can hope. And if that's the case, I know the offices of several state judges in Alabama he needs to raid. I think I feel an e-mail coming.
Siegelman: A Victim of Break-Ins
Don Siegelman's home was broken into twice during the former Alabama governor's trial on corruption charges.
That is just one of many intriguing insights from Siegelman's daughter, Dana, in an interview reported today at Raw Story. The Dana Siegelman interview is the second installment in Raw Story's five-part series on the Siegelman case.
The revelation about the break-ins came after Ms. Siegelman was asked about legal bills the family is facing in the wake of her father's prosecution. She notes that the family is receiving financial help, but she does not want to disclose the benefactors' identity for fear it might put them in danger.
Ms. Siegelman notes the fire at the home of whistleblowing Alabama attorney Jill Simpson and a break-in at the office of one of her father's lawyers. Then she says her family's home had been broken into--twice.
"We figured it was Big Brother dropping in for a visit. A plug here . . . a plug there . . . this happened twice during the trial. Nothing was stolen."
Other highlights from the interview:
* On the morning after the 2002 election:
"My dad's opponent, Bob Riley, came on Alabama statewide television announcing that he had won, and that there had been an error with the ballots in Baldwin County. How he had news of this and my dad, the governor, did not, is beyond me."
* On the role of Bill Pryor, then Alabama attorney general, in deciding the election:
"Needless to say, my dad conceded the election to Bob Riley. The reason for this had a lot to do with who was in the attorney general's office during this time . . . (Pryor) put my dad in a catch-22. Either my dad asked for another recount, in which he knew Pryor would reward Riley and therefore make my dad look like a schmuck, or my dad had to concede the election with his dignity."
* On her father becoming a political target:
"My dad was the first governor to endorse Al Gore in his campaign against Bush, and that was enough to keep (Karl) Rove after my dad."
* On the importance of the story:
"This isn't just a sad story or a bump in the road for politics. This is the corruption of the United States Justice Department. This is a criminal conspiracy for political reasons at best . . . I hate to use this as an example because it upsets me, but truth be told, this is cancer, not a cold."
There is much more interesting stuff in the interview, but I'm going to leave it right there because that is one of the best quotes I've seen about the scope of the problems in our justice system: "This is cancer, not a cold."
That is just one of many intriguing insights from Siegelman's daughter, Dana, in an interview reported today at Raw Story. The Dana Siegelman interview is the second installment in Raw Story's five-part series on the Siegelman case.
The revelation about the break-ins came after Ms. Siegelman was asked about legal bills the family is facing in the wake of her father's prosecution. She notes that the family is receiving financial help, but she does not want to disclose the benefactors' identity for fear it might put them in danger.
Ms. Siegelman notes the fire at the home of whistleblowing Alabama attorney Jill Simpson and a break-in at the office of one of her father's lawyers. Then she says her family's home had been broken into--twice.
"We figured it was Big Brother dropping in for a visit. A plug here . . . a plug there . . . this happened twice during the trial. Nothing was stolen."
Other highlights from the interview:
* On the morning after the 2002 election:
"My dad's opponent, Bob Riley, came on Alabama statewide television announcing that he had won, and that there had been an error with the ballots in Baldwin County. How he had news of this and my dad, the governor, did not, is beyond me."
* On the role of Bill Pryor, then Alabama attorney general, in deciding the election:
"Needless to say, my dad conceded the election to Bob Riley. The reason for this had a lot to do with who was in the attorney general's office during this time . . . (Pryor) put my dad in a catch-22. Either my dad asked for another recount, in which he knew Pryor would reward Riley and therefore make my dad look like a schmuck, or my dad had to concede the election with his dignity."
* On her father becoming a political target:
"My dad was the first governor to endorse Al Gore in his campaign against Bush, and that was enough to keep (Karl) Rove after my dad."
* On the importance of the story:
"This isn't just a sad story or a bump in the road for politics. This is the corruption of the United States Justice Department. This is a criminal conspiracy for political reasons at best . . . I hate to use this as an example because it upsets me, but truth be told, this is cancer, not a cold."
There is much more interesting stuff in the interview, but I'm going to leave it right there because that is one of the best quotes I've seen about the scope of the problems in our justice system: "This is cancer, not a cold."
Hoover High and Me, Part IV
We posed a number of questions in our previous post about a peculiar real-estate deal that wound up causing numerous legal headaches for your humble bloggers. Two Southern staples--football and religion--seem to be at the heart of the matter.
And there is an interesting juxtaposition between Hoover High School's search for a new coach in 1998 and steps Briarwood Christian School took at the same time to evidently keep its successful coach, and perhaps two star players.
So let's take a three-part look at some of the questions we raised yesterday:
Facts/Events
The sale of Fred Yancey's house was done in an odd, "under-the-table" way. Consider:
* There was never a for-sale sign in the yard. My wife and I, living next door, never saw any indication that the house was for sale. We had been on good terms with the Yanceys, enjoyed having them as neighbors, and they never said a word to us about moving.
* After the sale, I went back and checked local newspapers for several months prior to the closing date and never saw an ad indicating the house was for sale, either by a real-estate agent or by owner.
* After the sale, I checked with a local real-estate appraiser, and he had no record of the property being listed in the Birmingham-area MLS book, which usually contains all properties listed with an agent.
* Even though the house evidently was not listed, a real-estate agent was involved in the transaction. It was Phyllis Tinsley, then with Prudential South o' Town Realty. She now has her own real-estate company.
* Mike McGarity, his wife, and two kids lived in Cahaba Heights prior to buying Yancey's house and becoming my new next-door neighbors.
* Phyllis Tinsley told my wife that she happened to see a for-sale-by-owner sign at McGarity's house in Cahaba Heights and stopped to talk with him. That, Tinsley said, is how she found a prospective buyer. And how did she find a prospective seller? She happened to be in our neighborhood and knocked on Fred Yancey's door. Lo and behold, he was looking to sell his house! A match was made in heaven! (Note: Do real-estate agents really sell houses this way? I have no idea, but sure doesn't sound like a very efficient way to go about it. And why didn't Ms. Tinsley knock on our door? We were the next house over. Maybe we would have been happy to sell.)
* Fred Yancey coached Briarwood Christian to its first ever state championship on Thursday, December 10, 1998. The McGaritys closed on the purchase of the Yanceys house the following day, Friday, December 11, 1998. The day after that, December 12, 1998, my wife and I saw an unfamiliar dog and man in the backyard at Fred Yancey's house, and the yard had been fenced. We soon would find out that--surprise!--we had a new neighbor. We later would find out that our new neighbor had--surprise!--a significant criminal record.
Educated Guesses
Why did this real-estate deal occur in this way and at this time? My guess is that some school (Hoover High?) was interested in hiring Fred Yancey. Why would Hoover be so high on Fred Yancey? For one, he had just won a state championship, a pretty good indication that he could coach. Two, Yancey had a star player, Tim Castille, who was just an eighth grader. And Tim had a younger brother, Simeon, who reportedly was even better than he was. (Both Castilles would go on to the University of Alabama, where their father Jeremiah--then a Briarwood assistant--had been a star under Bear Bryant. Tim Castille completed his college career last year. Simeon is currently a starting cornerback for Alabama and is an All-American candidate.)
Let's look at some other educated guesses:
* Did Phyllis Tinsley really just stumble upon Mike McGarity and Fred Yancey? Maybe. But it's interesting that McGarity previously lived in Cahaba Heights. Published reports have stated that Tommy Jackson, an assistant coach at Briarwood, once was very active in youth sports leagues in Cahaba Heights. In fact, my understanding is that Briarwood has drawn a lot of players from Cahaba Heights, which may explain why the football program at Shades Valley High School (the public school for Cahaba Heights at the time) has struggled in recent years. Could Jackson, or someone else associated with Briarwood, have known McGarity was looking to buy a house? Could they have thought of him when the school, in an effort to keep its coach, decided to help sell Yancey's house and have him move on campus?
* According to my sources, Briarwood indeed was intensely involved in the real-estate deal. Someone close to the transaction has said the school was pushing for Yancey to move on campus and to get his house sold--quickly.
* According to public documents, McGarity paid a price for Yancey's house that was hardly a bargain at the time. So was Briarwood able to offer an inducement to make the house more attractive? A source, a former student in Oak Mountain schools, has told me that McGarity's son, Michael McGarity, attended Briarwood for a while. I've not been able to confirm this. I know that Michael McGarity wound up at Oak Mountain schools, and I checked with Shelby County officials to see about dates he was enrolled. Federal privacy law prohibits the release of much student information. But enrollment dates are public information and can be released, unless a student or parent has signed a form specifically stating that such information is not to be released. Shelby County officials never said such a form had been signed by the McGaritys, but the officials refused to release the information. I find it curious that Shelby County officials refused to release such innocuous public information. If an employer contacts Shelby schools wanting to verify enrollment dates of a potential employee, I guess the employer is out of luck. Would admission for your child to a private school be a serious inducement to help make a real-estate deal go through? I suspect many parents would find that attractive. If McGarity's son did go to Briarwood for a while, why did he not stay there?
* I've known a few football coaches in my time. Few events in their lives are bigger than playing in a state-championship game. So here you have Fred Yancey, partaking in this huge event on Thursday, and the very next day, he takes on another huge event--the closing on the sale of his house? I don't see that happening unless something extraordinary was going on. My guess? Briarwood was not going to be comfortable about keeping Yancey until they had him moved into the school's house on campus. And the day after the championship game, the deal was done.
* What can happen when a real-estate deal is rushed through? From firsthand knowledge, I know someone living next door to the property in question can suffer greatly. For example, a survey of the property usually is conducted prior to the sale and generally is presented at closing. This is done to ensure there are no encumbrances on the property and is supposed to protect both the buyer and the mortgage company. It also protects people who live near the property. I've seen no evidence that a survey was conducted on the Yancey property prior to sale. During discovery of the civil case, I asked for a copy of McGarity's survey, and he presented an old one, from when the Yanceys bought the house. I can only assume he didn't have one from his purchase of the house because one wasn't done. And that probably explains how his fence got on our yard. If his property had been surveyed and staked out as it should have been, I see no way the fence mistake could have happened. Also, most intelligent home buyers make sure the house is inspected prior to the purchase. Again, I asked in discovery for a copy of McGarity's home inspection, and he did not present one. That appears to mean that he didn't have one done. Were there problems with the Yancey house that might have been caught with a home inspection? I know of at least one. The house, as I understand it, has a history of water coming in the basement during and after heavy rains. While the Yanceys lived there, they had a B-Dry waterproofing system installed. I believe this involves installing a drain that diverts water away from the basement. You can see the drain hole near one of McGarity's garage doors. Do B-Dry systems work? I have no idea. But if I were thinking about buying a house, and the inspection turned up the existence of a B-Dry system, I would have qualms about going through with the purchase. The presence of a B-Dry system, to many would-be buyers, screams, "This house has had water problems!" Not exactly a selling point, I wouldn't think. (By the way, our yard drains extremely well, and some of McGarity's water problems might come from water draining off our yard. I take a certain pleasure in that thought.)
The Aftermath
For my wife and me, it's been a "Neighbor From Hell" scene that Hollywood would have trouble dreaming up. I think I've read that the most common neighbor problems involve pets, children, and fences. Our scenario had all that--and much more:
* Max, the barking coonhound mix, was the first problem. I lost track of the number of barking episodes that lasted for 2-3 hours or more. How loud was it? I remember my wife and me trying to have conversations, inside our own home, and just giving up until it stopped. I remember trying to concentrate enough to pay bills--and giving up. I remember being kept awake all night on New Year's morning, 1999. I remember being awakened at about 4 a.m. almost every day when they evidently let the dog out to do his business. And the dog provided the first clue of the kind of person we were dealing with in Mike McGarity. When I called one time to ask if he could do something about the barking dog, his reply (McGarity's, not the dog's) was, "You need to get earplugs." Classy touch. The dog eventually left the premises, I suspect because he either was driving the McGaritys, or other neighbors, crazy. Hope he found a suitable home.
* I've noted the fence that suddenly appeared when McGarity moved in. Once I regained my equilibrium after the dog's exit, I noticed the fence didn't line up with the fence of folks behind us. McGarity already had proven himself to be such an unpleasant sort that I didn't want to raise this issue unless I knew for sure the fence was on our property. So my wife and I paid $200 to have our yard resurveyed. Was the fence on our yard? Yep, and not just a little. It took up 300-400 square feet of our yard. Did McGarity move it? Yep, after a lawyer sent him a letter. Did McGarity reimburse us for the cost of the survey, as demanded in the letter? Nope.
* After taking these steps to build "good will" with us, McGarity decided it would be appropriate for him, other adults, and numerous kids to trespass repeatedly from his front yard to our front yard (an area that we could not fence, under covenants and restrictions of our neighborhood). When I told him verbally to keep himself and his guests off our property, he threatened to sue me for "harassment" and said "we're going to keep on coming." When a lawyer wrote him a letter, explaining criminal trespass law, he trespassed again, on multiple occasions. We finally decided, if our property rights were to mean anything at all, that we would have to act. That led to the criminal trespassing charges against McGarity, the acquittal, the lawsuit against me, mind-boggling judicial corruption, and the blog you are now reading.
* By the way, I talked to two former neighbors of McGarity's in Cahaba Heights. One said the barking dog drove him nuts, to the point that he called sheriff's deputies several times. Another said he experienced trespassing problems similar to what we experienced. What kind of neighbor was McGarity, I asked this guy? "He's a son of a ______," said this fellow. Both said they were thrilled when the McGaritys moved.
* Are those the only problems we've had since acquiring our new neighbor? Gosh, no. I've already mentioned the assault, which happened a little over a year ago. But what's a neighbor problem without a little dose of vandalism? Make that a heavy dose. Let's see if I can remember all the creative ways our house has been vandalized: There were the paint balls, on at least eight to 10 occasions. There were the eggings, on probably a half dozen occasions. There was the attempt to burn down our mailbox. (The box and post were soaked in lighter fluid, and a spent lighter lay in the street. The lighter evidently wouldn't work, which saved our mailbox.) And then there was the lovely night when multiple workmen's tools (which sheriff's deputies told us had been stolen from a home in an adjoining neighborhood) were thrown through our windows, breaking screens and shattering glass. When my wife got up to check on the commotion, she stepped in broken glass. It's a miracle she didn't suffer a serious cut on her foot. Oh, and let's not forget what probably would almost amount to stalking and/or reckless endangerment. McGarity himself has followed my wife and/or me in his vehicle numerous times. Neighborhood buddies of his have followed us while we walked our dog. One swerved her (yes, I said her!) vehicle toward Murphy (our miniature schnauzer) and me one evening as we walked. I guess this mother of two found that amusing. Would she find it amusing if I swerved my vehicle like that toward her kids, or her dog? I don't think so.
* About a dozen neighbors signed a letter prior to the criminal trial saying they considered Mike McGarity to be a wonderful neighbor and that my wife and I were abusing the justice system by seeking his prosecution on criminal-trespass charges. We have a copy of the letter, which we received during the course of discovery in the civil case. Evidently, McGarity's attorney, William E. Swatek, had a copy. What was the purpose of the letter? Well, it was addressed to Judge Ron Jackson, who "presided" over the criminal case, so I can only assume it was presented to him. Is this a slight violation of criminal procedure? Yes. Did the letter amount to defamation by these neighbors? Yes. Were these neighbors--I think there were six households out of about 150 houses in our neighborhood--aware of Mike McGarity's criminal record at the time they signed the letter? Did they know he has convictions for sex- and violence-related offenses in his background? I doubt it. Would they consider him a wonderful neighbor if they knew about that? I doubt it.
* Speaking of McGarity's criminal record, I doubt Hollywood could dream that up. When my wife said something didn't seem right upon meeting our new neighbor, little did I know how right she would prove to be. Upon being sued, I checked into McGarity's background--and it ain't pretty. It's a frightening case of family dysfunction. The short story: He is one of four brothers, and all of them have had significant problems with the law. Two of them died young, under unusual circumstances. And our "soccer dad" himself? I know of at least eight criminal convictions on his record, including a sex-related offense and a violence-related offense. And his record is not the worst in the family. Another brother has been arrested on more stuff than I can remember, including burglary, theft, and felony drug charges. In fact, this brother faced theft charges once in Shelby County. His attorney in that case? William E. Swatek. Did Mike McGarity call on Swatek at the suggestion of his career-criminal brother? I think you can count on it.
* While my wife and I certainly have not been pleased about the aftermath of this hurried real-estate deal, we have wondered if Mike McGarity also was less-than-thrilled about something. Was he caught off guard by the presence of a B-Dry system and the indication that the house had a water problem in its past? Were some promises made during a rush-rush closing that were not kept, at least in his mind? If McGarity's son was enrolled at Briarwood, did something happen to cause that deal to blow up, leaving us with a neighbor who was even more bitter than he appears to be even under normal circumstances? Did McGarity initially seek a lawyer with the idea of pursuing a case, perhaps a legitimate one, against someone connected to Briarwood? Was his attention diverted to suing me, for a case he definitely did not have, as a way to protect Briarwood from some legal--and financial--unpleasantness?
I will go into much more detail later about all of these events and personalities and the resulting legal mess. But this gives you an idea of what can happen when a "Neighbor From Hell" enters your life. And how it can escalate when people in authority take actions to make a problem worse, rather than simply applying the law.
And there is an interesting juxtaposition between Hoover High School's search for a new coach in 1998 and steps Briarwood Christian School took at the same time to evidently keep its successful coach, and perhaps two star players.
So let's take a three-part look at some of the questions we raised yesterday:
Facts/Events
The sale of Fred Yancey's house was done in an odd, "under-the-table" way. Consider:
* There was never a for-sale sign in the yard. My wife and I, living next door, never saw any indication that the house was for sale. We had been on good terms with the Yanceys, enjoyed having them as neighbors, and they never said a word to us about moving.
* After the sale, I went back and checked local newspapers for several months prior to the closing date and never saw an ad indicating the house was for sale, either by a real-estate agent or by owner.
* After the sale, I checked with a local real-estate appraiser, and he had no record of the property being listed in the Birmingham-area MLS book, which usually contains all properties listed with an agent.
* Even though the house evidently was not listed, a real-estate agent was involved in the transaction. It was Phyllis Tinsley, then with Prudential South o' Town Realty. She now has her own real-estate company.
* Mike McGarity, his wife, and two kids lived in Cahaba Heights prior to buying Yancey's house and becoming my new next-door neighbors.
* Phyllis Tinsley told my wife that she happened to see a for-sale-by-owner sign at McGarity's house in Cahaba Heights and stopped to talk with him. That, Tinsley said, is how she found a prospective buyer. And how did she find a prospective seller? She happened to be in our neighborhood and knocked on Fred Yancey's door. Lo and behold, he was looking to sell his house! A match was made in heaven! (Note: Do real-estate agents really sell houses this way? I have no idea, but sure doesn't sound like a very efficient way to go about it. And why didn't Ms. Tinsley knock on our door? We were the next house over. Maybe we would have been happy to sell.)
* Fred Yancey coached Briarwood Christian to its first ever state championship on Thursday, December 10, 1998. The McGaritys closed on the purchase of the Yanceys house the following day, Friday, December 11, 1998. The day after that, December 12, 1998, my wife and I saw an unfamiliar dog and man in the backyard at Fred Yancey's house, and the yard had been fenced. We soon would find out that--surprise!--we had a new neighbor. We later would find out that our new neighbor had--surprise!--a significant criminal record.
Educated Guesses
Why did this real-estate deal occur in this way and at this time? My guess is that some school (Hoover High?) was interested in hiring Fred Yancey. Why would Hoover be so high on Fred Yancey? For one, he had just won a state championship, a pretty good indication that he could coach. Two, Yancey had a star player, Tim Castille, who was just an eighth grader. And Tim had a younger brother, Simeon, who reportedly was even better than he was. (Both Castilles would go on to the University of Alabama, where their father Jeremiah--then a Briarwood assistant--had been a star under Bear Bryant. Tim Castille completed his college career last year. Simeon is currently a starting cornerback for Alabama and is an All-American candidate.)
Let's look at some other educated guesses:
* Did Phyllis Tinsley really just stumble upon Mike McGarity and Fred Yancey? Maybe. But it's interesting that McGarity previously lived in Cahaba Heights. Published reports have stated that Tommy Jackson, an assistant coach at Briarwood, once was very active in youth sports leagues in Cahaba Heights. In fact, my understanding is that Briarwood has drawn a lot of players from Cahaba Heights, which may explain why the football program at Shades Valley High School (the public school for Cahaba Heights at the time) has struggled in recent years. Could Jackson, or someone else associated with Briarwood, have known McGarity was looking to buy a house? Could they have thought of him when the school, in an effort to keep its coach, decided to help sell Yancey's house and have him move on campus?
* According to my sources, Briarwood indeed was intensely involved in the real-estate deal. Someone close to the transaction has said the school was pushing for Yancey to move on campus and to get his house sold--quickly.
* According to public documents, McGarity paid a price for Yancey's house that was hardly a bargain at the time. So was Briarwood able to offer an inducement to make the house more attractive? A source, a former student in Oak Mountain schools, has told me that McGarity's son, Michael McGarity, attended Briarwood for a while. I've not been able to confirm this. I know that Michael McGarity wound up at Oak Mountain schools, and I checked with Shelby County officials to see about dates he was enrolled. Federal privacy law prohibits the release of much student information. But enrollment dates are public information and can be released, unless a student or parent has signed a form specifically stating that such information is not to be released. Shelby County officials never said such a form had been signed by the McGaritys, but the officials refused to release the information. I find it curious that Shelby County officials refused to release such innocuous public information. If an employer contacts Shelby schools wanting to verify enrollment dates of a potential employee, I guess the employer is out of luck. Would admission for your child to a private school be a serious inducement to help make a real-estate deal go through? I suspect many parents would find that attractive. If McGarity's son did go to Briarwood for a while, why did he not stay there?
* I've known a few football coaches in my time. Few events in their lives are bigger than playing in a state-championship game. So here you have Fred Yancey, partaking in this huge event on Thursday, and the very next day, he takes on another huge event--the closing on the sale of his house? I don't see that happening unless something extraordinary was going on. My guess? Briarwood was not going to be comfortable about keeping Yancey until they had him moved into the school's house on campus. And the day after the championship game, the deal was done.
* What can happen when a real-estate deal is rushed through? From firsthand knowledge, I know someone living next door to the property in question can suffer greatly. For example, a survey of the property usually is conducted prior to the sale and generally is presented at closing. This is done to ensure there are no encumbrances on the property and is supposed to protect both the buyer and the mortgage company. It also protects people who live near the property. I've seen no evidence that a survey was conducted on the Yancey property prior to sale. During discovery of the civil case, I asked for a copy of McGarity's survey, and he presented an old one, from when the Yanceys bought the house. I can only assume he didn't have one from his purchase of the house because one wasn't done. And that probably explains how his fence got on our yard. If his property had been surveyed and staked out as it should have been, I see no way the fence mistake could have happened. Also, most intelligent home buyers make sure the house is inspected prior to the purchase. Again, I asked in discovery for a copy of McGarity's home inspection, and he did not present one. That appears to mean that he didn't have one done. Were there problems with the Yancey house that might have been caught with a home inspection? I know of at least one. The house, as I understand it, has a history of water coming in the basement during and after heavy rains. While the Yanceys lived there, they had a B-Dry waterproofing system installed. I believe this involves installing a drain that diverts water away from the basement. You can see the drain hole near one of McGarity's garage doors. Do B-Dry systems work? I have no idea. But if I were thinking about buying a house, and the inspection turned up the existence of a B-Dry system, I would have qualms about going through with the purchase. The presence of a B-Dry system, to many would-be buyers, screams, "This house has had water problems!" Not exactly a selling point, I wouldn't think. (By the way, our yard drains extremely well, and some of McGarity's water problems might come from water draining off our yard. I take a certain pleasure in that thought.)
The Aftermath
For my wife and me, it's been a "Neighbor From Hell" scene that Hollywood would have trouble dreaming up. I think I've read that the most common neighbor problems involve pets, children, and fences. Our scenario had all that--and much more:
* Max, the barking coonhound mix, was the first problem. I lost track of the number of barking episodes that lasted for 2-3 hours or more. How loud was it? I remember my wife and me trying to have conversations, inside our own home, and just giving up until it stopped. I remember trying to concentrate enough to pay bills--and giving up. I remember being kept awake all night on New Year's morning, 1999. I remember being awakened at about 4 a.m. almost every day when they evidently let the dog out to do his business. And the dog provided the first clue of the kind of person we were dealing with in Mike McGarity. When I called one time to ask if he could do something about the barking dog, his reply (McGarity's, not the dog's) was, "You need to get earplugs." Classy touch. The dog eventually left the premises, I suspect because he either was driving the McGaritys, or other neighbors, crazy. Hope he found a suitable home.
* I've noted the fence that suddenly appeared when McGarity moved in. Once I regained my equilibrium after the dog's exit, I noticed the fence didn't line up with the fence of folks behind us. McGarity already had proven himself to be such an unpleasant sort that I didn't want to raise this issue unless I knew for sure the fence was on our property. So my wife and I paid $200 to have our yard resurveyed. Was the fence on our yard? Yep, and not just a little. It took up 300-400 square feet of our yard. Did McGarity move it? Yep, after a lawyer sent him a letter. Did McGarity reimburse us for the cost of the survey, as demanded in the letter? Nope.
* After taking these steps to build "good will" with us, McGarity decided it would be appropriate for him, other adults, and numerous kids to trespass repeatedly from his front yard to our front yard (an area that we could not fence, under covenants and restrictions of our neighborhood). When I told him verbally to keep himself and his guests off our property, he threatened to sue me for "harassment" and said "we're going to keep on coming." When a lawyer wrote him a letter, explaining criminal trespass law, he trespassed again, on multiple occasions. We finally decided, if our property rights were to mean anything at all, that we would have to act. That led to the criminal trespassing charges against McGarity, the acquittal, the lawsuit against me, mind-boggling judicial corruption, and the blog you are now reading.
* By the way, I talked to two former neighbors of McGarity's in Cahaba Heights. One said the barking dog drove him nuts, to the point that he called sheriff's deputies several times. Another said he experienced trespassing problems similar to what we experienced. What kind of neighbor was McGarity, I asked this guy? "He's a son of a ______," said this fellow. Both said they were thrilled when the McGaritys moved.
* Are those the only problems we've had since acquiring our new neighbor? Gosh, no. I've already mentioned the assault, which happened a little over a year ago. But what's a neighbor problem without a little dose of vandalism? Make that a heavy dose. Let's see if I can remember all the creative ways our house has been vandalized: There were the paint balls, on at least eight to 10 occasions. There were the eggings, on probably a half dozen occasions. There was the attempt to burn down our mailbox. (The box and post were soaked in lighter fluid, and a spent lighter lay in the street. The lighter evidently wouldn't work, which saved our mailbox.) And then there was the lovely night when multiple workmen's tools (which sheriff's deputies told us had been stolen from a home in an adjoining neighborhood) were thrown through our windows, breaking screens and shattering glass. When my wife got up to check on the commotion, she stepped in broken glass. It's a miracle she didn't suffer a serious cut on her foot. Oh, and let's not forget what probably would almost amount to stalking and/or reckless endangerment. McGarity himself has followed my wife and/or me in his vehicle numerous times. Neighborhood buddies of his have followed us while we walked our dog. One swerved her (yes, I said her!) vehicle toward Murphy (our miniature schnauzer) and me one evening as we walked. I guess this mother of two found that amusing. Would she find it amusing if I swerved my vehicle like that toward her kids, or her dog? I don't think so.
* About a dozen neighbors signed a letter prior to the criminal trial saying they considered Mike McGarity to be a wonderful neighbor and that my wife and I were abusing the justice system by seeking his prosecution on criminal-trespass charges. We have a copy of the letter, which we received during the course of discovery in the civil case. Evidently, McGarity's attorney, William E. Swatek, had a copy. What was the purpose of the letter? Well, it was addressed to Judge Ron Jackson, who "presided" over the criminal case, so I can only assume it was presented to him. Is this a slight violation of criminal procedure? Yes. Did the letter amount to defamation by these neighbors? Yes. Were these neighbors--I think there were six households out of about 150 houses in our neighborhood--aware of Mike McGarity's criminal record at the time they signed the letter? Did they know he has convictions for sex- and violence-related offenses in his background? I doubt it. Would they consider him a wonderful neighbor if they knew about that? I doubt it.
* Speaking of McGarity's criminal record, I doubt Hollywood could dream that up. When my wife said something didn't seem right upon meeting our new neighbor, little did I know how right she would prove to be. Upon being sued, I checked into McGarity's background--and it ain't pretty. It's a frightening case of family dysfunction. The short story: He is one of four brothers, and all of them have had significant problems with the law. Two of them died young, under unusual circumstances. And our "soccer dad" himself? I know of at least eight criminal convictions on his record, including a sex-related offense and a violence-related offense. And his record is not the worst in the family. Another brother has been arrested on more stuff than I can remember, including burglary, theft, and felony drug charges. In fact, this brother faced theft charges once in Shelby County. His attorney in that case? William E. Swatek. Did Mike McGarity call on Swatek at the suggestion of his career-criminal brother? I think you can count on it.
* While my wife and I certainly have not been pleased about the aftermath of this hurried real-estate deal, we have wondered if Mike McGarity also was less-than-thrilled about something. Was he caught off guard by the presence of a B-Dry system and the indication that the house had a water problem in its past? Were some promises made during a rush-rush closing that were not kept, at least in his mind? If McGarity's son was enrolled at Briarwood, did something happen to cause that deal to blow up, leaving us with a neighbor who was even more bitter than he appears to be even under normal circumstances? Did McGarity initially seek a lawyer with the idea of pursuing a case, perhaps a legitimate one, against someone connected to Briarwood? Was his attention diverted to suing me, for a case he definitely did not have, as a way to protect Briarwood from some legal--and financial--unpleasantness?
I will go into much more detail later about all of these events and personalities and the resulting legal mess. But this gives you an idea of what can happen when a "Neighbor From Hell" enters your life. And how it can escalate when people in authority take actions to make a problem worse, rather than simply applying the law.
War? What War?
I was struck by a story the other day about the problem of huge classes on college campuses.
The story, out of Boulder, Colorado, says there currently are 18 million college students in America, and that number is expected to climb by two million over the next eight years. At the University of Colorado, and on other campuses, that has resulted in huge classes.
At Colorado, for example, 33 courses have 400 students or more.
I had a "wait-a-minute moment" when I read this. Isn't there a war going on--two in fact? And our college classrooms are packed to overflowing? Is there something wrong with this picture?
What do members of Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" think when they read this story? They must guffaw at the notion that our college classrooms would be crammed while the country is at war. I doubt it was that way during WWII.
And here's a question: How many of these kids jammed into lecture halls are the progeny of "support the troops" right wingers? In fact, how many of the kids themselves are "support the troops" right wingers?
I guess they just have an interesting way of supporting the troops. Perhaps all the right-wing Justins out there wear "Support the Troops" stickers while they down a few at the latest kegger or try to figure out how to get into Brittney's britches.
Only in Dubya's America.
The story, out of Boulder, Colorado, says there currently are 18 million college students in America, and that number is expected to climb by two million over the next eight years. At the University of Colorado, and on other campuses, that has resulted in huge classes.
At Colorado, for example, 33 courses have 400 students or more.
I had a "wait-a-minute moment" when I read this. Isn't there a war going on--two in fact? And our college classrooms are packed to overflowing? Is there something wrong with this picture?
What do members of Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" think when they read this story? They must guffaw at the notion that our college classrooms would be crammed while the country is at war. I doubt it was that way during WWII.
And here's a question: How many of these kids jammed into lecture halls are the progeny of "support the troops" right wingers? In fact, how many of the kids themselves are "support the troops" right wingers?
I guess they just have an interesting way of supporting the troops. Perhaps all the right-wing Justins out there wear "Support the Troops" stickers while they down a few at the latest kegger or try to figure out how to get into Brittney's britches.
Only in Dubya's America.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Raw Siegelman Story
The mainstream press in Alabama has made little, if any, effort to get to the bottom of the Don Siegelman prosecution. But an important alternative news source, which is national in scope, is making a significant effort to shine light on the story.
Raw Story begins a multipart investigative piece on the Siegelman case today. Reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane open with a solid overview of the case. They note that as early as 1998, when Siegelman was first elected governor, corporate interests in Alabama saw him as a looming threat.
The opening paragraph gets to the heart of the matter:
"For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that a prominent politician--a former state governor--could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped up, convicted in a trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost unbelievable.
"But there is such a politician: Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003."
Raw Story begins a multipart investigative piece on the Siegelman case today. Reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane open with a solid overview of the case. They note that as early as 1998, when Siegelman was first elected governor, corporate interests in Alabama saw him as a looming threat.
The opening paragraph gets to the heart of the matter:
"For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that a prominent politician--a former state governor--could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped up, convicted in a trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost unbelievable.
"But there is such a politician: Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003."
Hoover High and Me, Part III
Was Hoover High School interested in hiring Briarwood Christian football coach Fred Yancey in late 1998, a move that probably would have netted the Bucs a proven coach, a high-profile assistant coach (Jeremiah Castille) and two star players (Jeremiah's sons, Tim and Simeon Castille)?
Did Briarwood hurriedly pull off a peculiar real-estate deal that resulted in Yancey, my former next-door neighbor, moving to a house on school property at little or no cost? Did this deal provide the financial incentive for Yancey (and perhaps more importantly, the Castilles) to stay at Briarwood, ensuring that the school's budding football program would remain a powerhouse?
Did Hoover turn to Rush Propst only after it realized that Yancey and the Castilles would stay at Briarwood?
Did the fear of losing Yancey (and maybe the Castilles) to Hoover--or some other school--drive Briarwood to engineer a shoddy real-estate deal that led to major legal headaches for your humble blogger? In fact, did Briarwood's concerns over losing its coach lead to the judicial corruption that prompted this blog in the first place?
Let's see if we can answer some of these questions. We'll do it in three parts, looking at some key facts/events, taking educated guesses at what caused these events to take place, and laying out the aftermath of these events. That's coming up in a bit.
Did Briarwood hurriedly pull off a peculiar real-estate deal that resulted in Yancey, my former next-door neighbor, moving to a house on school property at little or no cost? Did this deal provide the financial incentive for Yancey (and perhaps more importantly, the Castilles) to stay at Briarwood, ensuring that the school's budding football program would remain a powerhouse?
Did Hoover turn to Rush Propst only after it realized that Yancey and the Castilles would stay at Briarwood?
Did the fear of losing Yancey (and maybe the Castilles) to Hoover--or some other school--drive Briarwood to engineer a shoddy real-estate deal that led to major legal headaches for your humble blogger? In fact, did Briarwood's concerns over losing its coach lead to the judicial corruption that prompted this blog in the first place?
Let's see if we can answer some of these questions. We'll do it in three parts, looking at some key facts/events, taking educated guesses at what caused these events to take place, and laying out the aftermath of these events. That's coming up in a bit.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Fall of the House of Bush
Craig Unger, contributing editor at Vanity Fair, has written a new book, Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, an Still Imperils America's Future.
It shapes up as one of the most important books of 2007, focusing on an unholy alliance between neoconservatives and the Religious Right that helped George W. Bush come to power.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, recently presented an excellent interview with Unger, and it concludes with one of the most compelling quotes I've seen in a long time:
"I see Bush's foreign policy as very much of a piece with his other policies--the unitary executive, his war on science, the politicization of the judiciary, torture, Guantanomo etc.--all of which constitute a brutal assault on America as a constitutional democracy. My central thesis is that the neocons and the religious right constitute an American fundamentalism that is at war with the post-Enlightenment, rational America most of us thought we grew up in. My hope is that a little over a year from now a new administration can start repairing the damage."
An American fundamentalism at war with the rational America most of us thought we grew up in? Powerful stuff, and I think Unger is right on target. I've seen that kind of irrational behavior in my own little court case here in Alabama.
It would be interesting to get the thoughts of people like Don Siegelman and Paul Minor--people who are nothing more than political prisoners in the good ole USA--upon reading that quote from Unger.
More information about Craig Unger's work is available here.
It shapes up as one of the most important books of 2007, focusing on an unholy alliance between neoconservatives and the Religious Right that helped George W. Bush come to power.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, recently presented an excellent interview with Unger, and it concludes with one of the most compelling quotes I've seen in a long time:
"I see Bush's foreign policy as very much of a piece with his other policies--the unitary executive, his war on science, the politicization of the judiciary, torture, Guantanomo etc.--all of which constitute a brutal assault on America as a constitutional democracy. My central thesis is that the neocons and the religious right constitute an American fundamentalism that is at war with the post-Enlightenment, rational America most of us thought we grew up in. My hope is that a little over a year from now a new administration can start repairing the damage."
An American fundamentalism at war with the rational America most of us thought we grew up in? Powerful stuff, and I think Unger is right on target. I've seen that kind of irrational behavior in my own little court case here in Alabama.
It would be interesting to get the thoughts of people like Don Siegelman and Paul Minor--people who are nothing more than political prisoners in the good ole USA--upon reading that quote from Unger.
More information about Craig Unger's work is available here.
Republicans and Justice
What will it take for Congress to get to the heart of the Bush Justice Department scandal and hold those responsible accountable?
My guess is that the depth of corruption in the Bush DOJ will not be revealed without the help of honest Republicans (yes, there are some). I don't think Democrats can do it on their own. Will honest Republicans become nauseated enough to stand up and play roles similar to that of Howard Baker during the Watergate investigation?
Perhaps there is reason to hope. Alabama attorney Jill Simpson is perhaps the most prominent Republican to stick her neck out, at great personal risk, and say that former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman was a victim of selective prosecution.
Now we have John McKay, a former U.S. attorney in Washington state, saying former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez could face prosecution in relation to the firing of seven U.S. attorneys. McKay, a Republican appointee, was one of the fired U.S. attorneys.
Speaking at an event in Bremerton, Washington, McKay pointed to Gonzalez' role in the firing of David Iglesis, U.S. attorney for New Mexico. "It's apparent that (Gonzalez) had a conversation with the president about David Iglesias, and David Iglesias was fired six weeks later," McKay said. "There was a real live investigation, and the Republicans wanted the indictment out in time to help them in the election, and Iglesias said 'no' and they fired him.
"Now if all of that's true and the attorney general was aware of that when he fired David Iglesias, then he has some 'splainin' to do--and probably in front of a grand jury."
McKay denied press reports that the attorneys spoke up after their performance was questioned. McKay said he was asked to resign in December 2006 and he kept quiet about his leaving until Gonzalez said he wasn't intending to bypass Senate approval for the new attorneys to be appointed.
"When I heard those words I knew he was lying, and I was as stunned as a person could be," McKay said. "I never expected the attorney general of the United States to lie to the United States Senate."
If Congress, or aggressive journalists, ever get to the bottom of the Bush DOJ scandal, I suspect we will discover many events that we never thought could happen.
My guess is that the depth of corruption in the Bush DOJ will not be revealed without the help of honest Republicans (yes, there are some). I don't think Democrats can do it on their own. Will honest Republicans become nauseated enough to stand up and play roles similar to that of Howard Baker during the Watergate investigation?
Perhaps there is reason to hope. Alabama attorney Jill Simpson is perhaps the most prominent Republican to stick her neck out, at great personal risk, and say that former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman was a victim of selective prosecution.
Now we have John McKay, a former U.S. attorney in Washington state, saying former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez could face prosecution in relation to the firing of seven U.S. attorneys. McKay, a Republican appointee, was one of the fired U.S. attorneys.
Speaking at an event in Bremerton, Washington, McKay pointed to Gonzalez' role in the firing of David Iglesis, U.S. attorney for New Mexico. "It's apparent that (Gonzalez) had a conversation with the president about David Iglesias, and David Iglesias was fired six weeks later," McKay said. "There was a real live investigation, and the Republicans wanted the indictment out in time to help them in the election, and Iglesias said 'no' and they fired him.
"Now if all of that's true and the attorney general was aware of that when he fired David Iglesias, then he has some 'splainin' to do--and probably in front of a grand jury."
McKay denied press reports that the attorneys spoke up after their performance was questioned. McKay said he was asked to resign in December 2006 and he kept quiet about his leaving until Gonzalez said he wasn't intending to bypass Senate approval for the new attorneys to be appointed.
"When I heard those words I knew he was lying, and I was as stunned as a person could be," McKay said. "I never expected the attorney general of the United States to lie to the United States Senate."
If Congress, or aggressive journalists, ever get to the bottom of the Bush DOJ scandal, I suspect we will discover many events that we never thought could happen.
Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay
The Legal Schnauzer has been "curled up on the rug," eating holiday leftovers and generally chilling for a few days.
It hasn't been a total chillfest though. As a University of Missouri grad, I was perched in front of the television last night as the Tigers defeated the Kansas Jayhawks to move into the Big 12 championship game. Folks are even talking about Mizzou as a national-championship contender.
I've lived in Alabama for almost 30 years now, and never thought I would see the day when Alabama and Auburn were heading to so-so bowls (the Tide might not go at all), while once-lowly Mizzou is in the national-title hunt.
Time to get back to the blog, and what better way to do it than to touch base with the "Soul Patrol," the Taylor Hicks fans who have joined us here when we've posted periodically about Birmingham's American Idol and his ties to Hoover High School athletics.
Hicks fans might want to check out an article by Courtney Haden in a recent issue of Birmingham Weekly, one of our fair city's alternative papers. Haden notes that it has been almost 40 years since the great soul singer Otis Redding died in a plane crash near Madison, Wisconsin.
Redding, of course, was one of Hicks' musical idols, and Haden provides an excellent retrospective of the "Big O's" career. It's a career that might never have started if not for Georgia guitar player Johnny Jenkins, who invited Redding to sit in with his band. Jenkins was to record at Stax Records in Memphis, and Redding was along mainly as a driver. But there was studio time left over, and Redding used it to cut one of his own tunes, which turned out to be his first chart single, "These Arms of Mine."
Haden notes that Redding sharpened his songwriting skills, and his albums and singles sold well. But they did not sell like the crossover material coming out of Motown. Could that be another connection for Hicks, whose debut album has not generated the kind of chart success as fellow Idols Chris Daughtry and Carrie Underwood?
Hicks has said several times that he wants to be a career artist, not a "here today, gone tomorrow" sort.
Courtney Haden says Otis Redding's impact lives on, 40 years after his death. One has to think that Redding, a Georgia native, would have enjoyed seeing a fellow Southerner turn the nation on to blue-eyed soul.
"How would the Big O have evolved had he lived?" Haden writes. "What marvelous fusions of city and country could he have contrived? Of course there's no telling, but 40 years after his passing, with comparatively few Otis Redding recording extant to tide us over, it doesn't hurt to wonder."
It hasn't been a total chillfest though. As a University of Missouri grad, I was perched in front of the television last night as the Tigers defeated the Kansas Jayhawks to move into the Big 12 championship game. Folks are even talking about Mizzou as a national-championship contender.
I've lived in Alabama for almost 30 years now, and never thought I would see the day when Alabama and Auburn were heading to so-so bowls (the Tide might not go at all), while once-lowly Mizzou is in the national-title hunt.
Time to get back to the blog, and what better way to do it than to touch base with the "Soul Patrol," the Taylor Hicks fans who have joined us here when we've posted periodically about Birmingham's American Idol and his ties to Hoover High School athletics.
Hicks fans might want to check out an article by Courtney Haden in a recent issue of Birmingham Weekly, one of our fair city's alternative papers. Haden notes that it has been almost 40 years since the great soul singer Otis Redding died in a plane crash near Madison, Wisconsin.
Redding, of course, was one of Hicks' musical idols, and Haden provides an excellent retrospective of the "Big O's" career. It's a career that might never have started if not for Georgia guitar player Johnny Jenkins, who invited Redding to sit in with his band. Jenkins was to record at Stax Records in Memphis, and Redding was along mainly as a driver. But there was studio time left over, and Redding used it to cut one of his own tunes, which turned out to be his first chart single, "These Arms of Mine."
Haden notes that Redding sharpened his songwriting skills, and his albums and singles sold well. But they did not sell like the crossover material coming out of Motown. Could that be another connection for Hicks, whose debut album has not generated the kind of chart success as fellow Idols Chris Daughtry and Carrie Underwood?
Hicks has said several times that he wants to be a career artist, not a "here today, gone tomorrow" sort.
Courtney Haden says Otis Redding's impact lives on, 40 years after his death. One has to think that Redding, a Georgia native, would have enjoyed seeing a fellow Southerner turn the nation on to blue-eyed soul.
"How would the Big O have evolved had he lived?" Haden writes. "What marvelous fusions of city and country could he have contrived? Of course there's no telling, but 40 years after his passing, with comparatively few Otis Redding recording extant to tide us over, it doesn't hurt to wonder."
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A Shocker From Montgomery
A most curious story today out of Montgomery. And we here at Legal Schnauzer don't know quite what to make of it.
Francis X. Gilpin, of the Montgomery Advertiser, reports that a federal grand jury wants to investigate allegations that former Lt. Gov. Steve Windom played a role in an attempted shakedown of Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff.
The story is based on court documents filed this week and comes on the heels of reports yesterday about allegations from Goff's attorneys that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary was abusing her power in an investigation of Goff.
The notion that Alabama's federal justice arm would be focusing its attention on Windom, a prominent Republican, is a true man-bites-dog kind of story. Federal prosecutors in Alabama have become targets of a Congressional probe into selective prosecution, based on their handling of the case against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported that Canary's job might be in jeopardy after attorneys Thomas Gallion III and Donald R. Jones Jr. wrote a letter to new U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, charging that Canary was pursuing an abusive and politically motivated investigation of Goff. Horton noted that Mukasey already had sacked a U.S. attorney in Minnesota after criticism of her surfaced from U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN).
Gilpin reports that a subpoena of Gallion has been withdrawn. And a letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Feaga to Gallion's firm states that the grand jury is interested in a 2003 meeting between Goff and two Windom associates. Goff claimed the men attempted to extort money from him in exchange for Windom's help in retaining a state insurance contract.
Feaga's letter was included among documents filed with Goff's amended lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley, Windom, and others who allegedly caused damage to one of Goff's companies. The amended suit adds Riley's son, Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, as a defendant.
A few questions come to mind about Gilpin's story:
* Is this a thinly disguised effort by Canary to save her job?
* Is Windom truly in any danger of being investigated and, heaven forbid, prosecuted?
* If so, why is Bob Riley not included in the grand jury's investigation? A lawsuit filed by Goff, which seemed to spark the criminal investigation against him, alleges wrongdoing by both Windom and Riley.
Francis X. Gilpin, of the Montgomery Advertiser, reports that a federal grand jury wants to investigate allegations that former Lt. Gov. Steve Windom played a role in an attempted shakedown of Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff.
The story is based on court documents filed this week and comes on the heels of reports yesterday about allegations from Goff's attorneys that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary was abusing her power in an investigation of Goff.
The notion that Alabama's federal justice arm would be focusing its attention on Windom, a prominent Republican, is a true man-bites-dog kind of story. Federal prosecutors in Alabama have become targets of a Congressional probe into selective prosecution, based on their handling of the case against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported that Canary's job might be in jeopardy after attorneys Thomas Gallion III and Donald R. Jones Jr. wrote a letter to new U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, charging that Canary was pursuing an abusive and politically motivated investigation of Goff. Horton noted that Mukasey already had sacked a U.S. attorney in Minnesota after criticism of her surfaced from U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN).
Gilpin reports that a subpoena of Gallion has been withdrawn. And a letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Feaga to Gallion's firm states that the grand jury is interested in a 2003 meeting between Goff and two Windom associates. Goff claimed the men attempted to extort money from him in exchange for Windom's help in retaining a state insurance contract.
Feaga's letter was included among documents filed with Goff's amended lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley, Windom, and others who allegedly caused damage to one of Goff's companies. The amended suit adds Riley's son, Birmingham attorney Rob Riley, as a defendant.
A few questions come to mind about Gilpin's story:
* Is this a thinly disguised effort by Canary to save her job?
* Is Windom truly in any danger of being investigated and, heaven forbid, prosecuted?
* If so, why is Bob Riley not included in the grand jury's investigation? A lawsuit filed by Goff, which seemed to spark the criminal investigation against him, alleges wrongdoing by both Windom and Riley.
Schnauzer to the Rescue
Scott Horton, of Harper's, and Adam Cohen, of The New York Times, hardly need defending from our humble blog. But the schnauzer is a loyal sort, quick to defend a member of the pack from attack.
You could say that Horton and Cohen are members of the pack because, like me, they have written about the highly questionable prosecution of attorney Paul Minor and ex judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield in Mississippi.
I recently discovered that Horton and Cohen had come under fire from a couple of bloggers, apparently conservative types, who seem to know very little about the Minor case. The bloggers, Walter Olson at PointofLaw.com and John O'Brien at LegalNewsline.com, seem more interested in spreading a pro-corporate ideology than they are in reporting on issues raised by the Minor prosecution.
Olson is based out of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative "think tank," so that appears to color his approach to the Mississippi story. Olson's thesis seems to be: Paul Minor was a trial lawyer, who successfully sued tobacco and asbestos companies, so it's OK if he is wrongfully imprisoned. (And it's OK if two "pro-plaintiff" judges are about to go to prison for crimes they did not commit.)
Olson claims that Cohen says, "Everyone in the justice system down there [in Mississippi] does similarly 'questionable' things, so a 'prosecutor' can haul any lawyer and judge he doesn't like before a grand jury and charge corruption." That's not what Cohen says at all. Cohen says that Mississippi's loose campaign-finance laws allow lawyers (and corporations) to contribute heavily to judges they appear before. "That is terrible for justice," Cohen writes, "since the courts are teeming with perfectly legal conflicts of interest."
And that's the crux of the Minor case: His financial contributions to judges who heard his cases "seem" wrong. But under Mississippi law, they are not. And they only become a federal issue if the judges make unlawful rulings in Minor's favor. And they did not. Therefore, there was no bribery, no honest-services mail fraud, no conspiracy, no racketeering. But three innocent men were convicted anyway.
Olson does say that Horton's pieces on the Minor case are based on slim evidence. Never mind that Horton's work is heavily footnoted, with references to numerous published sources, including Legal Schnauzer.
As for O'Brien, it's not hard to tell where he's coming from. The headline on his piece is "Sympathy for the Devil." I assume the devil, in this case, is Paul Minor. Very subtle.
O'Brien seems to mostly be riding on Olson's shaky coattails. There's little, if any, evidence that O'Brien has done his homework on the case.
In fact, neither post mentions either of the two Republican appointees at the heart of the Minor case--Judge Henry Wingate and prosecutor Dunn Lampton. The public record is clear that Lampton had raging conflicts in the case, and Wingate repeatedly ruled contrary to law.
And both had motive to act improperly. Lampton was on the Bush White House list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. And Wingate was up for a seat on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. A successful prosecution of a trial lawyer and pro-plaintiff judges stood to save Lampton's job and earn Wingate a promotion.
Of course, it would have taken a little effort to discover this information--effort Olson and O'Brien evidently were not willing to make.
You could say that Horton and Cohen are members of the pack because, like me, they have written about the highly questionable prosecution of attorney Paul Minor and ex judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield in Mississippi.
I recently discovered that Horton and Cohen had come under fire from a couple of bloggers, apparently conservative types, who seem to know very little about the Minor case. The bloggers, Walter Olson at PointofLaw.com and John O'Brien at LegalNewsline.com, seem more interested in spreading a pro-corporate ideology than they are in reporting on issues raised by the Minor prosecution.
Olson is based out of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative "think tank," so that appears to color his approach to the Mississippi story. Olson's thesis seems to be: Paul Minor was a trial lawyer, who successfully sued tobacco and asbestos companies, so it's OK if he is wrongfully imprisoned. (And it's OK if two "pro-plaintiff" judges are about to go to prison for crimes they did not commit.)
Olson claims that Cohen says, "Everyone in the justice system down there [in Mississippi] does similarly 'questionable' things, so a 'prosecutor' can haul any lawyer and judge he doesn't like before a grand jury and charge corruption." That's not what Cohen says at all. Cohen says that Mississippi's loose campaign-finance laws allow lawyers (and corporations) to contribute heavily to judges they appear before. "That is terrible for justice," Cohen writes, "since the courts are teeming with perfectly legal conflicts of interest."
And that's the crux of the Minor case: His financial contributions to judges who heard his cases "seem" wrong. But under Mississippi law, they are not. And they only become a federal issue if the judges make unlawful rulings in Minor's favor. And they did not. Therefore, there was no bribery, no honest-services mail fraud, no conspiracy, no racketeering. But three innocent men were convicted anyway.
Olson does say that Horton's pieces on the Minor case are based on slim evidence. Never mind that Horton's work is heavily footnoted, with references to numerous published sources, including Legal Schnauzer.
As for O'Brien, it's not hard to tell where he's coming from. The headline on his piece is "Sympathy for the Devil." I assume the devil, in this case, is Paul Minor. Very subtle.
O'Brien seems to mostly be riding on Olson's shaky coattails. There's little, if any, evidence that O'Brien has done his homework on the case.
In fact, neither post mentions either of the two Republican appointees at the heart of the Minor case--Judge Henry Wingate and prosecutor Dunn Lampton. The public record is clear that Lampton had raging conflicts in the case, and Wingate repeatedly ruled contrary to law.
And both had motive to act improperly. Lampton was on the Bush White House list of U.S. attorneys to be fired. And Wingate was up for a seat on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. A successful prosecution of a trial lawyer and pro-plaintiff judges stood to save Lampton's job and earn Wingate a promotion.
Of course, it would have taken a little effort to discover this information--effort Olson and O'Brien evidently were not willing to make.
Giuliani and Oxycontin
Will Rudy Giuliani be the Republican Party nominee for president? If so, the country might want to know about Giuliani's history with the powerfully addictive painkiller Oxycontin.
Don McNay reports in the Richmond Register that Giuliani was the lawyer who kept the makers of Oxycontin out of jail. And McNay notes the curious endorsement of Giuliani from evangelist Pat Robertson.
"The Oxycontin people made a product that the company's top executives knew was addictive," McNay writes. "They got their marketing people to push unsuspecting doctors to prescribe it to innocent patients. A lot of people went to the doctor for backaches and came out drug addicts."
And what about Robertson?
"I suspect Robertson is now out of touch," McNay writes. "Still, it is dangerous for an out-of-touch person to make personal endorsements. I am willing to bet that Pat Robertson has never even heard of Oxycontin and doesn't know about Giuliani's involvement.
"The mainstream media spends a lot of time talking about Rudolph's multiple marriages, and his friend who got indicted. They've ignored how Giuliani makes his living."
Don McNay reports in the Richmond Register that Giuliani was the lawyer who kept the makers of Oxycontin out of jail. And McNay notes the curious endorsement of Giuliani from evangelist Pat Robertson.
"The Oxycontin people made a product that the company's top executives knew was addictive," McNay writes. "They got their marketing people to push unsuspecting doctors to prescribe it to innocent patients. A lot of people went to the doctor for backaches and came out drug addicts."
And what about Robertson?
"I suspect Robertson is now out of touch," McNay writes. "Still, it is dangerous for an out-of-touch person to make personal endorsements. I am willing to bet that Pat Robertson has never even heard of Oxycontin and doesn't know about Giuliani's involvement.
"The mainstream media spends a lot of time talking about Rudolph's multiple marriages, and his friend who got indicted. They've ignored how Giuliani makes his living."
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The Stench Grows Stronger in Montgomery
Where do you turn if your local federal prosecutor appears to be coming after your client for political reasons? If you are Montgomery attorneys Thomas T. Gallion III and Donald R. Jones Jr., you turn to new U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, reports today that Gallion and Jones have sent Mukasey a 14-page letter outlining abuses by Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, in a case involving Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff.
Gallion and Jones represent Goff in a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley, former Lieutenant Governor Steve Windom, and others, alleging their actions caused the failure of one of Goff's companies. They ask Mukasey to remove Canary from the Goff investigation because Riley and Windom have strong business and political connections to her husband Bill, the state's most prominent GOP campaign advisor and president of the Business Council of Alabama.
"Those on the other side of Mr. Canary's campaign efforts have a strange habit of finding themselves the target of a criminal investigation led by Mrs. Canary," Horton writes.
The Goff case appears to represent a particularly vicious form of vindictive behavior by a prosecutor. As part of Goff's lawsuit, Gallion and Jones gave notice of their intention to take the depositions of Governor Riley, his son Rob, and Bill Canary.
"They were astonished to discover a response from Mrs. Canary in the form of a criminal investigation opened against their client," Horton writes. "In a particularly abusive move, Mrs. Canary also served grand jury subpoenas against the lawyers, in a likely effort to block them from further representation of their clients."
Part of the Goff lawsuit involves allegations that Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Michael Scanlon helped direct campaign funds to Governor Riley from Indian casino gambling sources.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, reports today that Gallion and Jones have sent Mukasey a 14-page letter outlining abuses by Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, in a case involving Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff.
Gallion and Jones represent Goff in a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley, former Lieutenant Governor Steve Windom, and others, alleging their actions caused the failure of one of Goff's companies. They ask Mukasey to remove Canary from the Goff investigation because Riley and Windom have strong business and political connections to her husband Bill, the state's most prominent GOP campaign advisor and president of the Business Council of Alabama.
"Those on the other side of Mr. Canary's campaign efforts have a strange habit of finding themselves the target of a criminal investigation led by Mrs. Canary," Horton writes.
The Goff case appears to represent a particularly vicious form of vindictive behavior by a prosecutor. As part of Goff's lawsuit, Gallion and Jones gave notice of their intention to take the depositions of Governor Riley, his son Rob, and Bill Canary.
"They were astonished to discover a response from Mrs. Canary in the form of a criminal investigation opened against their client," Horton writes. "In a particularly abusive move, Mrs. Canary also served grand jury subpoenas against the lawyers, in a likely effort to block them from further representation of their clients."
Part of the Goff lawsuit involves allegations that Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Michael Scanlon helped direct campaign funds to Governor Riley from Indian casino gambling sources.
Horton has been a remarkably prescient reporter on this story. He reported on September 23 that Bob Riley was highly agitated at the prospect of having to answer questions under oath in the Goff lawsuit. And Horton reported that Riley appeared to be looking to Leura Canary to help make the lawsuit "go away."
He apparently turned to the right person. Now, will Mukasey continue to allow Canary to run amok in Montgomery? If he takes action, what will it be?
Horton notes that Rachel Paulose, the 34-year-old U.S. attorney in Minneapolis, has stepped down to take a job at Main Justice. Paulose was a Rove-connected U.S. attorney, much like Canary. Paulose stepped down after Minnesota's Republican Senator Norm Coleman publicly criticized Paulose and met with Mukasey to discuss his concerns. She was the subject of an investigation into charges that she had discriminated against office employees.
Could Canary meet a fate similar to that of Paulose? Could Mukasey, considering Canary's role in the Don Siegelman prosecution, take action beyond removing her from the Goff investigation?
Stay tuned.
Power and Pollution
Southern Company, the parent firm of Alabama Power, has been named one of the world's top producers of global-warming pollution. Interestingly, the company has close financial ties to President George W. Bush.
British journalist Leonard Doyle, of The Independent, says Southern Company has contributed an extraordinary $6.2 million to Republican campaigns since 1990. The company's employees contributed more than $217,000 to help Bush get elected twice.
A single Southern Company plant in Juliette, Georgia emits more carbon dioxide annually than Brazil's entire power sector. And Southern Company ranks among the top two of America's dirtiest utility polluters, the sixth worst in the world. The information comes from the first-ever worldwide database of global-warming pollution.
"The link between massive cash contributions by America's power companies and political arm-twisting in Washington has rarely been put into such sharp relief," Doyle writes. "Environmentalists have long suspected that President Bush's dogged refusal to sign up to international agreements to control global warming was linked to campaign contributions."
Doyle reports that Haley Barbour, one of Southern Company's primary lobbyists when Bush took office, played a key role in persuading him to back away from campaign promises to reduce CO2 emissions when he first ran for president in 2000. Barbour recently was re-elected governor of Mississippi.
We have focused heavily here at Legal Schnauzer on the notion that Republicans have put our justice system up for sale. Now it looks like they have put the environment up for sale, too.
British journalist Leonard Doyle, of The Independent, says Southern Company has contributed an extraordinary $6.2 million to Republican campaigns since 1990. The company's employees contributed more than $217,000 to help Bush get elected twice.
A single Southern Company plant in Juliette, Georgia emits more carbon dioxide annually than Brazil's entire power sector. And Southern Company ranks among the top two of America's dirtiest utility polluters, the sixth worst in the world. The information comes from the first-ever worldwide database of global-warming pollution.
"The link between massive cash contributions by America's power companies and political arm-twisting in Washington has rarely been put into such sharp relief," Doyle writes. "Environmentalists have long suspected that President Bush's dogged refusal to sign up to international agreements to control global warming was linked to campaign contributions."
Doyle reports that Haley Barbour, one of Southern Company's primary lobbyists when Bush took office, played a key role in persuading him to back away from campaign promises to reduce CO2 emissions when he first ran for president in 2000. Barbour recently was re-elected governor of Mississippi.
We have focused heavily here at Legal Schnauzer on the notion that Republicans have put our justice system up for sale. Now it looks like they have put the environment up for sale, too.
Mississippi Churning, Part XXV
Perhaps Dunn Lampton's strongest motivation for pursuing the Paul Minor case, through two trials, was revealed on May 17, 2007.
That's the day the Washington Post reported that Lampton had been among 26 U.S. attorneys listed as candidates for firing by the Bush administration.
The Post obtained unreleased government documents showing that the roster of candidates to be fired was much longer than previously acknowledged. When Lampton was asked what he was doing to bring the ire of the Bush administration, he said, "I don't have a clue."
Is it possible that Lampton pursued the Minor prosecution in order to get back into the good graces of the Bush White House?
And keep in mind, it was widely reported at the time of the trial that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate was a candidate for a spot on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision would be made by the Bush administration, and Wingate wound up not getting it.
So you had a prosecutor whose position was threatened by the Bush White House. And you had a judge who was up for a promotion, a decision that would come from the Bush White House.
Did that color the prosecution? Our research indicates the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
That's the day the Washington Post reported that Lampton had been among 26 U.S. attorneys listed as candidates for firing by the Bush administration.
The Post obtained unreleased government documents showing that the roster of candidates to be fired was much longer than previously acknowledged. When Lampton was asked what he was doing to bring the ire of the Bush administration, he said, "I don't have a clue."
Is it possible that Lampton pursued the Minor prosecution in order to get back into the good graces of the Bush White House?
And keep in mind, it was widely reported at the time of the trial that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate was a candidate for a spot on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision would be made by the Bush administration, and Wingate wound up not getting it.
So you had a prosecutor whose position was threatened by the Bush White House. And you had a judge who was up for a promotion, a decision that would come from the Bush White House.
Did that color the prosecution? Our research indicates the answer to that question is a resounding yes.
Lawyer Saves Schnauzer (and Woman)
We've had some pretty harsh words about certain members of the legal profession here at our humble blog. So it's only fair to sound the trumpets when a lawyer acts heroically.
Paul Geller, of the Lerach Couglin firm in Boca Raton, FL, has indeed acted heroically.
Geller recently saved a miniature schnauzer (and a pregnant woman) from two attacking pit bulls. The attorney was driving his 8-year-old son home from the beach when he saw two pit bulls attacking a woman walking her dog.
"The woman was on the ground, and one of the pit bulls was on top of her," Geller said. "Blood was everywhere."
Geller is an expert in jujitsu--he practices in a room at his law firm's offices--and managed to kick and scare away the attacking dogs. The woman suffered a bite on her face and is doing fine. The schnauzer, Midnight Duke, had to undergo a lengthy surgical procedure and needed about 100 stitches to repair his wounds. He is expected to recover.
Geller is a trial lawyer who specializes in suing corporations who rip off shareholders. I guess a corporate lawyer, in a similar situation, would have started writing a memo on why it would be OK to keep on driving.
Here is Geller's biography from the firm's Web site. I know a few Alabama judges I'd like to sic this guy on.
Paul Geller, of the Lerach Couglin firm in Boca Raton, FL, has indeed acted heroically.
Geller recently saved a miniature schnauzer (and a pregnant woman) from two attacking pit bulls. The attorney was driving his 8-year-old son home from the beach when he saw two pit bulls attacking a woman walking her dog.
"The woman was on the ground, and one of the pit bulls was on top of her," Geller said. "Blood was everywhere."
Geller is an expert in jujitsu--he practices in a room at his law firm's offices--and managed to kick and scare away the attacking dogs. The woman suffered a bite on her face and is doing fine. The schnauzer, Midnight Duke, had to undergo a lengthy surgical procedure and needed about 100 stitches to repair his wounds. He is expected to recover.
Geller is a trial lawyer who specializes in suing corporations who rip off shareholders. I guess a corporate lawyer, in a similar situation, would have started writing a memo on why it would be OK to keep on driving.
Here is Geller's biography from the firm's Web site. I know a few Alabama judges I'd like to sic this guy on.
Monday, November 19, 2007
More on Republicans and Race
We recently posted about the intramural war of words that has broken out among New York Times' columnists over the issue of Republicans and their use of racial issues to gain electoral advantage.
The war isn't over, and Columnist Paul Krugman makes more valid points in his column today.
Krugman notes that "everyone knows" white men have turned away from the Democratic party over God, guns, national security and so on. But he says that is not true when the South is excluded. Research has shown that 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic in the 1952 presidential election, and that figure was virtually unchanged (39 percent) in 2004.
Southern voting patterns, Krugman says, are distinctive. Democrats decisively won the popular vote in last year's House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one.
Was this an accident? Krugman says even GOP leaders admit it was not. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization." This came from Ken Mehlman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.
Finally, Krugman returns to Reagan's campaign kickoff speech in 1980 at Philadelphia, MS. In December 1979, Krugman writes, the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party's nominee speak at the Neshoba County Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. It would, the committeeman wrote, help win over "George Wallace inclined voters."
As requested, Reagan appeared and declared his support to states' rights--which everyone took to be a coded declaration of support for segregationist sentiments. Sounds to me like it was pretty well planned.
"Regan's defenders protest furiously that he wasn't personally bigoted," Krugman writes. "So what? We're talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant."
The war isn't over, and Columnist Paul Krugman makes more valid points in his column today.
Krugman notes that "everyone knows" white men have turned away from the Democratic party over God, guns, national security and so on. But he says that is not true when the South is excluded. Research has shown that 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic in the 1952 presidential election, and that figure was virtually unchanged (39 percent) in 2004.
Southern voting patterns, Krugman says, are distinctive. Democrats decisively won the popular vote in last year's House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one.
Was this an accident? Krugman says even GOP leaders admit it was not. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization." This came from Ken Mehlman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.
Finally, Krugman returns to Reagan's campaign kickoff speech in 1980 at Philadelphia, MS. In December 1979, Krugman writes, the Republican national committeeman from Mississippi wrote a letter urging that the party's nominee speak at the Neshoba County Fair, just outside the town where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964. It would, the committeeman wrote, help win over "George Wallace inclined voters."
As requested, Reagan appeared and declared his support to states' rights--which everyone took to be a coded declaration of support for segregationist sentiments. Sounds to me like it was pretty well planned.
"Regan's defenders protest furiously that he wasn't personally bigoted," Krugman writes. "So what? We're talking about his political strategy. His personal beliefs are irrelevant."
Dishonesty and the ExxonMobil Ruling
The Birmingham News' capacity for intellectual dishonesty and laziness never ceases to amaze. In fact, it's almost amusing at times.
But it is not funny when the News regularly attempts to blow smoke up the collective rear end of its readers on matters of vital importance.
Take, for example, the small matter of the integrity of our state courts. Editor Tom Scarritt weighs in on this subject in his sleep-inducing Sunday column.
You can always size up a Scarritt column as a waste of space. But his most recent effort goes beyond that, to the realm of being dangerous--at least for anyone out there who might actually take him seriously.
The column is titled "Judges should seek office on own merits." Scarritt notes Alabama's No. 1 position in the country on spending for judicial races, and he seems to share the concerns of retired U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor that such heavy fund-raising gives the impression that justice is for sale.
Scarritt then notes the Alabama Supreme Court's recent decision to override a $3.6 billion verdict against ExxonMobil and in favor of the state of Alabama in a case involving natural-gas royalties. He says that decision adds to the perception that justice is for sale.
So far, so good with the column. It actually is coherent and makes a valid point--a rarity for Scarritt. But then he veers off into that strange land we might call "Right Wing World," where truth and intellectual rigor account for nothing.
Of the ExxonMobil ruling, Scarritt writes: "The court's decision that the big oil company's actions did not constitute fraud against the state may have been a correct reading of the law."
This is both dishonest and lazy. The decision has been issued for more than two weeks. It is readily available. And yes, it's lengthy. But Scarritt is the editor of the largest newspaper in the state, so you would think he might take the time to read it before pontificating about it. Obviously, he has not read it, which is lazy. And to imply that the ruling was legally correct, even though we citizens might not like it, is dishonest. The ruling was not legally correct, and we will lay that out in the weeks ahead here at Legal Schnauzer.
Then Scarritt steps in more doo-doo. "The fact eight justices who were supported by money from the business community voted for that decision, and the lone dissent came from the justice supported by trial lawyer money, made it appear justice has a price tag."
That's a slick way of providing cover for Scarritt's eight Republican brethren on the Supreme Court. He tars Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the only Democrat on the court and its lone dissenting voice on the ExxonMobil ruling, with the same sleazy brush that could be used (deservedly) on the court's Republicans. "Hey," Scarritt seems to be saying, "the Republicans might be in the pocket of corporations, but Cobb's in the pocket of trial lawyers."
Only one problem with that line of thinking. There is nothing from the ExxonMobil ruling that would remotely suggest Cobb based her dissent on her support from trial lawyers. For one thing, Scarritt would have you believe that "trial lawyers" (one of the great bogeymen of the right wing) were a party to the case, just as a large corporation (ExxonMobil) was a party to the case. But trial lawyers were not a party. The party opposite ExxonMobil was the state of Alabama, and the people of Alabama were the big loser's in the court's reversal--not trial lawyers.
If you actually read the case--which I have--you see that Cobb's dissent is based on a correct reading of the facts and the law in the case. And you see that the Republican majority ignored the evidence and the proper standard of review in the case.
Hmmm, wonder why they did that? Could it be that they were doing the bidding of the corporate sponsors who put them in power? Yes, it could. But Tom Scarritt doesn't want you to know that, so he implies that Sue Bell Cobb is just as corrupt as her Republican brethren.
There's one problem with Scarritt's little game of peek-a-boo. The ExxonMobil ruling is not an anomaly. The Alabama Supreme Court--and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, for that matter--has played fast and loose with the law before, favoring certain parties and willfully cheating other parties. All for political reasons.
They did it in the Legal Schnauzer case, the case that is at the heart of this blog. And we will show you how they did it, and who benefited from it.
That's something you definitely won't be reading in Tom Scarritt's rag.
But it is not funny when the News regularly attempts to blow smoke up the collective rear end of its readers on matters of vital importance.
Take, for example, the small matter of the integrity of our state courts. Editor Tom Scarritt weighs in on this subject in his sleep-inducing Sunday column.
You can always size up a Scarritt column as a waste of space. But his most recent effort goes beyond that, to the realm of being dangerous--at least for anyone out there who might actually take him seriously.
The column is titled "Judges should seek office on own merits." Scarritt notes Alabama's No. 1 position in the country on spending for judicial races, and he seems to share the concerns of retired U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor that such heavy fund-raising gives the impression that justice is for sale.
Scarritt then notes the Alabama Supreme Court's recent decision to override a $3.6 billion verdict against ExxonMobil and in favor of the state of Alabama in a case involving natural-gas royalties. He says that decision adds to the perception that justice is for sale.
So far, so good with the column. It actually is coherent and makes a valid point--a rarity for Scarritt. But then he veers off into that strange land we might call "Right Wing World," where truth and intellectual rigor account for nothing.
Of the ExxonMobil ruling, Scarritt writes: "The court's decision that the big oil company's actions did not constitute fraud against the state may have been a correct reading of the law."
This is both dishonest and lazy. The decision has been issued for more than two weeks. It is readily available. And yes, it's lengthy. But Scarritt is the editor of the largest newspaper in the state, so you would think he might take the time to read it before pontificating about it. Obviously, he has not read it, which is lazy. And to imply that the ruling was legally correct, even though we citizens might not like it, is dishonest. The ruling was not legally correct, and we will lay that out in the weeks ahead here at Legal Schnauzer.
Then Scarritt steps in more doo-doo. "The fact eight justices who were supported by money from the business community voted for that decision, and the lone dissent came from the justice supported by trial lawyer money, made it appear justice has a price tag."
That's a slick way of providing cover for Scarritt's eight Republican brethren on the Supreme Court. He tars Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the only Democrat on the court and its lone dissenting voice on the ExxonMobil ruling, with the same sleazy brush that could be used (deservedly) on the court's Republicans. "Hey," Scarritt seems to be saying, "the Republicans might be in the pocket of corporations, but Cobb's in the pocket of trial lawyers."
Only one problem with that line of thinking. There is nothing from the ExxonMobil ruling that would remotely suggest Cobb based her dissent on her support from trial lawyers. For one thing, Scarritt would have you believe that "trial lawyers" (one of the great bogeymen of the right wing) were a party to the case, just as a large corporation (ExxonMobil) was a party to the case. But trial lawyers were not a party. The party opposite ExxonMobil was the state of Alabama, and the people of Alabama were the big loser's in the court's reversal--not trial lawyers.
If you actually read the case--which I have--you see that Cobb's dissent is based on a correct reading of the facts and the law in the case. And you see that the Republican majority ignored the evidence and the proper standard of review in the case.
Hmmm, wonder why they did that? Could it be that they were doing the bidding of the corporate sponsors who put them in power? Yes, it could. But Tom Scarritt doesn't want you to know that, so he implies that Sue Bell Cobb is just as corrupt as her Republican brethren.
There's one problem with Scarritt's little game of peek-a-boo. The ExxonMobil ruling is not an anomaly. The Alabama Supreme Court--and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, for that matter--has played fast and loose with the law before, favoring certain parties and willfully cheating other parties. All for political reasons.
They did it in the Legal Schnauzer case, the case that is at the heart of this blog. And we will show you how they did it, and who benefited from it.
That's something you definitely won't be reading in Tom Scarritt's rag.
Mississippi Churning, Part XXIV
Let's return to the issue of the myriad conflicts of interest U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton had in the Paul Minor case.
The defense was well aware of Lampton's conflicts and filed a motion to dismiss the charges, saying Minor and others were being selectively prosecuted. Of particular emphasis was the fact that attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) had made financial contributions to judges and was not indicted.
"When the Republican U.S. attorney looks at Republican supporter Mr. Scruggs' actions he sees them in a way that avoids any criminal overtone," said Minor attorney Abbe Lowell. "When the same U.S. attorney looks at Democrat Paul Minor's actions, he sees racketeering."
And Lowell raised other key points. "Obtaining multi-million dollar results for clients in two separate cases in which negligence and other wrongdoing were alleged by Mr. Minor against Mr. Lampton's family interest is reason all by itself to require Mr. Lampton to stay out of any decision concerning Mr. Minor," Lowell said. "But there he stood announcing how his family's nemesis was a federal felon."
How did Judge Henry Wingate handle the motion to dismiss? In a most curious way. According to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, he sat on it--for 15 months. "Judges generally rule quickly on a motion to dismiss because that motion could put an end to the case, legal experts say," reporter Jerry Mitchell wrote.
Evidently Wingate was not interested in seeing a weak case come to an end. When he finally ruled on the motion to dismiss, he denied it and said there was no political bias on the part of the prosecution.
Perhaps the biggest reason for concerns about Lampton's motivations was unknown at the time of Wingate's ruling. But it would come to light on a national stage.
The defense was well aware of Lampton's conflicts and filed a motion to dismiss the charges, saying Minor and others were being selectively prosecuted. Of particular emphasis was the fact that attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) had made financial contributions to judges and was not indicted.
"When the Republican U.S. attorney looks at Republican supporter Mr. Scruggs' actions he sees them in a way that avoids any criminal overtone," said Minor attorney Abbe Lowell. "When the same U.S. attorney looks at Democrat Paul Minor's actions, he sees racketeering."
And Lowell raised other key points. "Obtaining multi-million dollar results for clients in two separate cases in which negligence and other wrongdoing were alleged by Mr. Minor against Mr. Lampton's family interest is reason all by itself to require Mr. Lampton to stay out of any decision concerning Mr. Minor," Lowell said. "But there he stood announcing how his family's nemesis was a federal felon."
How did Judge Henry Wingate handle the motion to dismiss? In a most curious way. According to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger, he sat on it--for 15 months. "Judges generally rule quickly on a motion to dismiss because that motion could put an end to the case, legal experts say," reporter Jerry Mitchell wrote.
Evidently Wingate was not interested in seeing a weak case come to an end. When he finally ruled on the motion to dismiss, he denied it and said there was no political bias on the part of the prosecution.
Perhaps the biggest reason for concerns about Lampton's motivations was unknown at the time of Wingate's ruling. But it would come to light on a national stage.
Republicans and the Race Card
We recently wrote about the Republican Party's expert ability to play on the racial fears of the white middle class, producing consistent electoral victories for the party but causing significant damage to the country.
That subject has become the heart of an intramural war of words on the editorial pages of The New York Times.
It started when liberal columnist Paul Krugman wrote that Republican politicians understand that their national success since the 1970s "owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites." A critical event in this switch, Krugman says, came when Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting "states' rights" delivered just outside Philadelphia, MS, where three civil rights workers had been murdered in the 1960s.
Conservative columnist David Brooks fired back, saying the substance of Reagan's speech had been simplified and distorted. Brooks didn't mention Krugman by name, but it seems clear he was counting his Times colleagues among those who were too eager to help spread a "slur." "(The slur) posits that there was a master conspiracy to play on the alleged Klan-like prejudices of American voters, when there is no evidence of that conspiracy."
Krugman responded on his blog by citing other examples of Reagan's "race-baiting" whoppers. These included the Gipper's 1980 declaration that the Voting Rights Act had been "humiliating to the South."
Finally, liberal columnist Bob Herbert joined in the fray, siding solidly with Krugman. "Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan (in Mississippi) into a racially benign context," Herbert wrote. "That won't wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon."
Greg Mitchell, of Editor and Publisher, provides an excellent blow by blow.
The GOP's reliance on race-baiting politics is at the heart of Krugman's new book, The Conscience of a Liberal. Michael Tomasky presents a compelling review at The New York Review of Books.
The winner in this war of words? From my perspective, it's Krugman, hands down. For a conservative columnist, Brooks is fairly thoughtful and reasoned. But I don't see how his Reagan argument can fly with semi-rational people.
The GOPers seem to want it both ways with Reagan. On the one hand, they portray him as their godfather, the brilliant strategist who led them out of the wilderness. But when it suits their purposes, they portray him as a lovable dolt.
In Brooks' world, the Reagan campaign was "famously disorganized," and the Gipper wound up in Philadelphia, MS, almost by accident.
Count me as one Southerner who doesn't buy that scenario for one second.
That subject has become the heart of an intramural war of words on the editorial pages of The New York Times.
It started when liberal columnist Paul Krugman wrote that Republican politicians understand that their national success since the 1970s "owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites." A critical event in this switch, Krugman says, came when Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting "states' rights" delivered just outside Philadelphia, MS, where three civil rights workers had been murdered in the 1960s.
Conservative columnist David Brooks fired back, saying the substance of Reagan's speech had been simplified and distorted. Brooks didn't mention Krugman by name, but it seems clear he was counting his Times colleagues among those who were too eager to help spread a "slur." "(The slur) posits that there was a master conspiracy to play on the alleged Klan-like prejudices of American voters, when there is no evidence of that conspiracy."
Krugman responded on his blog by citing other examples of Reagan's "race-baiting" whoppers. These included the Gipper's 1980 declaration that the Voting Rights Act had been "humiliating to the South."
Finally, liberal columnist Bob Herbert joined in the fray, siding solidly with Krugman. "Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan (in Mississippi) into a racially benign context," Herbert wrote. "That won't wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon."
Greg Mitchell, of Editor and Publisher, provides an excellent blow by blow.
The GOP's reliance on race-baiting politics is at the heart of Krugman's new book, The Conscience of a Liberal. Michael Tomasky presents a compelling review at The New York Review of Books.
The winner in this war of words? From my perspective, it's Krugman, hands down. For a conservative columnist, Brooks is fairly thoughtful and reasoned. But I don't see how his Reagan argument can fly with semi-rational people.
The GOPers seem to want it both ways with Reagan. On the one hand, they portray him as their godfather, the brilliant strategist who led them out of the wilderness. But when it suits their purposes, they portray him as a lovable dolt.
In Brooks' world, the Reagan campaign was "famously disorganized," and the Gipper wound up in Philadelphia, MS, almost by accident.
Count me as one Southerner who doesn't buy that scenario for one second.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A Minor Disagreement
The Cottonmouth blog, a progressive site based in Mississippi, presents a roundup of a recent debate about our coverage of the Paul Minor case.
Editor John Leek notes that he had asked Matthew Krell, a law student, to present an analysis of my coverage on the Minor case. Then Leek presents my two-part response to Krell's piece.
All in all, I would say this was a healthy exchange. Leek notes that the first part of my response could be interpreted as disrespectful of Mr. Krell. I was aware as I was putting it together that it could be seen that way, but it certainly was not intended that way. I do think generational differences were at the heart of our different approaches to the Minor story. And somehow, the "My Common Enemy" episode of Scrubs came to mind.
I should point out that in "My Common Enemy" it's the older guys (Drs. Kelso and Cox, representing me) who get intellectually bested by the young lady (Dr. Clock, representing Mr. Krell). I guess the Scrubs reference was meant to poke fun at yours truly, as much as anything else.
Anyway, I'm glad that Cottonmouth, The Natchez Blog, and the Jackson Free Press all are focusing intently on the Minor case these days.
Editor John Leek notes that he had asked Matthew Krell, a law student, to present an analysis of my coverage on the Minor case. Then Leek presents my two-part response to Krell's piece.
All in all, I would say this was a healthy exchange. Leek notes that the first part of my response could be interpreted as disrespectful of Mr. Krell. I was aware as I was putting it together that it could be seen that way, but it certainly was not intended that way. I do think generational differences were at the heart of our different approaches to the Minor story. And somehow, the "My Common Enemy" episode of Scrubs came to mind.
I should point out that in "My Common Enemy" it's the older guys (Drs. Kelso and Cox, representing me) who get intellectually bested by the young lady (Dr. Clock, representing Mr. Krell). I guess the Scrubs reference was meant to poke fun at yours truly, as much as anything else.
Anyway, I'm glad that Cottonmouth, The Natchez Blog, and the Jackson Free Press all are focusing intently on the Minor case these days.
Spotlight Shines on Minor Case
Two Mississippi reporters recently have focused attention on the Paul Minor case and the issue of selective prosecution.
Blogger Casey Ann Hughes, Ph.D., has a splendid piece at the Cottonmouth blog, focusing on former Mississippi judge Wes Teel, his family, and the human costs of partisan prosecutions. Hughes' piece is cross-posted at The Natchez Blog.
Hughes has a doctorate in psychology, so she offers special insight into the emotional toll taken by a justice department out of control. Much of the coverage of the Minor case has focused on Paul Minor himself (an attorney) and Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz (who was acquitted on all charges). Former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield (who were convicted along with Minor in the second trial) have been somewhat in the background.
Hughes connects us with the human side of this story. She introduces us to Teel, his wife, and grandchildren, and includes photos with the story. She notes that Teel's wife was a longtime public-school teacher before having to retire on disability because of multiple sclerosis, and she depends heavily on her husband for support. Her husband, however, is due to report to federal prison in late December.
Some readers might say, "Hey, Mr. Teel was convicted of a crime. His family will just have to tough it out. Mr. Teel should have thought of his family before committing bribery, honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy, etc."
Those readers would have a good point--if Mr. Teel had actually committed those crimes. But through 20-plus posts in our "Mississippi Churning" series here at Legal Schnauzer, we have shown that Teel, Minor, and Whitfield did not commit the crimes for which they were charged. A jury convicted them only because Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee, made numerous unlawful decisions in the case. His rulings related to expert witnesses for the defense and jury instructions on bribery and honest-services mail fraud were particularly off target.
Hughes opens her piece by noting that political prisoners are associated with Stalin's Soviet Union, Hussein's Iraq, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany.
She closes on a note that is both hopeful and distressing:
"These men will eventually be cleared, but it will take years. In the meantime, who will take care of Judge Teel's wife?
"This is a scary story because the United States Justice Department is imprisoning innocent citizens for purely political reasons, and quieting political dissent through fear. I've just told you about Mississippi, but it's happening all across the country, in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin--the list keep growing.
"Is this America, or one of those dictatorships? What country are we living in?"
Joining Hughes in shining light on the Minor case is Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press. In a piece titled "Dem at Your Own Risk," Lynch smartly takes the reader through the case, starting with the tort-reform craze that hit Mississippi in 2000 and going through introduction of the Minor case at the recent U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
Lynch includes interesting comments from a number of key players--including prosecutor Dunn Lampton (who indicates he had strong disagreements with the Justice Department on the handling of the case) and Missouri political scientist Donald Shields, whose research has shown the Bush Justice Department has investigated seven times as many Democrats as Republicans.
Blogger Casey Ann Hughes, Ph.D., has a splendid piece at the Cottonmouth blog, focusing on former Mississippi judge Wes Teel, his family, and the human costs of partisan prosecutions. Hughes' piece is cross-posted at The Natchez Blog.
Hughes has a doctorate in psychology, so she offers special insight into the emotional toll taken by a justice department out of control. Much of the coverage of the Minor case has focused on Paul Minor himself (an attorney) and Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz (who was acquitted on all charges). Former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield (who were convicted along with Minor in the second trial) have been somewhat in the background.
Hughes connects us with the human side of this story. She introduces us to Teel, his wife, and grandchildren, and includes photos with the story. She notes that Teel's wife was a longtime public-school teacher before having to retire on disability because of multiple sclerosis, and she depends heavily on her husband for support. Her husband, however, is due to report to federal prison in late December.
Some readers might say, "Hey, Mr. Teel was convicted of a crime. His family will just have to tough it out. Mr. Teel should have thought of his family before committing bribery, honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy, etc."
Those readers would have a good point--if Mr. Teel had actually committed those crimes. But through 20-plus posts in our "Mississippi Churning" series here at Legal Schnauzer, we have shown that Teel, Minor, and Whitfield did not commit the crimes for which they were charged. A jury convicted them only because Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee, made numerous unlawful decisions in the case. His rulings related to expert witnesses for the defense and jury instructions on bribery and honest-services mail fraud were particularly off target.
Hughes opens her piece by noting that political prisoners are associated with Stalin's Soviet Union, Hussein's Iraq, Franco's Spain, and Hitler's Germany.
She closes on a note that is both hopeful and distressing:
"These men will eventually be cleared, but it will take years. In the meantime, who will take care of Judge Teel's wife?
"This is a scary story because the United States Justice Department is imprisoning innocent citizens for purely political reasons, and quieting political dissent through fear. I've just told you about Mississippi, but it's happening all across the country, in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin--the list keep growing.
"Is this America, or one of those dictatorships? What country are we living in?"
Joining Hughes in shining light on the Minor case is Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press. In a piece titled "Dem at Your Own Risk," Lynch smartly takes the reader through the case, starting with the tort-reform craze that hit Mississippi in 2000 and going through introduction of the Minor case at the recent U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
Lynch includes interesting comments from a number of key players--including prosecutor Dunn Lampton (who indicates he had strong disagreements with the Justice Department on the handling of the case) and Missouri political scientist Donald Shields, whose research has shown the Bush Justice Department has investigated seven times as many Democrats as Republicans.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Siegelman and 60 Minutes
Quite a few Alabamians evidently are hearing from the producers of 60 Minutes as the famed CBS news program prepares a major story on the Don Siegelman case.
Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, reports that he is hearing from people around the state who say they have been contacted by 60 Minutes about the story.
Sounds like the CBS folks are doing serious homework. One of Stevenson's sources said producers have conducted 15 to 16 interviews for the piece. The source says the story will be "very comprehensive in its scope, covering the questions about the direction of the investigation and including the main question, which is "was the convicted charge a crime?"
One thrust of the story evidently will be a comparison of Siegelman's conviction for giving an appointment to a state board in exchange for a campaign donation to alleged similar behavior by current Republican Gov. Bob Riley. (Could this include a look at the Huntsville biotech deal?)
Another thrust will be the highly partisan political histories of both prosecutors and the judge.
Speaking of the prosecutors, the ones who have given numerous interviews to the Alabama press, they are not talking to 60 Minutes. Hmmm, guess Sweet Lou Franklin came down with a sudden case of lockjaw.
Think 60 Minutes might have asked Sweet Lou a few questions that Brett Blackledge, The Birmingham News' "attack chihuahua," failed to raise?
Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, reports that he is hearing from people around the state who say they have been contacted by 60 Minutes about the story.
Sounds like the CBS folks are doing serious homework. One of Stevenson's sources said producers have conducted 15 to 16 interviews for the piece. The source says the story will be "very comprehensive in its scope, covering the questions about the direction of the investigation and including the main question, which is "was the convicted charge a crime?"
One thrust of the story evidently will be a comparison of Siegelman's conviction for giving an appointment to a state board in exchange for a campaign donation to alleged similar behavior by current Republican Gov. Bob Riley. (Could this include a look at the Huntsville biotech deal?)
Another thrust will be the highly partisan political histories of both prosecutors and the judge.
Speaking of the prosecutors, the ones who have given numerous interviews to the Alabama press, they are not talking to 60 Minutes. Hmmm, guess Sweet Lou Franklin came down with a sudden case of lockjaw.
Think 60 Minutes might have asked Sweet Lou a few questions that Brett Blackledge, The Birmingham News' "attack chihuahua," failed to raise?
Scary Stuff From Bush Justice Department
The evidence is building that the pathology in the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) is so deep that politically motivated prosecutions are likely to continue.
White House strategist Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have stepped down, apparently in no small part because of their roles in the DOJ scandal, which started with the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has initiated an investigation, focusing on cases of selective prosecution in Alabama (Don Siegelman), Mississippi (Paul Minor), Wisconsin (Georgia Thompson) and Pennsylvania (Cyril Wecht).
Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), has been stonewalled at every turn in his efforts to obtain documents related to the DOJ scandal.
Now we learn that not only are the Bushies artfully stonewalling the investigation, they are continuing on their merry path of prosecuting for reasons of politics, not justice.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports today that Dunn Lampton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, is planning a third set of charges against Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz. Lampton initiated the Paul Minor case, and Diaz already has been acquitted on two sets of charges, one involving bribery and mail fraud and the other involving tax evasion.
Lampton, with a huge assist from Republican-appointee judge Henry Wingate, managed to get convictions on Minor and former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. And we have shown through an extensive series of posts here at Legal Schnauzer, that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted for crimes they did not commit.
A jury found them guilty only because Wingate unlawfully disallowed expert-witness testimony for the defense and gave incorrect jury instructions on the two key charges--bribery and honest-services mail fraud. Did Wingate do this accidentally? Seems hard to believe, considering that he was up for a spot on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals at the time. Wingate evidently coveted the post, and convictions in the Minor case were likely to help him with the Bush White House. (Ultimately, Wingate did not get the promotion.)
Also, we've shown that Lampton had long-running conflicts involving Diaz and Minor, but he was allowed to oversee the case anyway. And now he evidently is still going after Diaz.
The pathology of the Bush DOJ also is evident in Alabama. Horton reports that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, who initiated the Siegelman prosecution in Alabama, is preparing another highly questionable case against an adversary of a prominent Alabama Republican. Horton says details are expected to emerge about this case in the coming week.
Sounds like he is referring to the case of John W. Goff, the Montgomery insurance executive who sued Governor Bob Riley and others for actions that allegedly damaged one of Goff's companies.
Horton has reported that Riley was greatly agitated at the notion of having to testify under oath in the Goff case and turned to Canary for help in making the case "go away." Looks like he found the help he needed.
We've noted several times that a curious form of sociopathy seems to have infected segments of the Republican party, particularly when it comes to justice-related issues. I know that sounds like extremist language on my part. But in my own case here in Alabama, I've witnessed strong evidence of sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder) in several central characters.
The key trait of these individuals is that they have no conscience, no empathy for the rights and feelings of others. Another trait of these folks: They are extremely difficult to treat and are highly resistant to change. Why? They can't recognize the condition in themselves.
This latest news provides even more evidence that sociopathy is rampant in the Bush DOJ. I hope members of the House Judiciary Committee, including key members Artur Davis (D-AL) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), will keep this in mind as their investigation progresses.
Davis and company will have to be extremely tough and diligent because this particular bug is going to be very hard to flush out and kill. On the surface, their investigation seems to be about the justice system. But beneath it all, I think the real problem is a psychological disorder.
I truly think the committee needs to consult with an expert in antisocial personality disorder. The future of our justice system, something Americans used to take pride in, might depend on it.
White House strategist Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have stepped down, apparently in no small part because of their roles in the DOJ scandal, which started with the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has initiated an investigation, focusing on cases of selective prosecution in Alabama (Don Siegelman), Mississippi (Paul Minor), Wisconsin (Georgia Thompson) and Pennsylvania (Cyril Wecht).
Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), has been stonewalled at every turn in his efforts to obtain documents related to the DOJ scandal.
Now we learn that not only are the Bushies artfully stonewalling the investigation, they are continuing on their merry path of prosecuting for reasons of politics, not justice.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reports today that Dunn Lampton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, is planning a third set of charges against Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz. Lampton initiated the Paul Minor case, and Diaz already has been acquitted on two sets of charges, one involving bribery and mail fraud and the other involving tax evasion.
Lampton, with a huge assist from Republican-appointee judge Henry Wingate, managed to get convictions on Minor and former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. And we have shown through an extensive series of posts here at Legal Schnauzer, that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted for crimes they did not commit.
A jury found them guilty only because Wingate unlawfully disallowed expert-witness testimony for the defense and gave incorrect jury instructions on the two key charges--bribery and honest-services mail fraud. Did Wingate do this accidentally? Seems hard to believe, considering that he was up for a spot on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals at the time. Wingate evidently coveted the post, and convictions in the Minor case were likely to help him with the Bush White House. (Ultimately, Wingate did not get the promotion.)
Also, we've shown that Lampton had long-running conflicts involving Diaz and Minor, but he was allowed to oversee the case anyway. And now he evidently is still going after Diaz.
The pathology of the Bush DOJ also is evident in Alabama. Horton reports that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, who initiated the Siegelman prosecution in Alabama, is preparing another highly questionable case against an adversary of a prominent Alabama Republican. Horton says details are expected to emerge about this case in the coming week.
Sounds like he is referring to the case of John W. Goff, the Montgomery insurance executive who sued Governor Bob Riley and others for actions that allegedly damaged one of Goff's companies.
Horton has reported that Riley was greatly agitated at the notion of having to testify under oath in the Goff case and turned to Canary for help in making the case "go away." Looks like he found the help he needed.
We've noted several times that a curious form of sociopathy seems to have infected segments of the Republican party, particularly when it comes to justice-related issues. I know that sounds like extremist language on my part. But in my own case here in Alabama, I've witnessed strong evidence of sociopathy (antisocial personality disorder) in several central characters.
The key trait of these individuals is that they have no conscience, no empathy for the rights and feelings of others. Another trait of these folks: They are extremely difficult to treat and are highly resistant to change. Why? They can't recognize the condition in themselves.
This latest news provides even more evidence that sociopathy is rampant in the Bush DOJ. I hope members of the House Judiciary Committee, including key members Artur Davis (D-AL) and Steve Cohen (D-TN), will keep this in mind as their investigation progresses.
Davis and company will have to be extremely tough and diligent because this particular bug is going to be very hard to flush out and kill. On the surface, their investigation seems to be about the justice system. But beneath it all, I think the real problem is a psychological disorder.
I truly think the committee needs to consult with an expert in antisocial personality disorder. The future of our justice system, something Americans used to take pride in, might depend on it.
Cat-Killing Case Ends in Mistrial
A judge in Galveston, TX, has declared a mistrial in the animal-cruelty case of a bird lover who shot a cat. Prosecutors said they will not retry the case against James M. Stevenson.
The Galveston County Daily News received unconfirmed reports that the jury was deadlocked at eight for guilty and four for not guilty.
Under Texas law at the time of the incident, the case hinged on whether the cat was feral or belonged to someone. The cat lived under a toll bridge, and a toll-bridge operator said he had adopted the cat and gave it food and toys. Texas law recently was changed to forbid the killing of cats, regardless of ownership.
Stevenson, head of the Galveston Ornithological Society, was concerned that feral cats were preying on endangered shorebirds. Stevenson said he hopes attention from the case will help officials adopt public policies that work for birds and cats.
It's interesting that this case occurred in a Southern state, where citizens tend to cringe at the thought of government regulation.
A recent story in the Birmingham area gets to the heart of the problem. The Shelby County Humane Society has a program where volunteers take unclaimed dogs and cats to New England for adoption. According to the story, animal shelters in Southern states tend to have way more dogs and cats than they can find homes for. States in New England have actually developed a shortage of dogs and cats, due to strict spay-and-neuter laws.
I applaud the folks at the Shelby County Humane Society for taking a common-sense approach to the problem. One wonders if the New England laws are a bit too strict if they have created a shortage. Let's hope animal lovers and public officials can come together to find a middle ground that will make situations like the one Galveston less likely to occur.
The Galveston County Daily News received unconfirmed reports that the jury was deadlocked at eight for guilty and four for not guilty.
Under Texas law at the time of the incident, the case hinged on whether the cat was feral or belonged to someone. The cat lived under a toll bridge, and a toll-bridge operator said he had adopted the cat and gave it food and toys. Texas law recently was changed to forbid the killing of cats, regardless of ownership.
Stevenson, head of the Galveston Ornithological Society, was concerned that feral cats were preying on endangered shorebirds. Stevenson said he hopes attention from the case will help officials adopt public policies that work for birds and cats.
It's interesting that this case occurred in a Southern state, where citizens tend to cringe at the thought of government regulation.
A recent story in the Birmingham area gets to the heart of the problem. The Shelby County Humane Society has a program where volunteers take unclaimed dogs and cats to New England for adoption. According to the story, animal shelters in Southern states tend to have way more dogs and cats than they can find homes for. States in New England have actually developed a shortage of dogs and cats, due to strict spay-and-neuter laws.
I applaud the folks at the Shelby County Humane Society for taking a common-sense approach to the problem. One wonders if the New England laws are a bit too strict if they have created a shortage. Let's hope animal lovers and public officials can come together to find a middle ground that will make situations like the one Galveston less likely to occur.
Friday, November 16, 2007
My Common Critic, Part II
Let's address some of the criticisms Matthew Krell raises in his post at Cottonmouth.
First, Mr. Krell says I incorrectly stated the holding of U.S. v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150 (1993), which states that a bribery conviction requires a quid pro quo, a something-for-something transaction. Actually, Mr. Krell says that I stated the holding in Mariano correctly, but he notes that it is a First Circuit case and thus is merely persuasive authority, not controlling authority, over Judge Henry Wingate in the Fifth Circuit.
Fair enough. But Mr. Krell goes on to say that "Judge Wingate was bound only by United States Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent; neither of which have passed on this issue."
That statement, it turns out, is incorrect. At the time I wrote my post to which Mr. Krell was responding, I was not aware of a Fifth Circuit case that required a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. But since then, I have discovered such a case--U.S. v. Duvall 846 F.2d 916 (Fifth Circuit, 1988). We discussed the Duvall case in detail here.
Duvall was binding authority over Judge Wingate, and he chose to ignore it, instead cobbling together a jury instruction (that did not require a quid pro quo) seemingly out of Mississippi state law. This raises serious questions about the judge's biases, or his competence, in the Minor case.
Next, Mr. Krell says that I misunderstood the conviction, noting that it includes a lesser included offense of giving an illegal gratuity. I would be the first to say that, as a law student, Mr. Krell has more extensive knowledge than I do on technical issues such as this. But I don't think he is correct on this point. The official Department of Justice press release on the conviction says the jury convicted the defendants on bribery and honest-services mail fraud (plus the associated charges of wire fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy). I see no mention of a conviction on the illegal gratuity statute. And given the severity of Judge Wingate's sentencing--imposing a fine that is 15 times beyond what federal guidelines call for--I don't see how this was a case of conviction on a lesser offense.
Mr. Krell and I part ways most strongly on two key points:
* Mr. Krell says: A canon of appellate review holds that an appellate court will affirm a lower-court's decision for any reason in the record, even a reason the lower court did not follow. The key, he states, is that the lower court got the right answer, regardless of the method it used to get there. From there, Mr. Krell addresses Judge Wingate's rulings to exclude expert testimony for the defense. Even assuming the rulings were erroneous, Mr. Krell says, he suspects the Fifth Circuit appellate court will find it to be harmless error.
Legal Schnauzer says: First, the lower court did not get the right answer, not even close. Both the bribery and the honest-services convictions were grounded on jury instructions that were way off base. Which reminds me of the old adage: You put junk in, you get junk out. The jury almost had to convict, based on the erroneous jury instructions. So that is hardly harmless error. And the exclusion of expert witnesses goes way beyond harmless error, too. Wingate's ruling was contrary to law, and it essentially kept Minor & Co. from putting on a defense. No wonder they were convicted!
(Note: I have an advantage over Mr. Krell because I have a copy of the trial transcript. It's a voluminous document, and I haven't read all of it. But I've read key parts of it, and I know what Wingate based some of his rulings on. I lay out here the reasons his expert-witness rulings were so wrongheaded.
First, Mr. Krell says I incorrectly stated the holding of U.S. v. Mariano, 983 F.2d 1150 (1993), which states that a bribery conviction requires a quid pro quo, a something-for-something transaction. Actually, Mr. Krell says that I stated the holding in Mariano correctly, but he notes that it is a First Circuit case and thus is merely persuasive authority, not controlling authority, over Judge Henry Wingate in the Fifth Circuit.
Fair enough. But Mr. Krell goes on to say that "Judge Wingate was bound only by United States Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent; neither of which have passed on this issue."
That statement, it turns out, is incorrect. At the time I wrote my post to which Mr. Krell was responding, I was not aware of a Fifth Circuit case that required a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. But since then, I have discovered such a case--U.S. v. Duvall 846 F.2d 916 (Fifth Circuit, 1988). We discussed the Duvall case in detail here.
Duvall was binding authority over Judge Wingate, and he chose to ignore it, instead cobbling together a jury instruction (that did not require a quid pro quo) seemingly out of Mississippi state law. This raises serious questions about the judge's biases, or his competence, in the Minor case.
Next, Mr. Krell says that I misunderstood the conviction, noting that it includes a lesser included offense of giving an illegal gratuity. I would be the first to say that, as a law student, Mr. Krell has more extensive knowledge than I do on technical issues such as this. But I don't think he is correct on this point. The official Department of Justice press release on the conviction says the jury convicted the defendants on bribery and honest-services mail fraud (plus the associated charges of wire fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy). I see no mention of a conviction on the illegal gratuity statute. And given the severity of Judge Wingate's sentencing--imposing a fine that is 15 times beyond what federal guidelines call for--I don't see how this was a case of conviction on a lesser offense.
Mr. Krell and I part ways most strongly on two key points:
* Mr. Krell says: A canon of appellate review holds that an appellate court will affirm a lower-court's decision for any reason in the record, even a reason the lower court did not follow. The key, he states, is that the lower court got the right answer, regardless of the method it used to get there. From there, Mr. Krell addresses Judge Wingate's rulings to exclude expert testimony for the defense. Even assuming the rulings were erroneous, Mr. Krell says, he suspects the Fifth Circuit appellate court will find it to be harmless error.
Legal Schnauzer says: First, the lower court did not get the right answer, not even close. Both the bribery and the honest-services convictions were grounded on jury instructions that were way off base. Which reminds me of the old adage: You put junk in, you get junk out. The jury almost had to convict, based on the erroneous jury instructions. So that is hardly harmless error. And the exclusion of expert witnesses goes way beyond harmless error, too. Wingate's ruling was contrary to law, and it essentially kept Minor & Co. from putting on a defense. No wonder they were convicted!
(Note: I have an advantage over Mr. Krell because I have a copy of the trial transcript. It's a voluminous document, and I haven't read all of it. But I've read key parts of it, and I know what Wingate based some of his rulings on. I lay out here the reasons his expert-witness rulings were so wrongheaded.
* Mr. Krell says: "Courts make errors all the time. A judge misreads the law or just never understood it, an ambiguous decision is poorly interpreted, or the lawyers screw up and the judge doesn't catch it, and that's why God made appellate courts." This is the kind of attitude you hear a lot if you have much experience around the law. In fact, I've had more than one judge say, "If you don't like it, appeal it." That kind of cavalier approach should have no place in our courts. Yes, judges are human and can make mistakes. But judges also are very well paid, and they have plenty of staff to help them. We're talking about people's freedom here; one man is in federal prison and two more are headed there because of Judge Wingate's rulings. He took an oath to uphold the law, and that's serious business. If I can figure out what the law is--with zero days of law school behind me--a federal judge should be able to figure it out. The Minor case involved some fairly complex law. But a federal judge should be pretty well acquainted with this stuff, or he should know how to find the applicable law. There's no place for a "hey, the appeals courts will fix it" approach. Finally, the evidence is overwhelming that Wingate intentionally butchered this case. I don't see how he could accidentally make the unlawful rulings he did regarding expert witnesses and jury instructions.
A couple of other points about Mr. Krell's piece. He states: "I admit there are things about the trial that seem fishy." But he also states: "I am loathe to assume that a federal judge got it wrong."
I think that's the main difference between us. I think Mr. Krell knows something doesn't add up about the Paul Minor conviction. But Mr. Krell has his future to think about, and for a young law student to write that a federal judge screwed up a high-profile case . . . well, I doubt it would be a wise career move.
So I can't blame Mr. Krell for equivocating in his analysis of the Minor case. I'd probably do the same thing if I were in his shoes. But I don't have to worry about trying to find a place in the legal profession. So I can say, unequivocally, that Judge Henry Wingate screwed up the Minor case, probably because the judge was eyeballing a seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and wanted to curry favor with the Bush crowd.
That brings us back to Scrubs and those "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling." Hopefully, Mr. Krell hasn't had to encounter too many of these types yet. But I have. And when Mr. Krell moves into the legal profession he is sure to encounter them. He will find that some of them have J.D. after their names. And some of them wear robes.
Here's where Mr. Krell and I certainly agree. He writes: "What has happened when officeholders on trial for corruption can claim that their opponents are attempting to bring them down, and have it actually be plausible?"
Then he says it all goes back to the "culture of corruption."
"How can we trust any officeholder that was complicit in the development of this system, where we can believe that our judges aren't impartial and neutral? And that's the most frightening thing: That we can believe that this is no longer a nation of laws, but of men."
I hear you, brother. I hear you.
Important Case, Questionable Judge
An important legal case is taking place in Birmingham, and it hits close to home on several fronts here at Legal Schnauzer.
Mayor-elect Larry Langford faces a challenge of his qualifications for the office, which require that he be a resident and registered voter in the city. Patrick Cooper filed the lawsuit after finishing second in the October 9 election. Langford won by a large enough margin to avoid a runoff.
Langford contends that he changed his official home to a downtown Birmingham loft last summer. Cooper says Langford continues to live in the house he bought in 1982 in Fairfield, a Birmingham suburb.
If Langford is found to be a Fairfield resident, he would not qualify to be mayor.
One interesting aspect of the case is the judge, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Allwin Horn. I've had occasion to see Judge Horn in action a time or two in the past year, in a case related to the Legal Schnauzer case featured here. So far, I've been extremely unimpressed with Judge Horn, and if my experience is an indicator, I question whether justice will be done in the Cooper/Langford lawsuit.
Horn is a Republican, and evidence I've seen suggests he is more interested in toeing the party line than in administering justice. I'm not familiar with the law in the Cooper/Langford case, so I have no idea how it should turn out. But with Horn in charge, regardless of the outcome, I would have concerns that politics played a major factor.
I don't live in the Birmingham city limits, but I did live there for almost 12 years and I work there. So I very much want to see the city prosper. Like so many events in our community, the mayoral election was touched heavily by race. Both Langford and Cooper are black. But Langford drew strong support from the city's black voters, while Cooper was seen more favorably by whites.
It's a non-jury trial, so it all comes down to Horn. Based on personal experience, I don't feel real comfortable about that.
Mayor-elect Larry Langford faces a challenge of his qualifications for the office, which require that he be a resident and registered voter in the city. Patrick Cooper filed the lawsuit after finishing second in the October 9 election. Langford won by a large enough margin to avoid a runoff.
Langford contends that he changed his official home to a downtown Birmingham loft last summer. Cooper says Langford continues to live in the house he bought in 1982 in Fairfield, a Birmingham suburb.
If Langford is found to be a Fairfield resident, he would not qualify to be mayor.
One interesting aspect of the case is the judge, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Allwin Horn. I've had occasion to see Judge Horn in action a time or two in the past year, in a case related to the Legal Schnauzer case featured here. So far, I've been extremely unimpressed with Judge Horn, and if my experience is an indicator, I question whether justice will be done in the Cooper/Langford lawsuit.
Horn is a Republican, and evidence I've seen suggests he is more interested in toeing the party line than in administering justice. I'm not familiar with the law in the Cooper/Langford case, so I have no idea how it should turn out. But with Horn in charge, regardless of the outcome, I would have concerns that politics played a major factor.
I don't live in the Birmingham city limits, but I did live there for almost 12 years and I work there. So I very much want to see the city prosper. Like so many events in our community, the mayoral election was touched heavily by race. Both Langford and Cooper are black. But Langford drew strong support from the city's black voters, while Cooper was seen more favorably by whites.
It's a non-jury trial, so it all comes down to Horn. Based on personal experience, I don't feel real comfortable about that.
Dubya's downward spiral
Even Alabamians, supposedly a pretty right-wing bunch, have little confidence in President George W. Bush.
Only 12 percent of respondents said they had confidence in Bush, according to a survey by the Alabama Education Association's Capital Survey Research Center in Montgomery. Another 47 percent said they had lost confidence in the president and another 31 percent said they had "doubts" about his ability.
The survey also showed that 53 percent of Alabamians said the Iraq war is "not worth it."
"Alabama may be a red state in national politics in the voting booth, and to read most of the Alabama press and watch local television news, you would think everybody in Alabama is a pro-Bush, religious conservative," writes Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News. "But when asked their opinions by survey researchers, that's not what you find at all."
On the national front, a new opinion survey released this week shows a significant percentage of American voters believe Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have abused their powers to an extent that warrants impeachment.
The poll by American Research Group shows that 64 percent of American voters say Bush has abused his powers as president. Of those 64 percent, 53 percent (34 percent of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
On Cheney, 70 percent of American voters say the vice president has abused his powers. Of those 70 percent, 61 percent (43 percent of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.
The same poll shows Hillary Clinton (46 percent) leading Barack Obama (21 percent) and John Edwards (11 percent) in a national primary. On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani (25 percent) leads Mitt Romney (21 percent), Fred Thompson (17 percent), and John McCain (12 percent).
It would be interesting to see the results of a poll about the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Given that large chunks of the American population either have lost confidence in Bush or believe he should be impeached, you wonder what they think about the notion that the Bush DOJ pursues politically motivated prosecutions. And closer to home, what do Alabamians think about their state courts? Do they have confidence in them? Seems an appropriate question to ask, considering that the same man who put Bush in the White House (Karl Rove) also shaped Alabama's Republican-packed state courts.
Only 12 percent of respondents said they had confidence in Bush, according to a survey by the Alabama Education Association's Capital Survey Research Center in Montgomery. Another 47 percent said they had lost confidence in the president and another 31 percent said they had "doubts" about his ability.
The survey also showed that 53 percent of Alabamians said the Iraq war is "not worth it."
"Alabama may be a red state in national politics in the voting booth, and to read most of the Alabama press and watch local television news, you would think everybody in Alabama is a pro-Bush, religious conservative," writes Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News. "But when asked their opinions by survey researchers, that's not what you find at all."
On the national front, a new opinion survey released this week shows a significant percentage of American voters believe Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have abused their powers to an extent that warrants impeachment.
The poll by American Research Group shows that 64 percent of American voters say Bush has abused his powers as president. Of those 64 percent, 53 percent (34 percent of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
On Cheney, 70 percent of American voters say the vice president has abused his powers. Of those 70 percent, 61 percent (43 percent of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.
The same poll shows Hillary Clinton (46 percent) leading Barack Obama (21 percent) and John Edwards (11 percent) in a national primary. On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani (25 percent) leads Mitt Romney (21 percent), Fred Thompson (17 percent), and John McCain (12 percent).
It would be interesting to see the results of a poll about the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Given that large chunks of the American population either have lost confidence in Bush or believe he should be impeached, you wonder what they think about the notion that the Bush DOJ pursues politically motivated prosecutions. And closer to home, what do Alabamians think about their state courts? Do they have confidence in them? Seems an appropriate question to ask, considering that the same man who put Bush in the White House (Karl Rove) also shaped Alabama's Republican-packed state courts.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Cat People Vs. Bird People
As you probably can tell from the title, our blog is driven largely by an interest in the law and a love for pets. So we couldn't help but notice a story that mixed those two subjects.
Unfortunately, the story has a disturbing result.
A bird-watching enthusiast is on trial in Galveston, TX, for fatally shooting a cat with a 22-caliber rifle. Defendant James M. Stevenson is the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society. If convicted on animal-cruelty charges, he faces up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.
The cat lived under a toll bridge and was fed and cared for by a toll collector. Under Texas law, the case hinges on whether the jury finds the cat was feral. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibits killing a cat "belonging to another." Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership.
The case is expected to conclude any day.
Legal Schnauzer is inspired by, and dedicated to the memory of, our beloved miniature schnauzer, Murphy, who died in 2004 at age 11.
About six months or so after Murphy's death, two Siamese cats (a brother and sister named Baxter and Chloe) sort of fell into our laps. One of my wife's friends knew about them. They had a good home, with a husband-wife and two young children. But the husband developed allergies, so the family wanted to find Baxter and Chloe a new home.
We wound up being their new home, and we are grateful every day that they came into our lives. At the same time, we love the many birds who make regular stops at our place, particularly in our wooded backyard. We are aware, from reading news reports, of the terrible toll domestic cats take on the bird population. In fact, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the most efficient predator on the planet is the domestic cat. And their usual target, of course, is the wild bird.
This problem could be pretty much solved if people were responsible with their domestic cats. Get them spayed and neutered and keep them mostly inside. I have no idea why people have this notion that cats need to roam outside unattended.
A woman actually told my wife one time that cats are "street savvy." I saw what happened to a "street savvy" cat one morning as I was driving to work. A black-and-white cat, apparently being chased by another cat, ran headlong into the side of a passing mini van. The driver probably never knew what caused the thump on the side of his vehicle. I saw the cat's body twitch by the side of the road as I drove by helplessly.
I think it was game-show host Bob Barker, a well-known animal lover, who said that at his funeral he plans to rise up in his coffin and say, one last time, "Spay and neuter your pets."
Amen, brother.
Unfortunately, the story has a disturbing result.
A bird-watching enthusiast is on trial in Galveston, TX, for fatally shooting a cat with a 22-caliber rifle. Defendant James M. Stevenson is the founder of the Galveston Ornithological Society. If convicted on animal-cruelty charges, he faces up to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine.
The cat lived under a toll bridge and was fed and cared for by a toll collector. Under Texas law, the case hinges on whether the jury finds the cat was feral. Stevenson was indicted under a state law that prohibits killing a cat "belonging to another." Prompted by this case, the law was changed on Sept. 1 to include all cats, regardless of ownership.
The case is expected to conclude any day.
Legal Schnauzer is inspired by, and dedicated to the memory of, our beloved miniature schnauzer, Murphy, who died in 2004 at age 11.
About six months or so after Murphy's death, two Siamese cats (a brother and sister named Baxter and Chloe) sort of fell into our laps. One of my wife's friends knew about them. They had a good home, with a husband-wife and two young children. But the husband developed allergies, so the family wanted to find Baxter and Chloe a new home.
We wound up being their new home, and we are grateful every day that they came into our lives. At the same time, we love the many birds who make regular stops at our place, particularly in our wooded backyard. We are aware, from reading news reports, of the terrible toll domestic cats take on the bird population. In fact, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the most efficient predator on the planet is the domestic cat. And their usual target, of course, is the wild bird.
This problem could be pretty much solved if people were responsible with their domestic cats. Get them spayed and neutered and keep them mostly inside. I have no idea why people have this notion that cats need to roam outside unattended.
A woman actually told my wife one time that cats are "street savvy." I saw what happened to a "street savvy" cat one morning as I was driving to work. A black-and-white cat, apparently being chased by another cat, ran headlong into the side of a passing mini van. The driver probably never knew what caused the thump on the side of his vehicle. I saw the cat's body twitch by the side of the road as I drove by helplessly.
I think it was game-show host Bob Barker, a well-known animal lover, who said that at his funeral he plans to rise up in his coffin and say, one last time, "Spay and neuter your pets."
Amen, brother.
Assault on the Law
A story in the sports section one day recently caught my attention and caused me to jump ahead a bit in our story of legal intrigue.
The story was about baseball player Jose Offerman, who during a minor-league game last summer in Hartford, Conn., rushed the mound and attacked the opposing pitcher with a bat. The attack came after Offerman had been hit in the leg with a pitch and left both the pitcher and the catcher injured.
Offerman's punishment came down recently, and he received probation and was ordered to undergo anger-management treatment. The 38-year-old Offerman was a longtime major leaguer and was an all-star infielder with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1995 and the Boston Red Sox in 1999.
Here's where the Offerman story connects to our Legal Schnauzer tale: Offerman had faced up to 10 years in prison on two felony assault charges.
The key word here is felony. The AP story doesn't go into this, but my guess is that Offerman was charged with second degree assault, a felony, because he used his bat in the attack.
You can read Alabama assault law here. Criminal law in most states is based on the Model Penal Code, so Connecticut law probably is the same as Alabama's.
Why does this matter to your humble blogger? I was the victim of a felony assault in October 2006. My troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity, essentially stalked me and then hit me in the back with a roadside sign, leaving a bleeding abrasion. There was an eye witness to the attack.
As I've noted in other posts, McGarity has the trappings of a normal suburban soccer dad--wife, two kids, nice house, job at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. But after he filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I conducted a little research on his background and discovered that he has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. (How in God's name do you get and keep a job at a reputable employer like Blue Cross and Blue Shield with a record like that?)
We will go into considerable detail later on the assault itself and actual Alabama law that governs such offenses. (We also will look into how BC/BS came to hire someone with a big-time criminal record.) But for now, suffice to say that this assault clearly was a felony.
Just as in the Offerman case, McGarity used a "dangerous instrument" and caused "physical injury." Under the law, that's a felony.
But not in the corrupt little kingdom of Shelby County, Alabama. The magistrate's office there has insisted on calling it a misdemeanor. When I complained and showed them the actual law, they said I would need to speak with the district's attorney office. I tried to reach DA Robby Owens, but he won't respond to e-mails or a snail-mail letter.
The statute of limitations on a felony offense is three years in Alabama, so there is still time for justice to be done. But evidently if Robby Owens has his way, Mike McGarity (an eight-time criminal, at least) will get away with a felony. And Owens has the audacity to run for office on a tough-on-crime stance.
Owens recently has received all kinds of public support over his rift with Alabama Attorney General Troy King. I'm no fan of Troy King, but Robby Owens does not deserve public support. From what I've seen, the Shelby County DA's office is a disgrace, and I will be laying out my experiences with Owens' bunch in detail.
The story was about baseball player Jose Offerman, who during a minor-league game last summer in Hartford, Conn., rushed the mound and attacked the opposing pitcher with a bat. The attack came after Offerman had been hit in the leg with a pitch and left both the pitcher and the catcher injured.
Offerman's punishment came down recently, and he received probation and was ordered to undergo anger-management treatment. The 38-year-old Offerman was a longtime major leaguer and was an all-star infielder with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1995 and the Boston Red Sox in 1999.
Here's where the Offerman story connects to our Legal Schnauzer tale: Offerman had faced up to 10 years in prison on two felony assault charges.
The key word here is felony. The AP story doesn't go into this, but my guess is that Offerman was charged with second degree assault, a felony, because he used his bat in the attack.
You can read Alabama assault law here. Criminal law in most states is based on the Model Penal Code, so Connecticut law probably is the same as Alabama's.
Why does this matter to your humble blogger? I was the victim of a felony assault in October 2006. My troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity, essentially stalked me and then hit me in the back with a roadside sign, leaving a bleeding abrasion. There was an eye witness to the attack.
As I've noted in other posts, McGarity has the trappings of a normal suburban soccer dad--wife, two kids, nice house, job at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. But after he filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I conducted a little research on his background and discovered that he has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. (How in God's name do you get and keep a job at a reputable employer like Blue Cross and Blue Shield with a record like that?)
We will go into considerable detail later on the assault itself and actual Alabama law that governs such offenses. (We also will look into how BC/BS came to hire someone with a big-time criminal record.) But for now, suffice to say that this assault clearly was a felony.
Just as in the Offerman case, McGarity used a "dangerous instrument" and caused "physical injury." Under the law, that's a felony.
But not in the corrupt little kingdom of Shelby County, Alabama. The magistrate's office there has insisted on calling it a misdemeanor. When I complained and showed them the actual law, they said I would need to speak with the district's attorney office. I tried to reach DA Robby Owens, but he won't respond to e-mails or a snail-mail letter.
The statute of limitations on a felony offense is three years in Alabama, so there is still time for justice to be done. But evidently if Robby Owens has his way, Mike McGarity (an eight-time criminal, at least) will get away with a felony. And Owens has the audacity to run for office on a tough-on-crime stance.
Owens recently has received all kinds of public support over his rift with Alabama Attorney General Troy King. I'm no fan of Troy King, but Robby Owens does not deserve public support. From what I've seen, the Shelby County DA's office is a disgrace, and I will be laying out my experiences with Owens' bunch in detail.
This is another example of what can happen when, through no fault of your own, you become entangled with corrupt lawyers, judges, and prosecutors.
How did two innocent people, my wife and me, become involved in this? We were the victim of a crime. Mike McGarity trespassed on multiple occasions, after being warned repeatedly to stay off our property. When we sought to have him prosecuted for criminal trespass, third degree, he was acquitted by Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson (even though, according to the trial transcript, McGarity inadvertently confessed to the crime; Jackson made up law from the bench in order to justify his acquittal).
The acquittal allowed McGarity to sue me for a tort called malicious prosecution. And that's what started my nightmare in Alabama's civil "justice" system. By law, McGarity's bogus lawsuit had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in six to eight months time. (Almost all lawsuits, even the worst ones, take at least that much time to be resolved.) But thanks to repeated unlawful rulings by Republican judges in Shelby County (J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves), the case dragged on for five-plus years, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars.
What do I mean by unlawful rulings? Well, Joiner and Reeves probably combined to rule contrary to law on 30 to 40 occasions in my case. But the key rulings involved summary judgment, and this is real simple stuff.
If one party files a properly executed and supported motion for summary judgment (MSJ), the opposing party must file a response and present evidence to counter the MSJ, showing that there are reasons for the case to go to trial.
My MSJ was properly supported because it provided evidence in the form of multiple affidavits, showing that we had "probable cause" to seek McGarity's prosecution for criminal trespass and we moved forward on the case without "malice." (In fact, our evidence showed that we had more than probable cause on the criminal complaint; we presented evidence from the criminal trial transcript showing that McGarity inadvertently confessed to the crime, so we had "actual cause.")
My first two of three MSJs were prepared by high-priced attorneys from a well-known Birmingham law firm. The third was prepared by yours truly and came after I was acting pro se (representing myself in court). The three MSJs all presented distinct issues of fact and law--in other words, the case had to be dismissed on so many grounds that multiple MSJs were possible; we weren't just regurgitating the same stuff over and over. (In fact, I probably could have done a fourth or fifth MSJ, but it became pretty clear after a while that would be a waste of time.)
The nonmoving party to an MSJ is required by law to respond in a certain way and within a certain timeframe. McGarity's responses failed on every count. On the first MSJ, his attorney filed a timely response, but evidence was filed eight days late. My attorney moved to strike the response, but the judge never ruled on it. (It shouldn't have mattered because McGarity's affidavit was a bunch of inadmissible gibberish anyway. He couldn't deny trespassing because he had already confessed to it in the criminal trial. A denial would have put him at risk of a perjury charge.)
Joiner denied the first MSJ, even though McGarity had presented no timely evidence to counter my motion. Joiner denied the second MSJ, even though McGarity made no response at all. By the time of the third MSJ, Reeves was the judge (Joiner having recused himself for an obvious conflict that should have disqualified him from the outset), and he denied the MSJ, even though McGarity again made no response at all.
A key point: Under Alabama law (and probably law in all 50 states), a motion for summary judgment calls for a "nondiscretionary" ruling. In other words, a judge can't just do whatever he wants to do. To paraphrase Alabama law, if the filings show there is no reason for the case to go to trial, summary judgment MUST be granted, "forthwith." And if the nonmoving party presents no countering evidence, the moving party's evidence must be considered "uncontroverted," and summary judgment MUST be granted.
See how easy this law is? I've got a stump in my backyard that could have decided this case correctly.
By law, I was due summary judgment in my favor. Joiner and Reeves didn't do what the law required them to do. And I was due summary judgment "forthwith." Well, it's seven years and counting, so I guess Shelby County, Alabama, has an interesting definition of forthwith.
But let's return to this notion of "malicious prosecution." One of the key goals of this blog is to teach Alabamians, actually all Americans who care to visit here, that the victim of a crime can be sued if the perpetrator is found not guilty.
You heard that right: You can be the victim of a crime, then you can be victim of a lawsuit. In many ways, you are better off letting the criminal get away with it. (In fact, I had a lawyer tell me I should have just let the trespassing go. He said he tells clients all the time to just look the other way when they are victims of crime.)
Under the law, a malicious prosecution lawsuit should almost never happen. Malicious prosecution is defined as a "disfavored tort." But such lawsuits happen all the time, mainly because dishonest lawyers abuse the system, with some improper purpose in mind (getting a little insurance money?) And corrupt judges, like the ones in Shelby County, let it happen. (Who knows, some corrupt judges might let it happen so that they can share the insurance proceeds with corrupt lawyers.)
What is the fallout of this corruption? I've already noted the severe financial and emotional toll that comes with being the victim of Alabama's corrupt justice system. Now, my physical safety has been put at risk, thanks to this assault.
Why has this happened? Because Judge Jackson decided to acquit a criminal defendant who admitted he was guilty as charged. Because attorney William E. Swatek decided to file a fraudulent malicious-prosecution case on behalf of a client with a criminal history. And because Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves repeatedly made unlawful rulings that caused a bogus lawsuit--one that by law had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in 7-8 months time--drag on for five-plus years.
Why did Swatek (whose son, Dax Swatek, is a Republican "consultant"); and Jackson, Joiner, and Reeves (all Republicans) take these actions? And why did Alabama's Republican-dominated appellate courts allow unlawful trial-court rulings to stand?
Those are the central questions at the heart of this blog. We've recently seen the outrageous Alabama Supreme Court ruling in the ExxonMobil case, cheating Alabama citizens out of $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a contract/fraud case. But unlawful rulings from our Republican-packed appellate courts are old news here at Legal Schnauzer.
My case hardly involved the kind of money that was at stake in the Exxon case. But the Legal Schnauzer case illustrates the mindset that allows "conservative" judges to ignore settled law in order to favor certain parties, cheating everday citizens in the process.
As for our story about assault, I know what that minor-league pitcher must have felt like when he saw Jose Offerman coming after him with a bat. (Actually, that's not quite true; the pitcher could see Offerman coming, but McGarity hit me in the back, as I was walking away from him.) I do know what it feels like to be struck by a "dangerous instrument." It hurts--a lot. And it hurts even more to know that, in my case, the perpetrator probably is going to get away with it.
The Shelby County magistrate's office said I was free to file a misdemeanor assault complaint, and they would swear out a warrant for McGarity's arrest. But I refused to do it. First, I'm not going to sign a document under oath saying someone committed a misdemeanor when I know they committed a felony. Also, this case should not be based on a citizen's complaint. The usual procedure for a felony, as I understand it, is that the DA's office brings the case following an investigation. That's the way this case should be handled.
Finally, misdemeanors are heard in district court, before Judge Jackson in a bench trial. I've been down that road before. By law, as I understand it, the victim of a felony is entitled to have the case heard by a jury. I'm not about to have another case heard by a corrupt judge like Jackson.
We'll move away from the matter of assault for now. But consider this loaded social question: What if I had been assaulted by a black man? Or what if I had been assaulted by a poor man of any color? Or what if I had been assaulted by someone of Middle Eastern descent?
Think it would be considered a felony? I sure do.My Common Critic
One of the "benefits" of having a blog is that you attract critics.
Some critics are what you might call trolls. They sit back and anonymously lob witticisms like "you're a moron" or "your blog sucks." No reason to spend much time thinking about those types.
But every once in a while, you come across a different sort of critic. This sort seems well-intentioned and thoughtful, perhaps even noble--if misguided. (Hey, if someone disagrees with me, they've got to be misguided, right?)
This kind of critic causes you to stop and think. And that's a good thing.
Legal Schnauzer recently attracted such a critic. He is Matthew Krell, writing at Cottonmouth, a progressive blog in Mississippi. Mr. Krell takes me to task for my reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Actually, "takes me to task" might be too strong a term. After all, Mr. Krell and I are on the same team (both progressives), and we seem to have the same goals (an honest and fair justice system).
Our differences, I think, are attributable to age and experiences. I gather that Mr. Krell is a law student, so I'm guessing he's in the 22-25 age range. That would make him about half my age. And by virtue of my age, I'm guessing I've developed a more hardened perspective on life than has Mr. Krell.
Ultimately, I'm not sure that Mr. Krell and I disagree all that much. He's embarking on a career in the law, and it's probably healthy for him to think that he's heading into a noble profession. Meanwhile, I've seen the darker side of the legal world.
Perhaps Mr. Krell and I can teach one another some valuable lessons. Maybe I can show him that sometimes reality really does bite. And maybe he can show me that, despite our occasional journey through darkness, we should strive to see light in the distance.
Mr. Krell presents a respectful critique, and I want to present a respectful response. But since he and I really are on the same team, I figure why not have a little fun?
So first, I want to say that I'm grateful for Mr. Krell's critique for two reasons. One, it made me think a little harder about what I'm doing on this blog. And two, it reminded me of one of my favorite episodes of Scrubs, which I think is one of the best shows in modern television history. I never thought I would think a TV comedy could rank with the brilliance of M*A*S*H. But I think Scrubs often rises to that level.
The episode I'm reminded of is called "My Common Enemy." It centers around Dr. Molly Clock, a young, idealistic, somewhat dingy (and very attractive) psychiatrist at Sacred Heart Hospital. Dr. Clock believes that people are essentially good. Even those with a "hard outer shell," she says, have a "creamy center."
Well, this is nonsense to two of the hospital's veterans--Dr. Perry Cox and Chief of Staff Bob Kelso. They agree that most people are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."
Cox and Kelso normally loathe one another and disagree on most everything. But they agree on this: Dr. Clock, and her sunny, positive outlook, must be crushed.
They become particularly alarmed when they see Dr. Clock whistling the "Andy Griffith" theme song and getting patients, visitors and others to whistle along with her. "Dear God, she has an actual skip in her step," Cox says.
Something must be done! So Kelso asks Cox about their plan of attack. "When I crush a person's spirit," Cox says, "I like to use a combination of intimidation and degradation."
So they are off on a mission to teach Dr. Clock some lessons in hard knocks. But will the tables get turned? I won't ruin it for you. But for folks, who love to read great comedy, the script to "My Common Enemy" can be found here.
And before we go into my response to Mr. Krell, let's enjoy this video clip of highlights from "My Common Enemy."
Some critics are what you might call trolls. They sit back and anonymously lob witticisms like "you're a moron" or "your blog sucks." No reason to spend much time thinking about those types.
But every once in a while, you come across a different sort of critic. This sort seems well-intentioned and thoughtful, perhaps even noble--if misguided. (Hey, if someone disagrees with me, they've got to be misguided, right?)
This kind of critic causes you to stop and think. And that's a good thing.
Legal Schnauzer recently attracted such a critic. He is Matthew Krell, writing at Cottonmouth, a progressive blog in Mississippi. Mr. Krell takes me to task for my reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Actually, "takes me to task" might be too strong a term. After all, Mr. Krell and I are on the same team (both progressives), and we seem to have the same goals (an honest and fair justice system).
Our differences, I think, are attributable to age and experiences. I gather that Mr. Krell is a law student, so I'm guessing he's in the 22-25 age range. That would make him about half my age. And by virtue of my age, I'm guessing I've developed a more hardened perspective on life than has Mr. Krell.
Ultimately, I'm not sure that Mr. Krell and I disagree all that much. He's embarking on a career in the law, and it's probably healthy for him to think that he's heading into a noble profession. Meanwhile, I've seen the darker side of the legal world.
Perhaps Mr. Krell and I can teach one another some valuable lessons. Maybe I can show him that sometimes reality really does bite. And maybe he can show me that, despite our occasional journey through darkness, we should strive to see light in the distance.
Mr. Krell presents a respectful critique, and I want to present a respectful response. But since he and I really are on the same team, I figure why not have a little fun?
So first, I want to say that I'm grateful for Mr. Krell's critique for two reasons. One, it made me think a little harder about what I'm doing on this blog. And two, it reminded me of one of my favorite episodes of Scrubs, which I think is one of the best shows in modern television history. I never thought I would think a TV comedy could rank with the brilliance of M*A*S*H. But I think Scrubs often rises to that level.
The episode I'm reminded of is called "My Common Enemy." It centers around Dr. Molly Clock, a young, idealistic, somewhat dingy (and very attractive) psychiatrist at Sacred Heart Hospital. Dr. Clock believes that people are essentially good. Even those with a "hard outer shell," she says, have a "creamy center."
Well, this is nonsense to two of the hospital's veterans--Dr. Perry Cox and Chief of Staff Bob Kelso. They agree that most people are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."
Cox and Kelso normally loathe one another and disagree on most everything. But they agree on this: Dr. Clock, and her sunny, positive outlook, must be crushed.
They become particularly alarmed when they see Dr. Clock whistling the "Andy Griffith" theme song and getting patients, visitors and others to whistle along with her. "Dear God, she has an actual skip in her step," Cox says.
Something must be done! So Kelso asks Cox about their plan of attack. "When I crush a person's spirit," Cox says, "I like to use a combination of intimidation and degradation."
So they are off on a mission to teach Dr. Clock some lessons in hard knocks. But will the tables get turned? I won't ruin it for you. But for folks, who love to read great comedy, the script to "My Common Enemy" can be found here.
And before we go into my response to Mr. Krell, let's enjoy this video clip of highlights from "My Common Enemy."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XXIII
Paul Minor and Dunn Lampton have been political adversaries for many years. In fact, their relationship sounds strikingly similar to that of Judge Mark Fuller and Don Siegelman in Alabama, which was presented in stark detail recently in an affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
If anything, the Minor/Lampton relationship might be even more contentious than the Siegelman/Fuller pairing.
Before becoming a U.S. attorney, Lampton ran twice as a Republican for the U.S. Congress. Both times he lost, and both times his races were financed largely by companies that Minor had successfully sued. Included among these companies were firms owned or operated by members of Lampton's family.
Here is background on the history between Paul Minor and Dunn Lampton, pulled from public documents:
* Leslie B. Lampton is director, CEO, and chairman of the board of Ergon Inc., a Mississippi corporation that was No. 180 on the Forbes list of 500 top private U.S. corporations for the year 2003. Leslie Lampton is a relative of Dunn Lampton, and those closely connected to Ergon include Lee C. Lampton, William W. Lampton, and Robert H. Lampton. All made contributions to Dunn Lampton's political campaigns.
* Paul Minor successfully sued Ergon and recovered, or was awarded damages on behalf of his clients, in the millions of dollars. In July 2002, as the investigation in the Minor case was heating up, Minor entered an appearance for plaintiffs in a case against Ergon and one of its subsidiaries, Magnolia Towing, and was successful in having the litigation transferred to Oklahoma, where the matter settled for millions of dollars.
* During his campaigns for Congress, Lampton received campaign contributions from current Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, then a professional lobbyist for Lorillard Tobacco Company. Lorillard is part of Loews Corporation, which owns 54 percent of Diamond Offshore Drilling. Diamond Offshore was the defendant in the Archie Marks case, in which Paul Minor represented the plaintiff.
* Lampton received a campaign contribution from Deloitte & Touche Federal PAC, an independent accounting firm that was employed by Diamond Offshore.
* Lampton received campaign contributions from Brown and Williamson Tobacco. Minor was a trial lawyer in lawsuits against tobacco companies and was awarded millions of dollars in attorney fees for his efforts in the litigation.
Think Lampton might salivate at the thought of Paul Minor being in prison? Think Lampton would uphold the public trust a prosecutor holds (as outlined here by Scott Horton of Harper's) in a case involving Paul Minor?
If anything, the Minor/Lampton relationship might be even more contentious than the Siegelman/Fuller pairing.
Before becoming a U.S. attorney, Lampton ran twice as a Republican for the U.S. Congress. Both times he lost, and both times his races were financed largely by companies that Minor had successfully sued. Included among these companies were firms owned or operated by members of Lampton's family.
Here is background on the history between Paul Minor and Dunn Lampton, pulled from public documents:
* Leslie B. Lampton is director, CEO, and chairman of the board of Ergon Inc., a Mississippi corporation that was No. 180 on the Forbes list of 500 top private U.S. corporations for the year 2003. Leslie Lampton is a relative of Dunn Lampton, and those closely connected to Ergon include Lee C. Lampton, William W. Lampton, and Robert H. Lampton. All made contributions to Dunn Lampton's political campaigns.
* Paul Minor successfully sued Ergon and recovered, or was awarded damages on behalf of his clients, in the millions of dollars. In July 2002, as the investigation in the Minor case was heating up, Minor entered an appearance for plaintiffs in a case against Ergon and one of its subsidiaries, Magnolia Towing, and was successful in having the litigation transferred to Oklahoma, where the matter settled for millions of dollars.
* During his campaigns for Congress, Lampton received campaign contributions from current Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, then a professional lobbyist for Lorillard Tobacco Company. Lorillard is part of Loews Corporation, which owns 54 percent of Diamond Offshore Drilling. Diamond Offshore was the defendant in the Archie Marks case, in which Paul Minor represented the plaintiff.
* Lampton received a campaign contribution from Deloitte & Touche Federal PAC, an independent accounting firm that was employed by Diamond Offshore.
* Lampton received campaign contributions from Brown and Williamson Tobacco. Minor was a trial lawyer in lawsuits against tobacco companies and was awarded millions of dollars in attorney fees for his efforts in the litigation.
Think Lampton might salivate at the thought of Paul Minor being in prison? Think Lampton would uphold the public trust a prosecutor holds (as outlined here by Scott Horton of Harper's) in a case involving Paul Minor?
Our Corporate Courts
Speaking of the ExxonMobil case, Left in Alabama has an excellent post about our pro-business Supreme Court. Two Alabama newspapers have reported that the ExxonMobil ruling is not the only heavily pro-business judgment to come down recently from Alabama's highest court.
Not long ago, right-wing types called Alabama "tort hell" because of large jury awards to victims of corporate wrongdoing. The Tuscaloosa News reports that Alabama now might be called "tort heaven." In addition to the ExxonMobil case, the court reversed a Public Service Commission regulatory decision and favored BellSouth Telecommunications.
Terry Butts, an attorney for the PSC who served on the Supreme Court from 1995-98, flat out says the court screwed up on the BellSouth case. "Perhaps the dangerous precedent here is that the court is substituting their judgment over the regulatory agency," Butts said. "And that essentially is not the law in Alabama because, historically, regulatory-agency decisions are given great deference by the courts."
The Florence Times Daily reports that the BellSouth ruling was worth about $18 million, which the PSC had ordered refunded to independent pay-phone companies.
David Lanoue, chair of the political science department at the University of Alabama summed it up: "If you elect Republicans to the court, then you can expect your ability to punish corporations for wrongdoing will be diminished. If you elect Democrats, then you can expect that people will have recourse when they're harmed, but some (lawsuits) will also be abused."
I applaud Butts and Lanoue for their public statements on this issue. But they don't go far enough. Here's the blunt truth: Our Republican-dominated appellate courts are corrupt. I will show it firsthand, in bold detail, in the Legal Schnauzer case. And it doesn't just involve big-money cases and corporate behemoths like Exxon and BellSouth. I got cheated on a case that didn't involve big money or a large corporation. But it involved an attorney who was tight with the state's GOP hierarchy, so justice took a distance backseat to "good ole boy" practices."
I strongly suspect that when we begin our review of the ExxonMobil case, we will find there was more going on than slightly favoring one party over the other. I suspect the ExxonMobil case wasn't even a close call; the trial-court ruling had, by law, to be upheld. But the law was not followed. And it certainly wasn't followed in my case.
Our appellate courts have left a trail of cheating the public, of violating their oath to uphold the law. And we will follow that trail and lay it out for all to see here at Legal Schnauzer.
Not long ago, right-wing types called Alabama "tort hell" because of large jury awards to victims of corporate wrongdoing. The Tuscaloosa News reports that Alabama now might be called "tort heaven." In addition to the ExxonMobil case, the court reversed a Public Service Commission regulatory decision and favored BellSouth Telecommunications.
Terry Butts, an attorney for the PSC who served on the Supreme Court from 1995-98, flat out says the court screwed up on the BellSouth case. "Perhaps the dangerous precedent here is that the court is substituting their judgment over the regulatory agency," Butts said. "And that essentially is not the law in Alabama because, historically, regulatory-agency decisions are given great deference by the courts."
The Florence Times Daily reports that the BellSouth ruling was worth about $18 million, which the PSC had ordered refunded to independent pay-phone companies.
David Lanoue, chair of the political science department at the University of Alabama summed it up: "If you elect Republicans to the court, then you can expect your ability to punish corporations for wrongdoing will be diminished. If you elect Democrats, then you can expect that people will have recourse when they're harmed, but some (lawsuits) will also be abused."
I applaud Butts and Lanoue for their public statements on this issue. But they don't go far enough. Here's the blunt truth: Our Republican-dominated appellate courts are corrupt. I will show it firsthand, in bold detail, in the Legal Schnauzer case. And it doesn't just involve big-money cases and corporate behemoths like Exxon and BellSouth. I got cheated on a case that didn't involve big money or a large corporation. But it involved an attorney who was tight with the state's GOP hierarchy, so justice took a distance backseat to "good ole boy" practices."
I strongly suspect that when we begin our review of the ExxonMobil case, we will find there was more going on than slightly favoring one party over the other. I suspect the ExxonMobil case wasn't even a close call; the trial-court ruling had, by law, to be upheld. But the law was not followed. And it certainly wasn't followed in my case.
Our appellate courts have left a trail of cheating the public, of violating their oath to uphold the law. And we will follow that trail and lay it out for all to see here at Legal Schnauzer.
ExxonMobil and Don Siegelman
We noted recently the curious fact that Don Siegelman (in Alabama) and Paul Minor (in Mississippi) had successfully fought the tobacco industry, and both now are in federal prison.
Let's follow that line of thinking to the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling throwing out $3.5 billion in punitive damages against ExxonMobil. A trial court had found that the oil giant committed fraud that would have cost the state of Alabama about $1 billion in fees for natural-gas rights. The pro-business supreme court found that no fraud had been committed, so Alabama citizens saw $3.5 billion fly right out the window.
What about the history of this case? According to the Associated Press, the royalty dispute started with former Governor Fob James' second term (1995-99) when state conservation officials began to suspect oil companies weren't paying as much as they should be under the leases. James agreed to hire auditors to look into the issue.
But who really pushed the issue upon becoming governor in 1999? None other than Don Siegelman. He hired the Mobile law firm of Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder and Brown to represent the state in lawsuits involving oil companies. The firm must have done a pretty good job because it won at trial--twice. And both times the verdicts were overturned by the Republican-packed Alabama Supreme Court.
What was Siegelman's response upon learning of the jury's verdict in the first trial? "This verdict is appropriate because it is against a company that tried to cheat the people out of more than $1 billion," he said.
Think the boys of big oil enjoyed hearing those words? I don't think so either.
So Siegelman was in the face of both the tobacco and the oil companies. And what about Minor? Well, I know one of his cases, Archie Marks, involved a company that operated oil rigs. And given the importance of oil and natural gas in Mississippi and Louisiana, I suspect Minor has tussled with "big oil" on more than one occasion.
Is there a lesson to be learned here? Perhaps it's this: You fight the oil and tobacco industries, and a pro-business justice department will put you in federal prison?
Is that what we've come to in George W. Bush's America? Those are the signals I'm picking up. We are going to be taking a close look at the ExxonMobil case shortly. Haven't gotten all the way through my review yet, but the stench already is starting to get strong. Stay tuned.
By the way, the ExxonMobil case illustrates a key theme here at Legal Schnauzer. When folks hear someone claiming they were wronged by a trial court, the response often is something like, "Stop whining, take it to appeal." Well, that assumes the appellate courts are honest. And they aren't. (That also assumes you can afford to take it to appeal; the appellate process is extremely expensive.)
We will show in the Legal Schnauzer case that Alabama's appellate courts are not honest. And I strongly suspect my review will show that to be the case with the ExxonMobil ruling.
Let's follow that line of thinking to the recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling throwing out $3.5 billion in punitive damages against ExxonMobil. A trial court had found that the oil giant committed fraud that would have cost the state of Alabama about $1 billion in fees for natural-gas rights. The pro-business supreme court found that no fraud had been committed, so Alabama citizens saw $3.5 billion fly right out the window.
What about the history of this case? According to the Associated Press, the royalty dispute started with former Governor Fob James' second term (1995-99) when state conservation officials began to suspect oil companies weren't paying as much as they should be under the leases. James agreed to hire auditors to look into the issue.
But who really pushed the issue upon becoming governor in 1999? None other than Don Siegelman. He hired the Mobile law firm of Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder and Brown to represent the state in lawsuits involving oil companies. The firm must have done a pretty good job because it won at trial--twice. And both times the verdicts were overturned by the Republican-packed Alabama Supreme Court.
What was Siegelman's response upon learning of the jury's verdict in the first trial? "This verdict is appropriate because it is against a company that tried to cheat the people out of more than $1 billion," he said.
Think the boys of big oil enjoyed hearing those words? I don't think so either.
So Siegelman was in the face of both the tobacco and the oil companies. And what about Minor? Well, I know one of his cases, Archie Marks, involved a company that operated oil rigs. And given the importance of oil and natural gas in Mississippi and Louisiana, I suspect Minor has tussled with "big oil" on more than one occasion.
Is there a lesson to be learned here? Perhaps it's this: You fight the oil and tobacco industries, and a pro-business justice department will put you in federal prison?
Is that what we've come to in George W. Bush's America? Those are the signals I'm picking up. We are going to be taking a close look at the ExxonMobil case shortly. Haven't gotten all the way through my review yet, but the stench already is starting to get strong. Stay tuned.
By the way, the ExxonMobil case illustrates a key theme here at Legal Schnauzer. When folks hear someone claiming they were wronged by a trial court, the response often is something like, "Stop whining, take it to appeal." Well, that assumes the appellate courts are honest. And they aren't. (That also assumes you can afford to take it to appeal; the appellate process is extremely expensive.)
We will show in the Legal Schnauzer case that Alabama's appellate courts are not honest. And I strongly suspect my review will show that to be the case with the ExxonMobil ruling.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XXII
Our coverage of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi has focused on the facts, the law, the judge (U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate), and the defendants (attorney Paul Minor and judges Wes Teel, John Whitfield, and Oliver Diaz).
But what about the prosecutor? That would be Dunn Lampton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. He was appointed to that position in September 2001 by President George W. Bush.
In examining Lampton's central role in the Minor case, one cannot help but recall some of the clear conflicts and bizarre public statements involving key figures in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. In terms of conflicts, we think of the judge in the Siegelman case, Mark Fuller. And in terms of bizarre public statements, we think of Louis Franklin, acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of Alabama.
Want to hear a bizarre public statement from Lampton? Try this one after the first Minor trial, which ended with acquittal for Diaz on all charges and acquittal for the other three defendants on some charges and a hung jury on others. (The jury's failure to reach unanimous verdicts on some charges led to a second trial for Minor, Teel, and Whitfield, and they were convicted on all charges.)
Lampton was asked about evidence showing that Diaz had recused himself from cases where Minor was an attorney. In other words, Diaz had not participated in the cases, but he faced corruption-related charges on them anyway. "I knew there would be a problem on Diaz because he didn't vote on anything," Lampton said.
You heard that correctly. The prosecutor knew the case against Diaz was weak--actually the case against Diaz was nonexistent--and he brought it anyway. And we have shown that the cases against Minor, Teel, and Whitfield weren't much stronger, and Lampton chose to try them--twice.
A jury found Minor, Teel, and Whitfield guilty, you might say, so the case must not have been too weak. But we've shown that the jury almost had to produce a guilty verdict because Judge Henry Wingate butchered the case--unlawfully excluding expert witnesses for the defense and and giving jury instructions on bribery and honest-services mail fraud that were blatantly at odds with actual federal law.
But enough about Wingate. Our focus now is on Lampton and his motivations for bringing a case that was spectacularly weak.
It's not hard to see where Lampton had conflicts--and probably raging biases--connected to the Minor case. Consider:
* Lampton is close friends with Keith Starrett, who once ran a losing campaign against Diaz for a seat on the Mississippi Supreme Court. But Starrett wound up with a nice consolation prize: an appointment to a federal judgeship in the Southern District of Mississippi. And who should preside over the swearing-in ceremony for Starrett? Why none other than Henry Wingate. And according to the Brookhaven Daily Ledger, Wingate had effusive praise for Starrett, calling him a "true star" in the judicial constellation and saying there is "no finer man in Mississippi." Lampton attended the ceremony and praised Starrett, whom he's known since they played Little League baseball together. How sweet.
* This is not so sweet. The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce injected about $1 million into Mississippi judicial races in 2000, some of which went to ads attacking Diaz (who was supported by Minor) and promoting his opponent, Starrett (who was supported by Lampton). And we're supposed to believe that Lampton was an objective, disinterested observer when he brought charges against Minor and Diaz?
* Here's something else that's not so sweet. At the beginning of the investigation into Minor's campaign-finance activities, special FBI agent Matthew Campbell, a forensic accountancy expert, was in charge of the investigation. When he questioned why Mississippi trial lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs (brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott, R-MS) was not being investigated, Campbell was removed from the investigation and transferred to Guantanomo Bay. (I'm sure there must be a strong need for forensic-accounting experts there.) The new FBI agent on the Minor case was Kevin Rust, who had made personal contributions to Starrett's failed campaign against Diaz. So both the lead investigator and the prosecutor have major reasons to be biased against both Minor and Diaz. But they are leading the charge.
You might think that this alone would call into question the objectivity of the Minor prosecution. But you would be wrong. We are just getting warmed up in our examination of Dunn Lampton's conflicts in the Minor case. More to come.
But what about the prosecutor? That would be Dunn Lampton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. He was appointed to that position in September 2001 by President George W. Bush.
In examining Lampton's central role in the Minor case, one cannot help but recall some of the clear conflicts and bizarre public statements involving key figures in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. In terms of conflicts, we think of the judge in the Siegelman case, Mark Fuller. And in terms of bizarre public statements, we think of Louis Franklin, acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of Alabama.
Want to hear a bizarre public statement from Lampton? Try this one after the first Minor trial, which ended with acquittal for Diaz on all charges and acquittal for the other three defendants on some charges and a hung jury on others. (The jury's failure to reach unanimous verdicts on some charges led to a second trial for Minor, Teel, and Whitfield, and they were convicted on all charges.)
Lampton was asked about evidence showing that Diaz had recused himself from cases where Minor was an attorney. In other words, Diaz had not participated in the cases, but he faced corruption-related charges on them anyway. "I knew there would be a problem on Diaz because he didn't vote on anything," Lampton said.
You heard that correctly. The prosecutor knew the case against Diaz was weak--actually the case against Diaz was nonexistent--and he brought it anyway. And we have shown that the cases against Minor, Teel, and Whitfield weren't much stronger, and Lampton chose to try them--twice.
A jury found Minor, Teel, and Whitfield guilty, you might say, so the case must not have been too weak. But we've shown that the jury almost had to produce a guilty verdict because Judge Henry Wingate butchered the case--unlawfully excluding expert witnesses for the defense and and giving jury instructions on bribery and honest-services mail fraud that were blatantly at odds with actual federal law.
But enough about Wingate. Our focus now is on Lampton and his motivations for bringing a case that was spectacularly weak.
It's not hard to see where Lampton had conflicts--and probably raging biases--connected to the Minor case. Consider:
* Lampton is close friends with Keith Starrett, who once ran a losing campaign against Diaz for a seat on the Mississippi Supreme Court. But Starrett wound up with a nice consolation prize: an appointment to a federal judgeship in the Southern District of Mississippi. And who should preside over the swearing-in ceremony for Starrett? Why none other than Henry Wingate. And according to the Brookhaven Daily Ledger, Wingate had effusive praise for Starrett, calling him a "true star" in the judicial constellation and saying there is "no finer man in Mississippi." Lampton attended the ceremony and praised Starrett, whom he's known since they played Little League baseball together. How sweet.
* This is not so sweet. The Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce injected about $1 million into Mississippi judicial races in 2000, some of which went to ads attacking Diaz (who was supported by Minor) and promoting his opponent, Starrett (who was supported by Lampton). And we're supposed to believe that Lampton was an objective, disinterested observer when he brought charges against Minor and Diaz?
* Here's something else that's not so sweet. At the beginning of the investigation into Minor's campaign-finance activities, special FBI agent Matthew Campbell, a forensic accountancy expert, was in charge of the investigation. When he questioned why Mississippi trial lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs (brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott, R-MS) was not being investigated, Campbell was removed from the investigation and transferred to Guantanomo Bay. (I'm sure there must be a strong need for forensic-accounting experts there.) The new FBI agent on the Minor case was Kevin Rust, who had made personal contributions to Starrett's failed campaign against Diaz. So both the lead investigator and the prosecutor have major reasons to be biased against both Minor and Diaz. But they are leading the charge.
You might think that this alone would call into question the objectivity of the Minor prosecution. But you would be wrong. We are just getting warmed up in our examination of Dunn Lampton's conflicts in the Minor case. More to come.
Disapproval of Dubya: What Gives?
American Research Group (ARG) reported recently that George W. Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 25 percent, matching his lowest recorded rating.
The survey found that 67 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, with almost seven in 10 saying the national economy is getting worse.
It's encouraging to see that a majority of Americans disapprove of perhaps the worst president in our history. But here's what I don't get: The survey seems to indicate that many Americans who voted to re-elect Bush in 2004 now disapprove of the job he is doing.
This baffles me. From my perspective, his first term was horrendous, but I don't see where the second term has been appreciably worse. (How do you get worse than horrendous?) If you thought Dubya's first four years were strong enough to vote for his re-election, I don't see why you would turn against him now.
In 2004, we knew he was running up huge deficits that were going to come home to roost eventually. We knew his administration had given dubious reasons for starting an unnecessary war in Iraq. We knew his economic policies overwhelmingly favored the wealthy over the middle and lower classes, managers over workers, investors over wage earners. We knew the income gap that stagnates our economy was only getting worse on Bush's watch. We knew he supported lax regulation, which favors corporations and harms consumers.
So what's changed since the first term? Oh, I guess we know a little more about corruption in the White House, particularly as it relates to the Justice Department. But how many people really are outraged about that, particularly with the Bushies doing a splendid stonewalling job so far? I guess it looks bad to see folks like Rummy and Rove and a host of others heading for the exits. But that happens in all second terms doesn't it? Iraq has become a debacle, but did any rational person in 2004 doubt that was going to happen? And only a tiny percentage of the population knows anyone who actually has sacrificed, or suffered, because of the war effort. So who cares enough to suddenly disapprove of Dubya, the war president?
This article from Kathleen M. Howley of Bloomberg.com might provide the answer. In 2005, Republicans helped push through a revised bankruptcy code which no longer allows people to walk away from credit-card debt. What's been one of the primary side effects of that change? More housing foreclosures.
Yep, people increasingly are paying off credit-card debt, but they are defaulting on their mortgages. Why? Many young home owners could only afford the American dream with the help of subprime loans, featuring adjustable rates that can reset as often as every six months.
Of course, these risky loans have proliferated largely due to the anti-regulation policies pushed by Republicans--the very folks many young white homeowners vote into office.
Do the GOPers care when young couples, many with children, have to give up their homes? I doubt it. But here's where it gets serious. The surge in foreclosures has cut the value of securities backed by mortgages and led to more than $40 billion of writedowns for U.S. financial institutions.
That caused pain both on Main Street and on Wall Street. The CEOs of both Citigroup and Merrill Lynch have stepped down in the wake of huge writedowns.
Those CEOs will get sweet exit packages. But what about those middle-class home owners who now are going through foreclosures?
They are angry at Dubya. (And I'm sure they don't like going to the pump and paying $3 or more for a gallon of gas.) But didn't we know when Dubya ratcheted up instability in the Middle East by starting a war with Iraq that we were going to pay more for gasoline?
The figures for white Southern males, I guess, weren't too surprising because we've all heard of the "angry white guy" syndrome. Southern white males have been trending Republican since Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, and that trend really picked up steam with Ronald Reagan's "states' rights" speech in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS.
But I was stunned by the numbers for white Southern females. If my memory is correct, Schaller said almost 80 percent of white women in Mississippi went for Bush over Kerry in 2004. The figures for Alabama and South Carolina were in the 65 to 75 percent range.
These were women, folks! I thought they were supposed to be the sensible ones.
The bottom line? Without the support of white Southern men and women, many of them middle class (and quite a few now going through foreclosures), George Bush wouldn't have stood a chance of becoming president.
Regardless of what you might think about Bill Clinton's "zipper issues" (and I think he was incredibly stupid for ever getting anywhere near Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky), the man taught us this: The overall economy is better off when a smart, tough Democrat is in charge. And if you don't believe me, please read Kevin Phillips' The Politics of Rich and Poor, which was published before Clinton was elected (and predicted the country was ready to elect a Democrat in 1992).
Phillips' book is packed with economic lessons that are of vital importance to middle-class Americans. And thinking about his book leaves me with this question: When will white middle-class Americans (in the South and elsewhere) learn that the answers to their problems are not found in the race-based fear that is sold by George W. Bush and numerous other members of the GOP?
For almost 40 years now, Republicans have successfully convinced large numbers of middle-class white folks to vote against their economic interest by feeding them subtle messages that play to race-based fears.
This foreclosure mess is just the latest example of how the middle class has been duped by the GOP fear machine.
The survey found that 67 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, with almost seven in 10 saying the national economy is getting worse.
It's encouraging to see that a majority of Americans disapprove of perhaps the worst president in our history. But here's what I don't get: The survey seems to indicate that many Americans who voted to re-elect Bush in 2004 now disapprove of the job he is doing.
This baffles me. From my perspective, his first term was horrendous, but I don't see where the second term has been appreciably worse. (How do you get worse than horrendous?) If you thought Dubya's first four years were strong enough to vote for his re-election, I don't see why you would turn against him now.
In 2004, we knew he was running up huge deficits that were going to come home to roost eventually. We knew his administration had given dubious reasons for starting an unnecessary war in Iraq. We knew his economic policies overwhelmingly favored the wealthy over the middle and lower classes, managers over workers, investors over wage earners. We knew the income gap that stagnates our economy was only getting worse on Bush's watch. We knew he supported lax regulation, which favors corporations and harms consumers.
So what's changed since the first term? Oh, I guess we know a little more about corruption in the White House, particularly as it relates to the Justice Department. But how many people really are outraged about that, particularly with the Bushies doing a splendid stonewalling job so far? I guess it looks bad to see folks like Rummy and Rove and a host of others heading for the exits. But that happens in all second terms doesn't it? Iraq has become a debacle, but did any rational person in 2004 doubt that was going to happen? And only a tiny percentage of the population knows anyone who actually has sacrificed, or suffered, because of the war effort. So who cares enough to suddenly disapprove of Dubya, the war president?
This article from Kathleen M. Howley of Bloomberg.com might provide the answer. In 2005, Republicans helped push through a revised bankruptcy code which no longer allows people to walk away from credit-card debt. What's been one of the primary side effects of that change? More housing foreclosures.
Yep, people increasingly are paying off credit-card debt, but they are defaulting on their mortgages. Why? Many young home owners could only afford the American dream with the help of subprime loans, featuring adjustable rates that can reset as often as every six months.
Of course, these risky loans have proliferated largely due to the anti-regulation policies pushed by Republicans--the very folks many young white homeowners vote into office.
Do the GOPers care when young couples, many with children, have to give up their homes? I doubt it. But here's where it gets serious. The surge in foreclosures has cut the value of securities backed by mortgages and led to more than $40 billion of writedowns for U.S. financial institutions.
That caused pain both on Main Street and on Wall Street. The CEOs of both Citigroup and Merrill Lynch have stepped down in the wake of huge writedowns.
Those CEOs will get sweet exit packages. But what about those middle-class home owners who now are going through foreclosures?
They are angry at Dubya. (And I'm sure they don't like going to the pump and paying $3 or more for a gallon of gas.) But didn't we know when Dubya ratcheted up instability in the Middle East by starting a war with Iraq that we were going to pay more for gasoline?
So why again did we re-elect this guy in 2004?
This all reminded me of something I read not long ago in an excellent book, Whistling Past Dixie by Thomas Schaller. At the heart of Schaller's argument is this: Race-based fears and perceptions are so strong in the Deep South that Democrats should write off the region for the next 20 to 25 years and concentrate on the near west and upper midwest states.
To support his theory, Schaller provides statistics on the percentage of white Southern voters who chose George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I remember being shocked by the statistics.The figures for white Southern males, I guess, weren't too surprising because we've all heard of the "angry white guy" syndrome. Southern white males have been trending Republican since Barry Goldwater's campaign in 1964, and that trend really picked up steam with Ronald Reagan's "states' rights" speech in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS.
But I was stunned by the numbers for white Southern females. If my memory is correct, Schaller said almost 80 percent of white women in Mississippi went for Bush over Kerry in 2004. The figures for Alabama and South Carolina were in the 65 to 75 percent range.
These were women, folks! I thought they were supposed to be the sensible ones.
The bottom line? Without the support of white Southern men and women, many of them middle class (and quite a few now going through foreclosures), George Bush wouldn't have stood a chance of becoming president.
Regardless of what you might think about Bill Clinton's "zipper issues" (and I think he was incredibly stupid for ever getting anywhere near Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky), the man taught us this: The overall economy is better off when a smart, tough Democrat is in charge. And if you don't believe me, please read Kevin Phillips' The Politics of Rich and Poor, which was published before Clinton was elected (and predicted the country was ready to elect a Democrat in 1992).
Phillips' book is packed with economic lessons that are of vital importance to middle-class Americans. And thinking about his book leaves me with this question: When will white middle-class Americans (in the South and elsewhere) learn that the answers to their problems are not found in the race-based fear that is sold by George W. Bush and numerous other members of the GOP?
For almost 40 years now, Republicans have successfully convinced large numbers of middle-class white folks to vote against their economic interest by feeding them subtle messages that play to race-based fears.
This foreclosure mess is just the latest example of how the middle class has been duped by the GOP fear machine.
Bits and Pieces for $100, Alex
E-mail alert
A federal judge has issued an order requiring the White House to preserve a controversial group of e-mails. Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that the focus will be on Karl Rove's e-mails dating to the outset of the Bush presidency. The e-mails are likely to be relevant to the overall U.S. attorneys investigation and to specific political prosecutions, such as those involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor (and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield).
A gift for Siegelman witness?
Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill has a most interesting post today. Hill reports that Mark Pugh and CDG Engineering of Andalusia, AL, received a $2-million contract from the Alabama Conservation Department for purported consulting services they can't document. The contract is stuck in the Legislative Contract Review Committee, where it is being scrutinized by Senator Roger Bedford and Representative Alvin Holmes. Pugh, you might recall, testified against Don Siegelman. And Hill raises this question: "Could it be true that Troy King and Bob Riley were using a public contract to pay off Mark Pugh for his prior testimony against Don Siegelman? Now that is the classic definition of quid pro quo."
Emergency in Alabama
Blogger Phil Smith, a close follower of the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy trials, has an interesting piece about the justice system's failure to act upon emergency appeals that could free Siegelman and Scrushy pending the outcome of the appellate process on their convictions. As of Veterans Day, Smith writes, it had been 4 1/2 months since emergency appeals were filed in the case. Smith notes that the federal courts seem to have a peculiar definition of "emergency," with rulings bouncing back and forth from Judge Mark Fuller in Montgomery to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Meanwhile, Siegelman and Scrushy wait in prison for an appellate process that could take up to two years.
A federal judge has issued an order requiring the White House to preserve a controversial group of e-mails. Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that the focus will be on Karl Rove's e-mails dating to the outset of the Bush presidency. The e-mails are likely to be relevant to the overall U.S. attorneys investigation and to specific political prosecutions, such as those involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor (and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield).
A gift for Siegelman witness?
Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill has a most interesting post today. Hill reports that Mark Pugh and CDG Engineering of Andalusia, AL, received a $2-million contract from the Alabama Conservation Department for purported consulting services they can't document. The contract is stuck in the Legislative Contract Review Committee, where it is being scrutinized by Senator Roger Bedford and Representative Alvin Holmes. Pugh, you might recall, testified against Don Siegelman. And Hill raises this question: "Could it be true that Troy King and Bob Riley were using a public contract to pay off Mark Pugh for his prior testimony against Don Siegelman? Now that is the classic definition of quid pro quo."
Emergency in Alabama
Blogger Phil Smith, a close follower of the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy trials, has an interesting piece about the justice system's failure to act upon emergency appeals that could free Siegelman and Scrushy pending the outcome of the appellate process on their convictions. As of Veterans Day, Smith writes, it had been 4 1/2 months since emergency appeals were filed in the case. Smith notes that the federal courts seem to have a peculiar definition of "emergency," with rulings bouncing back and forth from Judge Mark Fuller in Montgomery to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Meanwhile, Siegelman and Scrushy wait in prison for an appellate process that could take up to two years.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Heading for a Showdown?
This story slipped under my radar a few days ago, but I think it is well worth mentioning.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has sent a final warning to the Bush White House to provide access to disputed documents and testimony related to the removal last year of nine U.S. attorneys.
The move could push the House closer to a vote on contempt citations for White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The committee filed a formal, 102-page contempt report with the House clerk, laying out its request for testimony from Miers and Bolten. The contempt report can be viewed here.
Bush administration officials continue to signal that they do not intend to negotiate, claiming internal deliberations involving Miers and Bolten are covered by executive privilege.
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) said "Congress has a stake and an interest" in challenging unilateral actions by the White House.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has sent a final warning to the Bush White House to provide access to disputed documents and testimony related to the removal last year of nine U.S. attorneys.
The move could push the House closer to a vote on contempt citations for White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. The committee filed a formal, 102-page contempt report with the House clerk, laying out its request for testimony from Miers and Bolten. The contempt report can be viewed here.
Bush administration officials continue to signal that they do not intend to negotiate, claiming internal deliberations involving Miers and Bolten are covered by executive privilege.
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) said "Congress has a stake and an interest" in challenging unilateral actions by the White House.
Paul Minor and Me, Part II
Our humble blog recently passed its five-month birthday (that's 35 in blog years), and someone who has read fairly carefully over that time might ask the following questions: You are from Alabama, so why have you spent so much time on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi? And why would you, of all people, come to the defense of an attorney and two judges who have been convicted on corruption charges? After all, you claim you have been the victim of corrupt lawyers and judges; shouldn't you be pleased that Minor is in federal prison and Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield are headed there?
Fair questions. Here's my answer:
I first became interested in the Paul Minor case when The Birmingham News ran a small item about it roughly two years ago. I think it was right before the verdict was announced on the first trial. (Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted on all counts; the jury acquitted Minor, Teel, and Whitfield on some counts and failed to reach unanimous verdicts on other counts. That led to a retrial this year, which ended with convictions on all charges.)
If the case had not involved allegations of judicial corruption, don't know that I would have paid any attention to it. If it had involved alleged bribes to a city councilman or a police chief, I probably would have zipped right on to the comics. But when I saw that judges were being charged with corruption, my initial thought was: I'm glad crooked judges are held accountable somewhere, because they sure aren't in Alabama.
The second thing that caught my eye was that the case involved something called honest-services mail fraud. That was a new one on me. I decided to conduct some research, mainly to find out what in the heck honest-services mail fraud was.
I started with reports on the case from Mississippi newspapers. It quickly became apparent that the case had political overtones. Minor was a longtime supporter of Democratic causes, and his father Bill was a newspaper columnist known for his courageous reporting during the civil rights era. While Mississippi has nonpartisan judicial races, the defendant judges generally were seen as pro-plaintiff.
The defense claimed that a Justice Department led by Republican appointees was going after a Democratic supporter and pro-plaintiff judges for political reasons.
That's interesting, I thought. All of the judges in my case are Republicans, and they don't seem the least bit concerned about getting caught for wrongdoing. That thought stayed with me.
At the time, I thought the judges in my case were guilty of state ethics violations, and the Alabama body charged with overseeing such matters is the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC). I had already filed complaints with the JIC and found it to be an utterly worthless outfit; it wouldn't even investigate my case.
But when I began to research honest-services mail fraud, I realized that something much larger than state ethics violations was at hand in my case. Honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346) is a complex topic, but it boils down to this: A public official who acts dishonestly, who makes decisions based on his or her own biases as opposed to what is best for the public, and uses the U.S. mails in furtherance of the scheme, has committed a federal crime.
I had overwhelming evidence that Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, in conjunction with attorney William E. Swatek, had committed honest-services mail fraud in my case.
And then something interesting happened when I began to study the underlying lawsuits at the heart of the government's case in the Paul Minor trial. I couldn't find all of the lawsuits in my research, but I found most of them--a defamation case against Minor's father, Bill Minor; a personal-injury case, a wrongful-death case, and a bad-faith insurance case (all with Minor representing the plaintiffs).
You didn't need a Harvard law degree to see that these cases were correctly decided by the defendant judges. Heck, in some of them, the defendant judge had recused himself and not participated in the vote.
Newspaper accounts made it clear that the loan guarantees Minor had made to the judges were allowed by Mississippi law. I think that is bad public policy, but I was not surprised it's allowed in Mississippi. I had read numerous campaign reports in The Birmingham News, showing that law firms gave big dollars to judicial campaigns, so it's evidently find and dandy in Alabama, too.
Since the loan guarantees were legal, the issue in the Minor case then was this: Did the judges rule honestly, according to the law, in the cases before them. And the answer was yes.
So I thought: How are these judges being charged with federal crimes when they clearly made correct decisions on the underlying lawsuits? And what about the clearly incorrect and unlawful rulings that Alabama judges had made in my case (and they had repeatedly used the U.S. mails to send them my way)?
The answer to that question began to crystallize when I contacted the FBI to let them know about the federal crimes of which I had been the victim. I sent the bureau a lengthy, and detailed, report on its Web form that is specifically for public-corruption cases. No reply. I called the Birmingham FBI office, and a gentleman did listen to a short version of my story on the phone. He seemed to have little interest, so I asked for the name of the person in charge of white-collar crime. He gave me that name, and I left several messages with the individual. No response.
I sent an e-mail to Matt Hart, white-collar crime director in U.S. Attorney's office in Birmingham. No reply. So I called one day and managed to catch Hart on the telephone. He blew me off. Said he "kicks" cases all the time, and he was "kicking" mine. Funny he would "kick" it when I wasn't even aware he had looked at it yet.
Finally, I sent a snail-mail letter to Alice Martin, Hart's boss, copying Carmen Adams, head of Birmingham's FBI office. The letter included numerous citations to applicable law and should have given a reader the idea that I had some notion of what I was talking about.
Martin apparently thought it would be bad form to ignore this, so she sent me a somewhat snide letter, saying she and her kick-ass staff were well aware of the law. What they needed were detailed allegations about wrongdoing. If I sent her that, she definitely would refer my information to the appropriate investigative agency.
My guess is that Martin thought she would never hear from me again. She was wrong. I sent her a lengthy missive with all kinds of details about the wrongdoing I had witnessed. Evidently this was unsettling to Queen Alice because months went by, and I never heard from her. Remember, she had promised to refer this to the appropriate investigative agency.
I wasn't sure what the queen's e-mail address was, and nobody seemed anxious to supply it. So I took a stab at it and asked where's the reply to my letter--and the promised referral. Evidently I guessed right because Queen Alice responded to my e-mail. And she didn't seem particularly happy that I had tracked her down.
The queen and I had quite an e-mail tussle, an exchange that Legal Schnauzer readers will get to enjoy in its entirety quite soon. But here's the gist: Queen Alice said she had referred my allegations to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, evidently thinking that would mollify me.
But yours truly checked the postal inspection service Web site and found that it doesn't even have jurisdiction to investigate a public corruption case under 18 U.S. Code 1346. The service focuses on consumer cases, mostly involving elderly folks.
When I informed the queen that she had sent my complaint to the wrong agency, she was not pleased. When I informed her that the FBI clearly was the correct agency and asked why it had not been sent there, she was even less happy.
You can send it to the FBI yourself, she said. Hey wait, I said, you promised that YOU would refer it to the appropriate agency. You haven't done that.
The Queen informed me that my complaint would stay with the postal inspection service until:
(A) They decided it should go to the FBI;
(B) Brittney Spears is named Parent of the Year;
(C) Conway Twitty has a No. 1 record on the rap charts;
(D) Idaho State wins the Rose Bowl;
(E) The earth quits spinning on its axis;
(F) Whichever of the above comes first.
What about the promise you made to me, a taxpayer, in writing? The Queen was too busy, suddenly, to answer that question.
So what was I left to believe? That Democratic judges in Mississippi can rule according to the law and get on a fast track to federal prison. That Republican judges can torture and brutalize the law at will and go merrily on their way.
A double standard? Selective prosecution? Hey, that's what Congress is looking into.
And that's why the Paul Minor case matters, no matter where you live.
Fair questions. Here's my answer:
I first became interested in the Paul Minor case when The Birmingham News ran a small item about it roughly two years ago. I think it was right before the verdict was announced on the first trial. (Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted on all counts; the jury acquitted Minor, Teel, and Whitfield on some counts and failed to reach unanimous verdicts on other counts. That led to a retrial this year, which ended with convictions on all charges.)
If the case had not involved allegations of judicial corruption, don't know that I would have paid any attention to it. If it had involved alleged bribes to a city councilman or a police chief, I probably would have zipped right on to the comics. But when I saw that judges were being charged with corruption, my initial thought was: I'm glad crooked judges are held accountable somewhere, because they sure aren't in Alabama.
The second thing that caught my eye was that the case involved something called honest-services mail fraud. That was a new one on me. I decided to conduct some research, mainly to find out what in the heck honest-services mail fraud was.
I started with reports on the case from Mississippi newspapers. It quickly became apparent that the case had political overtones. Minor was a longtime supporter of Democratic causes, and his father Bill was a newspaper columnist known for his courageous reporting during the civil rights era. While Mississippi has nonpartisan judicial races, the defendant judges generally were seen as pro-plaintiff.
The defense claimed that a Justice Department led by Republican appointees was going after a Democratic supporter and pro-plaintiff judges for political reasons.
That's interesting, I thought. All of the judges in my case are Republicans, and they don't seem the least bit concerned about getting caught for wrongdoing. That thought stayed with me.
At the time, I thought the judges in my case were guilty of state ethics violations, and the Alabama body charged with overseeing such matters is the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC). I had already filed complaints with the JIC and found it to be an utterly worthless outfit; it wouldn't even investigate my case.
But when I began to research honest-services mail fraud, I realized that something much larger than state ethics violations was at hand in my case. Honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346) is a complex topic, but it boils down to this: A public official who acts dishonestly, who makes decisions based on his or her own biases as opposed to what is best for the public, and uses the U.S. mails in furtherance of the scheme, has committed a federal crime.
I had overwhelming evidence that Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, in conjunction with attorney William E. Swatek, had committed honest-services mail fraud in my case.
And then something interesting happened when I began to study the underlying lawsuits at the heart of the government's case in the Paul Minor trial. I couldn't find all of the lawsuits in my research, but I found most of them--a defamation case against Minor's father, Bill Minor; a personal-injury case, a wrongful-death case, and a bad-faith insurance case (all with Minor representing the plaintiffs).
You didn't need a Harvard law degree to see that these cases were correctly decided by the defendant judges. Heck, in some of them, the defendant judge had recused himself and not participated in the vote.
Newspaper accounts made it clear that the loan guarantees Minor had made to the judges were allowed by Mississippi law. I think that is bad public policy, but I was not surprised it's allowed in Mississippi. I had read numerous campaign reports in The Birmingham News, showing that law firms gave big dollars to judicial campaigns, so it's evidently find and dandy in Alabama, too.
Since the loan guarantees were legal, the issue in the Minor case then was this: Did the judges rule honestly, according to the law, in the cases before them. And the answer was yes.
So I thought: How are these judges being charged with federal crimes when they clearly made correct decisions on the underlying lawsuits? And what about the clearly incorrect and unlawful rulings that Alabama judges had made in my case (and they had repeatedly used the U.S. mails to send them my way)?
The answer to that question began to crystallize when I contacted the FBI to let them know about the federal crimes of which I had been the victim. I sent the bureau a lengthy, and detailed, report on its Web form that is specifically for public-corruption cases. No reply. I called the Birmingham FBI office, and a gentleman did listen to a short version of my story on the phone. He seemed to have little interest, so I asked for the name of the person in charge of white-collar crime. He gave me that name, and I left several messages with the individual. No response.
I sent an e-mail to Matt Hart, white-collar crime director in U.S. Attorney's office in Birmingham. No reply. So I called one day and managed to catch Hart on the telephone. He blew me off. Said he "kicks" cases all the time, and he was "kicking" mine. Funny he would "kick" it when I wasn't even aware he had looked at it yet.
Finally, I sent a snail-mail letter to Alice Martin, Hart's boss, copying Carmen Adams, head of Birmingham's FBI office. The letter included numerous citations to applicable law and should have given a reader the idea that I had some notion of what I was talking about.
Martin apparently thought it would be bad form to ignore this, so she sent me a somewhat snide letter, saying she and her kick-ass staff were well aware of the law. What they needed were detailed allegations about wrongdoing. If I sent her that, she definitely would refer my information to the appropriate investigative agency.
My guess is that Martin thought she would never hear from me again. She was wrong. I sent her a lengthy missive with all kinds of details about the wrongdoing I had witnessed. Evidently this was unsettling to Queen Alice because months went by, and I never heard from her. Remember, she had promised to refer this to the appropriate investigative agency.
I wasn't sure what the queen's e-mail address was, and nobody seemed anxious to supply it. So I took a stab at it and asked where's the reply to my letter--and the promised referral. Evidently I guessed right because Queen Alice responded to my e-mail. And she didn't seem particularly happy that I had tracked her down.
The queen and I had quite an e-mail tussle, an exchange that Legal Schnauzer readers will get to enjoy in its entirety quite soon. But here's the gist: Queen Alice said she had referred my allegations to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, evidently thinking that would mollify me.
But yours truly checked the postal inspection service Web site and found that it doesn't even have jurisdiction to investigate a public corruption case under 18 U.S. Code 1346. The service focuses on consumer cases, mostly involving elderly folks.
When I informed the queen that she had sent my complaint to the wrong agency, she was not pleased. When I informed her that the FBI clearly was the correct agency and asked why it had not been sent there, she was even less happy.
You can send it to the FBI yourself, she said. Hey wait, I said, you promised that YOU would refer it to the appropriate agency. You haven't done that.
The Queen informed me that my complaint would stay with the postal inspection service until:
(A) They decided it should go to the FBI;
(B) Brittney Spears is named Parent of the Year;
(C) Conway Twitty has a No. 1 record on the rap charts;
(D) Idaho State wins the Rose Bowl;
(E) The earth quits spinning on its axis;
(F) Whichever of the above comes first.
What about the promise you made to me, a taxpayer, in writing? The Queen was too busy, suddenly, to answer that question.
So what was I left to believe? That Democratic judges in Mississippi can rule according to the law and get on a fast track to federal prison. That Republican judges can torture and brutalize the law at will and go merrily on their way.
A double standard? Selective prosecution? Hey, that's what Congress is looking into.
And that's why the Paul Minor case matters, no matter where you live.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Shout Out to the Soul Patrol
We've been following the football/academic controversy at Hoover High School, and as part of our coverage, I posted recently about some of the better athletes that have come through Hoover, either at Hoover High or its predecessor, Berry High School.
I noted that 2006 American Idol Taylor Hicks, a pretty fair basketball player in his days at Hoover High, almost certainly was the most famous ex athlete from Hoover. That prompted an outpouring of readers, and commenters, from Hicks' dedicated fan base, the "Soul Patrol."
It was a delight to have them join our Legal Schnauzer audience. We spend most of our time here dealing with judicial corruption, politically motivated prosecution, ethically challenged attorneys, and other less-than-cheery subjects.
So it was a treat to be joined by the "Soul Patrol" and their unbridled enthusiasm for a Birmingham boy made good. Actually, I already knew all about the "Soul Patrollers;" I'm married to one. My wife and one of her girlfriends can go on and on about "cute" and "sweet" Taylor is. Sometimes, I think they even talk about his music.
As for me, I hope I can do my small part to help spread the word that Hicks is an artist worthy of appreciation by a broad base of music lovers--not just his "girlyfans." (Don't get me wrong. I like the "girlyfans." I'm married to one.)
And Hicks' story really goes beyond music. Here are a few things I find interesting about "Gray Charles":
* I like his back story, the fact that he had to slug it out in bars and clubs for about 10 years before becoming known; the fact that he doesn't have the standard "rock star" look; the fact he is not from a standard rock star-producing place. It's a tale of persistence, and having the goods to back it up, when the time came.
* In numerous newspaper and magazine articles, and in his book Heart Full of Soul, Hicks has talked about repeatedly facing rejection from the mainline music business. I can identify with that. I've had numerous mainstream journalists, and quite a few lawyers, tell me my story of being victimized by corrupt judges was not worthwhile. So I decided to tell it myself, on this blog. And in recent weeks, our reporting here has been cited by the highly respected and influential Scott Horton at Harper's.org. And it has been cited in documents filed as part of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. I would be the first to say that my story lacks the warm and fuzzies of the Taylor Hicks story. But having followed Hicks' rise from obscurity to American Idol, I like to think his toughness in the face of rejection rubbed off on me just a little.
* I like the fact that Hicks crosses racial boundaries. I like the fact his key musical influences are folks like Ray Charles, Otis Redding, and Sam Cooke. He sends the message that a white guy from Birmingham's suburbs can truly appreciate the talents that people of color can bring.
* I like Hicks' politics, I think. Actually, I'm not absolutely sure what his politics are. On a visit to the White House, he was gracious to George W. Bush--as he should have been. But I seem to recall reading somewhere that Hicks admires Bill Clinton. That, plus his affinity for black music, makes me think Hicks is a Democrat. Good for him.
* I like the fact that Hicks appreciates those who came before him. Three of my musical heroes are John Fogerty (Creedence Clearwater Revival), Don Henley (Eagles), and Lindsey Buckingham (Fleetwood Mac). Fogerty often has spoken of his love for great blues artists, such as Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and Robert Johnson. Henley grew up in east Texas, listening to country greats like George Jones and Merle Haggard and reading Henry David Thoreau. Buckingham clearly has been influenced heavily by the Kingston Trio and Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys. I think it's impossible to be really good at something if you don't appreciate those who have come before you. I think Hicks understands that.
* Finally, I just like Hicks' music. Looking back, my wife and I have major regrets that we never went to a Birmingham club to see Hicks perform in the days when he was unknown. I do recall seeing his name regularly when I would check the club schedules in The Birmingham News or in our two alternative weeklies, Birmingham Weekly and Black & White. So his name was familiar when I started seeing stories about him making the cut week after week on American Idol. We started tuning in to Idol and came to appreciate Hicks' ability to take a song by Rod Stewart or Elton John and make it his own. And after Hicks had won, we heard his two independent CDs--In Your Time and Under the Radar. Those told us that he was more than just a singer--he could play music; he could surround himself with strong musicians; and perhaps most importantly, he could write. Songs like "Son of a Carpenter," "Heart and Soul," "West Texas Sky," and "The Fall" show an artist who is serious about the writing craft.
* My wife is forcing me to write one more story about our connections to Taylor Hicks. We went to City Stages 2006, Birmingham's major annual music festival, and one of the primary attractions was our new, homegrown American Idol. We didn't see Hicks stand in with Snoop Dog one night. But we were there for his Sunday afternoon appearance with The Little Memphis Blues Orchestra. The schedule, however, presented a problem for yours truly. On at the same time were The Grass Roots, one of those blast-from-the-past acts that were a big part of my adolescence. (Herman's Hermits and the current incarnation of The Beach Boys also were on that night.) I'd wanted to see The Grass Roots for more than 30 years and never been able to catch them. So when Hicks and LIMBO were a bit late coming on, I decided to head for The Grass Roots stage while my wife stayed for the LIMBO show. I know this story sounds like I'm a fuddy dud who lives in the past. And I have only one defense to that charge: I knew I'd have plenty of opportunities to see Hicks in the near future, and I wasn't sure I'd ever have a chance to see The Grass Roots again. (Heck, lead singer Rob Grill has had hip surgery and can barely walk.) Indeed, the wife and I were fortunate to get tickets for the second of Hicks two shows at the Alabama Theater on his first nationwide tour. It was a terrific show, with the Homewood High School drum corps joining Hicks onstage for "The Runaround," followed by a solo version of "My Home's in Alabama."
Anyway, I'm going to write periodically about Hicks here at Legal Schnauzer. There are plenty of negatives about Alabama, and I write about some of them here--our corrupt state courts, our sorry and unethical politicians, our racist constitution. But there are lots of good things about Alabama, and Hicks is one of them. In fact, I have another post coming soon about his sports days at Hoover High. Hope the Soul Patrollers will stop by again to visit.
I noted that 2006 American Idol Taylor Hicks, a pretty fair basketball player in his days at Hoover High, almost certainly was the most famous ex athlete from Hoover. That prompted an outpouring of readers, and commenters, from Hicks' dedicated fan base, the "Soul Patrol."
It was a delight to have them join our Legal Schnauzer audience. We spend most of our time here dealing with judicial corruption, politically motivated prosecution, ethically challenged attorneys, and other less-than-cheery subjects.
So it was a treat to be joined by the "Soul Patrol" and their unbridled enthusiasm for a Birmingham boy made good. Actually, I already knew all about the "Soul Patrollers;" I'm married to one. My wife and one of her girlfriends can go on and on about "cute" and "sweet" Taylor is. Sometimes, I think they even talk about his music.
As for me, I hope I can do my small part to help spread the word that Hicks is an artist worthy of appreciation by a broad base of music lovers--not just his "girlyfans." (Don't get me wrong. I like the "girlyfans." I'm married to one.)
And Hicks' story really goes beyond music. Here are a few things I find interesting about "Gray Charles":
* I like his back story, the fact that he had to slug it out in bars and clubs for about 10 years before becoming known; the fact that he doesn't have the standard "rock star" look; the fact he is not from a standard rock star-producing place. It's a tale of persistence, and having the goods to back it up, when the time came.
* In numerous newspaper and magazine articles, and in his book Heart Full of Soul, Hicks has talked about repeatedly facing rejection from the mainline music business. I can identify with that. I've had numerous mainstream journalists, and quite a few lawyers, tell me my story of being victimized by corrupt judges was not worthwhile. So I decided to tell it myself, on this blog. And in recent weeks, our reporting here has been cited by the highly respected and influential Scott Horton at Harper's.org. And it has been cited in documents filed as part of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. I would be the first to say that my story lacks the warm and fuzzies of the Taylor Hicks story. But having followed Hicks' rise from obscurity to American Idol, I like to think his toughness in the face of rejection rubbed off on me just a little.
* I like the fact that Hicks crosses racial boundaries. I like the fact his key musical influences are folks like Ray Charles, Otis Redding, and Sam Cooke. He sends the message that a white guy from Birmingham's suburbs can truly appreciate the talents that people of color can bring.
* I like Hicks' politics, I think. Actually, I'm not absolutely sure what his politics are. On a visit to the White House, he was gracious to George W. Bush--as he should have been. But I seem to recall reading somewhere that Hicks admires Bill Clinton. That, plus his affinity for black music, makes me think Hicks is a Democrat. Good for him.
* I like the fact that Hicks appreciates those who came before him. Three of my musical heroes are John Fogerty (Creedence Clearwater Revival), Don Henley (Eagles), and Lindsey Buckingham (Fleetwood Mac). Fogerty often has spoken of his love for great blues artists, such as Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and Robert Johnson. Henley grew up in east Texas, listening to country greats like George Jones and Merle Haggard and reading Henry David Thoreau. Buckingham clearly has been influenced heavily by the Kingston Trio and Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys. I think it's impossible to be really good at something if you don't appreciate those who have come before you. I think Hicks understands that.
* Finally, I just like Hicks' music. Looking back, my wife and I have major regrets that we never went to a Birmingham club to see Hicks perform in the days when he was unknown. I do recall seeing his name regularly when I would check the club schedules in The Birmingham News or in our two alternative weeklies, Birmingham Weekly and Black & White. So his name was familiar when I started seeing stories about him making the cut week after week on American Idol. We started tuning in to Idol and came to appreciate Hicks' ability to take a song by Rod Stewart or Elton John and make it his own. And after Hicks had won, we heard his two independent CDs--In Your Time and Under the Radar. Those told us that he was more than just a singer--he could play music; he could surround himself with strong musicians; and perhaps most importantly, he could write. Songs like "Son of a Carpenter," "Heart and Soul," "West Texas Sky," and "The Fall" show an artist who is serious about the writing craft.
* My wife is forcing me to write one more story about our connections to Taylor Hicks. We went to City Stages 2006, Birmingham's major annual music festival, and one of the primary attractions was our new, homegrown American Idol. We didn't see Hicks stand in with Snoop Dog one night. But we were there for his Sunday afternoon appearance with The Little Memphis Blues Orchestra. The schedule, however, presented a problem for yours truly. On at the same time were The Grass Roots, one of those blast-from-the-past acts that were a big part of my adolescence. (Herman's Hermits and the current incarnation of The Beach Boys also were on that night.) I'd wanted to see The Grass Roots for more than 30 years and never been able to catch them. So when Hicks and LIMBO were a bit late coming on, I decided to head for The Grass Roots stage while my wife stayed for the LIMBO show. I know this story sounds like I'm a fuddy dud who lives in the past. And I have only one defense to that charge: I knew I'd have plenty of opportunities to see Hicks in the near future, and I wasn't sure I'd ever have a chance to see The Grass Roots again. (Heck, lead singer Rob Grill has had hip surgery and can barely walk.) Indeed, the wife and I were fortunate to get tickets for the second of Hicks two shows at the Alabama Theater on his first nationwide tour. It was a terrific show, with the Homewood High School drum corps joining Hicks onstage for "The Runaround," followed by a solo version of "My Home's in Alabama."
Anyway, I'm going to write periodically about Hicks here at Legal Schnauzer. There are plenty of negatives about Alabama, and I write about some of them here--our corrupt state courts, our sorry and unethical politicians, our racist constitution. But there are lots of good things about Alabama, and Hicks is one of them. In fact, I have another post coming soon about his sports days at Hoover High. Hope the Soul Patrollers will stop by again to visit.
One Blogger and Selective Prosecution
With millions of blogs out in cyberspace, it's hard to say that any one blog truly is unique. But I've become aware of a new blog that I suspect deserves the title of unique. And it provides a unique glimpse into what it is like to be a victim of the Bush Justice Department and its selective-prosecution campaign.
The blog is called Gulf Coast Realist. And its author is former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel, one of three defendants who were convicted on corruption-related charges in the Paul Minor case. Minor, an attorney, already is in federal prison and has been shackled and muzzled and moved around, much like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Teel and John Whitfield, a former Mississippi circuit judge, are due to report to federal prison in late December.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, has noted that extraordinary measures have been taken related to Siegelman's imprisonment, apparently to make sure he remains quiet. Similar measures appear to have been taken with Paul Minor.
But Wes Teel is not silent. And he provides an insider's view of what it is like to be on the wrong side of a vindictive and vicious Justice Department.
In the 20-plus segments of our "Mississippi Churning" series here at Legal Schnauzer (quite a few more segments are on the way), we have shown that both Teel and Whitfield made rulings in cases involving Minor that were supported by the law and the facts. Yes, both received loan guarantees from Minor, but such financial arrangements are allowed under Mississippi law (and Alabama law, for that matter). In order for Teel and Whitfield's actions to rise to the level of bribery and honest-services mail fraud, they would had to act "corruptly," making rulings that they knew were "unlawful" and actually depriving Mississippians of "honest services."
That simply did not happen in the two lawsuits--Archie Marks and The Peoples Bank--that were at the heart of the government's case. But Wes Teel and John Whitfield are about to go to federal prison anyway.
In blunt terms, they are about to become political prisoners--a status Don Siegelman and Paul Minor already hold.
"Political prisoner" is a term that Americans associate with Josef Stalin or Saddam Hussein or some tinpot dictator in South America. But it is happening now, in George W. Bush's America, and Democrats in the Deep South seem to be taking the brunt of what amounts to an organized terror campaign.
One such Democrat is Wes Teel. His is a voice worth hearing.
It should be noted that Teel's blog is not all doom and gloom. For someone who is about to go to federal prison for something he did not do, Teel seems to have done a remarkable job of maintaining his humanity--and his sense of humor. In a delightful November 4 post, Teel writes about Simone and Phil Simone, two of his cherished and somewhat loony friends.
Will we be able to hear Teel's voice come late December? I wouldn't count on the Bush federal prison system allowing it.
So I encourage Legal Schnauzer readers to check out Mr. Teel's blog while you can. And I don't mean to be melodramatic, but I have studied the Minor case intensely for more than two years, so trust me when I say that Wes Teel and John Whitfield are about to become political prisoners. They already are victims of an American-sponsored terror campaign.
Gives new meaning to the idea of George W. Bush as the "terrorism president."
The blog is called Gulf Coast Realist. And its author is former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel, one of three defendants who were convicted on corruption-related charges in the Paul Minor case. Minor, an attorney, already is in federal prison and has been shackled and muzzled and moved around, much like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Teel and John Whitfield, a former Mississippi circuit judge, are due to report to federal prison in late December.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, has noted that extraordinary measures have been taken related to Siegelman's imprisonment, apparently to make sure he remains quiet. Similar measures appear to have been taken with Paul Minor.
But Wes Teel is not silent. And he provides an insider's view of what it is like to be on the wrong side of a vindictive and vicious Justice Department.
In the 20-plus segments of our "Mississippi Churning" series here at Legal Schnauzer (quite a few more segments are on the way), we have shown that both Teel and Whitfield made rulings in cases involving Minor that were supported by the law and the facts. Yes, both received loan guarantees from Minor, but such financial arrangements are allowed under Mississippi law (and Alabama law, for that matter). In order for Teel and Whitfield's actions to rise to the level of bribery and honest-services mail fraud, they would had to act "corruptly," making rulings that they knew were "unlawful" and actually depriving Mississippians of "honest services."
That simply did not happen in the two lawsuits--Archie Marks and The Peoples Bank--that were at the heart of the government's case. But Wes Teel and John Whitfield are about to go to federal prison anyway.
In blunt terms, they are about to become political prisoners--a status Don Siegelman and Paul Minor already hold.
"Political prisoner" is a term that Americans associate with Josef Stalin or Saddam Hussein or some tinpot dictator in South America. But it is happening now, in George W. Bush's America, and Democrats in the Deep South seem to be taking the brunt of what amounts to an organized terror campaign.
One such Democrat is Wes Teel. His is a voice worth hearing.
It should be noted that Teel's blog is not all doom and gloom. For someone who is about to go to federal prison for something he did not do, Teel seems to have done a remarkable job of maintaining his humanity--and his sense of humor. In a delightful November 4 post, Teel writes about Simone and Phil Simone, two of his cherished and somewhat loony friends.
Will we be able to hear Teel's voice come late December? I wouldn't count on the Bush federal prison system allowing it.
So I encourage Legal Schnauzer readers to check out Mr. Teel's blog while you can. And I don't mean to be melodramatic, but I have studied the Minor case intensely for more than two years, so trust me when I say that Wes Teel and John Whitfield are about to become political prisoners. They already are victims of an American-sponsored terror campaign.
Gives new meaning to the idea of George W. Bush as the "terrorism president."
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Riley's Huntsville Gambit Takes Flight
Speaking of Huntsville, Bob Riley's pet project--the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology--is taking shape in the Rocket City.
A $65 million wing of the facility opened yesterday to much huzzah.
"We said when we had the groundbreaking here that you're going to see an expansion in the biotech industry unlike anything that we have ever seen in Huntsville since the 1950s," Riley said. Never mind that Alabama already has a biotech center at UAB in Birmingham, and many experts opposed a competing facility in Huntsville.
No mention in The Birmingham News of the huge campaign contribution Riley received from supporters of the Huntsville facility, evidently in exchange for the governor's help in arranging $50 million in incentives and tax breaks.
Could that money have been better spent at UAB? Of course. Would that have helped Riley's campaign? Nope. Is there any difference between the quid pro quo involved here and the one that wound up putting Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy in federal prison. None that we can see.
A $65 million wing of the facility opened yesterday to much huzzah.
"We said when we had the groundbreaking here that you're going to see an expansion in the biotech industry unlike anything that we have ever seen in Huntsville since the 1950s," Riley said. Never mind that Alabama already has a biotech center at UAB in Birmingham, and many experts opposed a competing facility in Huntsville.
No mention in The Birmingham News of the huge campaign contribution Riley received from supporters of the Huntsville facility, evidently in exchange for the governor's help in arranging $50 million in incentives and tax breaks.
Could that money have been better spent at UAB? Of course. Would that have helped Riley's campaign? Nope. Is there any difference between the quid pro quo involved here and the one that wound up putting Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy in federal prison. None that we can see.
Insight on the Siegelman Saga
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, presents a splendid recap of recent events in the Don Siegelman case. Key points:
* Siegelman's appeal is being delayed because a transcript is not available. And whose responsibility is it to ensure that a transcript is available? U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller.
* The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed Fuller that his explanation was not sufficient for denying Siegelman's release pending appeal. Horton notes a Tuscaloosa News editorial saying it appears the denial of Siegelman's release was done to ensure he received some punishment on a shaky conviction. Good point by the Tuscaloosa newspaper. I would expand on that point a bit. I think it was designed to send a message to Democrats in Alabama: If you dare to be successful politically in this state, you will pay. And I would suggest that a similar message is being sent with the Paul Minor case in Mississippi: If you dare to be successful in courtrooms against corporations and other business interests, you will pay.
* Horton's sources say the Department of Justice is discouraging further media statements from Montgomery-based U.S. attorney Louis Franklin. Evidently the DOJ has grown increasingly uncomfortable with Franklin's bizarre public statements.
* Horton does a masterful job of taking apart a shoddy editorial from David Prather from the Huntsville Times. Horton sums up Prather's rant: "Don't bother me with the facts, I know the guy's a crook." Perhaps the strangest part of Prather's piece is his reference to some unnamed person who apparently made allegations against a public official that did not hold up under scrutiny. "Who is he talking about? What allegations?" Horton writes. "All very mysterious. My guess of course is that it's Jill Simpson he's talking about, but who knows what the allegations are? He won't tell us."
After reading the editorial, your humble blogger sent Prather an e-mail offering to show him plenty of evidence regarding wrongdoing by GOP state judges in Alabama. It is evidence that most certainly will stand up to scrutiny, and I invited Mr. Prather or a reporter from the Times to contact me. No response from the Rocket City so far. I will keep you updated.
* Siegelman's appeal is being delayed because a transcript is not available. And whose responsibility is it to ensure that a transcript is available? U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller.
* The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed Fuller that his explanation was not sufficient for denying Siegelman's release pending appeal. Horton notes a Tuscaloosa News editorial saying it appears the denial of Siegelman's release was done to ensure he received some punishment on a shaky conviction. Good point by the Tuscaloosa newspaper. I would expand on that point a bit. I think it was designed to send a message to Democrats in Alabama: If you dare to be successful politically in this state, you will pay. And I would suggest that a similar message is being sent with the Paul Minor case in Mississippi: If you dare to be successful in courtrooms against corporations and other business interests, you will pay.
* Horton's sources say the Department of Justice is discouraging further media statements from Montgomery-based U.S. attorney Louis Franklin. Evidently the DOJ has grown increasingly uncomfortable with Franklin's bizarre public statements.
* Horton does a masterful job of taking apart a shoddy editorial from David Prather from the Huntsville Times. Horton sums up Prather's rant: "Don't bother me with the facts, I know the guy's a crook." Perhaps the strangest part of Prather's piece is his reference to some unnamed person who apparently made allegations against a public official that did not hold up under scrutiny. "Who is he talking about? What allegations?" Horton writes. "All very mysterious. My guess of course is that it's Jill Simpson he's talking about, but who knows what the allegations are? He won't tell us."
After reading the editorial, your humble blogger sent Prather an e-mail offering to show him plenty of evidence regarding wrongdoing by GOP state judges in Alabama. It is evidence that most certainly will stand up to scrutiny, and I invited Mr. Prather or a reporter from the Times to contact me. No response from the Rocket City so far. I will keep you updated.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Paul Minor and Me, Part I
I live in Birmingham, AL, and started Legal Schnauzer primarily to shine a spotlight on my experiences with corrupt attorneys and judges in Alabama's state courts.
From the outset, I wanted the blog to look at matters beyond my little world; I didn't want this to be an exercise in navel-gazing. From conducting research on the Web, it seemed pretty clear that I was not the only one out there suffering at the hands of a warped justice system.
Little did I realize just how far afield Legal Schnauzer would go. Perhaps that has made the blog seem a little disjointed and hard to follow at times. But on the plus side, I think it's important to tie my experiences into the bigger picture of a justice system out of control.
So I'm pleased that we've found a niche when it comes to reporting on the Bush Department of Justice scandal, focusing particularly on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor
case in Mississippi.
I find it ironic that Legal Schnauzer has received its widest notice because of our reporting on the Minor case, which, on the surface, has nothing to do with Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, cited our reporting on the Minor case (which caused our readership to pretty much double or even triple on many days.) And when the U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on selective prosecution, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced the Minor case into the investigation and included documents that liberally cited our reporting on the case.
I guess that means Legal Schnauzer will forever be ensconced in the Congressional Record. Never thought that would happen.
Perhaps now is a good time to look at why the Paul Minor case matters, regardless of where you live and regardless of what political persuasion you hold. We will take a closer look in just a bit.
From the outset, I wanted the blog to look at matters beyond my little world; I didn't want this to be an exercise in navel-gazing. From conducting research on the Web, it seemed pretty clear that I was not the only one out there suffering at the hands of a warped justice system.
Little did I realize just how far afield Legal Schnauzer would go. Perhaps that has made the blog seem a little disjointed and hard to follow at times. But on the plus side, I think it's important to tie my experiences into the bigger picture of a justice system out of control.
So I'm pleased that we've found a niche when it comes to reporting on the Bush Department of Justice scandal, focusing particularly on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor
case in Mississippi.
I find it ironic that Legal Schnauzer has received its widest notice because of our reporting on the Minor case, which, on the surface, has nothing to do with Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, cited our reporting on the Minor case (which caused our readership to pretty much double or even triple on many days.) And when the U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on selective prosecution, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced the Minor case into the investigation and included documents that liberally cited our reporting on the case.
I guess that means Legal Schnauzer will forever be ensconced in the Congressional Record. Never thought that would happen.
Perhaps now is a good time to look at why the Paul Minor case matters, regardless of where you live and regardless of what political persuasion you hold. We will take a closer look in just a bit.
A Georgia Voice on Selective Prosecution
The issue of selective prosecution in the Deep South has focused on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. But a Georgia columnist says the press in his state should turn its attention to the subject.
"The conduct of the Bush Justice Department here in Georgia has received little media scrutiny," says Bill Shipp of the Athens Banner-Herald. "That should change."
Shipp notes that last year Republican Governor Sonny Perdue appointed Atlanta mega-developer Stan Thomas to the powerful state Board of Economic Development. "There is no dispute that the board seat is of great value to Thomas, who speculates in land and tries to build upscale, huge retail and residential complexes in areas with growing, affluent populations," Shipp writes. "His seat on the board gives him an inside, early look at the state's development plans and no doubt gives his real-estate bets better odds."
Then Shipp cuts to the chase.
"Applying the Siegelman-Scrushy standard to the Perdue-Thomas relationship, it is hard to imagine why the U.S. Justice Department, namely Atlanta-based U.S. Attorney David Nahmias, is not closely scrutinizing it. Thomas and his development companies have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perdue and the state Republican Party (through which Perdue funded much of his re-election campaign). Perdue uses Thomas's fleet of aircraft practically as a private air force. To top it off, Thomas carved off a piece of land inside a massive development he's building near Disney World in Orlando and sold it to Perdue as an investment opportunity."
Shipp has a hard time understanding how that differs from the transaction that landed Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy in federal prison.
"If (Karl) Rove's special interest in Alabama could lead the Bush White House to demand the prosecution of the state's most prominent Democrat, couldn't the same sentiment lead to the improper protection from scrutiny of Georgia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction?"
Shipp raises a monumental question, one that goes to the flip side of selective prosecution. The Siegelman and Minor cases involved individuals who allegedly were prosecuted for political reasons. The scenario in Georgia involves individuals who apparently are protected from prosecution for political reasons.
We've seen a similar situation here in Alabama with Republican Governor Bob Riley receiving a large campaign contribution and providing a major chunk of state dollars to support a biotech center in Huntsville, bypassing the state's already strong biotech presence in Birmingham at UAB.
And in the weeks ahead, we will lay out a classic example of suppression of prosecution here at Legal Schnauzer. It involves clear federal crimes by Republican state judges and a determined effort by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin to sweep the wrongdoing under the proverbial rug.
"The conduct of the Bush Justice Department here in Georgia has received little media scrutiny," says Bill Shipp of the Athens Banner-Herald. "That should change."
Shipp notes that last year Republican Governor Sonny Perdue appointed Atlanta mega-developer Stan Thomas to the powerful state Board of Economic Development. "There is no dispute that the board seat is of great value to Thomas, who speculates in land and tries to build upscale, huge retail and residential complexes in areas with growing, affluent populations," Shipp writes. "His seat on the board gives him an inside, early look at the state's development plans and no doubt gives his real-estate bets better odds."
Then Shipp cuts to the chase.
"Applying the Siegelman-Scrushy standard to the Perdue-Thomas relationship, it is hard to imagine why the U.S. Justice Department, namely Atlanta-based U.S. Attorney David Nahmias, is not closely scrutinizing it. Thomas and his development companies have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Perdue and the state Republican Party (through which Perdue funded much of his re-election campaign). Perdue uses Thomas's fleet of aircraft practically as a private air force. To top it off, Thomas carved off a piece of land inside a massive development he's building near Disney World in Orlando and sold it to Perdue as an investment opportunity."
Shipp has a hard time understanding how that differs from the transaction that landed Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy in federal prison.
"If (Karl) Rove's special interest in Alabama could lead the Bush White House to demand the prosecution of the state's most prominent Democrat, couldn't the same sentiment lead to the improper protection from scrutiny of Georgia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction?"
Shipp raises a monumental question, one that goes to the flip side of selective prosecution. The Siegelman and Minor cases involved individuals who allegedly were prosecuted for political reasons. The scenario in Georgia involves individuals who apparently are protected from prosecution for political reasons.
We've seen a similar situation here in Alabama with Republican Governor Bob Riley receiving a large campaign contribution and providing a major chunk of state dollars to support a biotech center in Huntsville, bypassing the state's already strong biotech presence in Birmingham at UAB.
And in the weeks ahead, we will lay out a classic example of suppression of prosecution here at Legal Schnauzer. It involves clear federal crimes by Republican state judges and a determined effort by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin to sweep the wrongdoing under the proverbial rug.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Mississippi Churning, Part XXI
Let's return to our focus on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, looking at evidence that illustrates the weakness of the government's case.
From checking various court documents, we learn the following:
* The government sent more than 30 agents to go through files at Minor & Associates, Paul Minor's law firm on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. (Remember Paul Minor was a major contributor to John Edwards' campaign, and we are slowly learning details about what appears to be a concerted Bush Justice Department campaign to investigate contributors to both Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Was Paul Minor one of the first major Democratic donors to be targeted in this orchestrated Justice Department campaign?)
* During the period covered by the indictment, roughly 1998 to 2003, Paul Minor's firm filed 728 cases. Out of all those cases, how many did the government's 30-some agents find that they could build their case around? Two.
* You heard that right. Two cases out of 728 raised enough questions for the government to build an indictment. And we already have written extensively about those two cases--Archie Marks and Peoples Bank.
* Marks was a personal-injury case, where a roustabout suffered a disabling back injury while working on an oil rig. The company in charge of the oil rig clearly was negligent in failing to provide safe working conditions, even though it holds a particularly high burden under maritime law to protect workers who are vulnerable because they are working offshore. The evidence is overwhelming that Judge John Whitfield ruled correctly based on the facts and the law in the case, and therefore was not influenced by any alleged "bribe" from attorney Paul Minor.
* Peoples Bank was a bad-faith insurance case, where a Biloxi bank sought coverage from USF&G. In an almost identical case at the time, another Mississippi judge had found that USF&G was obligated to provide coverage. That judge, in a case that did not involve Paul Minor, was not indicted; Judge Wes Teel, in a case that did involve Paul Minor, was indicted. The Mississippi Supreme Court eventually ruled that USF&G did not owe coverage, setting new legal precedent. But at the time of his ruling, Teel clearly was within established Mississippi law. Just as in Whitfield's case, Teel ruled correctly based on the facts and the law at the time, and therefore was not influenced by any alleged "bribe" from attorney Paul Minor.
* So we've looked at the two underlying lawsuits at the heart of the government's corruption case against Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. And we've shown just how weak the government's case was in both instances. And keep this in mind: This was the best the government could come up with.
* Finally, let's look at the financial activity upon which the government built its case. It showed that Minor had helped guarantee loans to Teel and Whitfield. According to the government, Minor used these loan guarantees to gain an "unfair advantage" in cases he had before the two judges. But here is the key: Under Mississippi law at the time, it was perfectly legal for an attorney to give money, guarantee a loan, or provide other financial gifts to judges. (It still is legal, although caps have been put on the amounts that can be given.) The government shined a spotlight on Paul Minor for guaranteeing loans to two judges? But how widespread was the practice of lawyers providing financial help to judges or judicial candidates? In 1998, 580 Mississippi lawyers gave money to lawyers who were running for office.
* So we know that Paul Minor was one of 580 Mississippi lawyers in 1998 to give money to lawyers running for office. Which raises this question: Paul Minor was indicted because his clients received "favorable" rulings in two cases before judges Minor had helped financially. Does that mean that the 579 other Mississippi lawyers never won a case before a judge they had supported financially? Does that seem a little hard to believe to you? It sure does to me? So where are the indictments on these other lawyers? Is it possible that these lawyers were not as wealthy as Paul Minor, and had not been as upfront about supporting Democratic candidates, so therefore they were not targets of the government?
* According to the government's perverse logic, any lawyer who had given financial support to a judge (which is legal) would have to lose every case before that judge. If the lawyer did not lose every case, both the lawyer and the judge would be guilty of federal crimes.
* And finally, let's return to this critical point. The government's indictment said Minor used loan guarantees to gain an "unfair advantage" in certain cases and to receive "favorable rulings." But the terms "unfair advantage" and "favorable rulings" are nowhere to be found in the statutory language involving bribery and honest-services mail fraud, the two key charges in the Minor case. Under the actual law, here' s what matters in a federal bribery case: That the act was done "corruptly," meaning it was done with knowledge that it was "unlawful." Teel and Whitfield did not make unlawful rulings in the cases involving Paul Minor. In fact, they ruled as they should have based on the facts and the law. And under the actual law, here's what matters in an honest-services mail fraud case: That the public actually was "deprived" of a public official's "honest services." There was nothing dishonest about Teel and Whitfield's rulings. In fact, it would have been dishonest for them to rule against Minor's clients in these two cases. So under actual statutory language, the government's case falls apart. I suspect that's why the government used non-statutory, layman's terms in the indictment, and Judge Henry Wingate let them get away with it.
* One final point. Just how perverse is this? Had Teel and Whitfield ruled against Minor's clients in these two cases, ignoring the clear facts and the law, they would have technically been committing honest-services mail fraud. But that would have been fine with the government, and Teel and Whitfield would not be looking at heading to federal prison in December. In other words: The judges could have stayed out of federal prison had they been willing to commit a federal crime. Does that sound nuts? Hey, it's the world we live in under the Bush Justice Department.
From checking various court documents, we learn the following:
* The government sent more than 30 agents to go through files at Minor & Associates, Paul Minor's law firm on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. (Remember Paul Minor was a major contributor to John Edwards' campaign, and we are slowly learning details about what appears to be a concerted Bush Justice Department campaign to investigate contributors to both Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Was Paul Minor one of the first major Democratic donors to be targeted in this orchestrated Justice Department campaign?)
* During the period covered by the indictment, roughly 1998 to 2003, Paul Minor's firm filed 728 cases. Out of all those cases, how many did the government's 30-some agents find that they could build their case around? Two.
* You heard that right. Two cases out of 728 raised enough questions for the government to build an indictment. And we already have written extensively about those two cases--Archie Marks and Peoples Bank.
* Marks was a personal-injury case, where a roustabout suffered a disabling back injury while working on an oil rig. The company in charge of the oil rig clearly was negligent in failing to provide safe working conditions, even though it holds a particularly high burden under maritime law to protect workers who are vulnerable because they are working offshore. The evidence is overwhelming that Judge John Whitfield ruled correctly based on the facts and the law in the case, and therefore was not influenced by any alleged "bribe" from attorney Paul Minor.
* Peoples Bank was a bad-faith insurance case, where a Biloxi bank sought coverage from USF&G. In an almost identical case at the time, another Mississippi judge had found that USF&G was obligated to provide coverage. That judge, in a case that did not involve Paul Minor, was not indicted; Judge Wes Teel, in a case that did involve Paul Minor, was indicted. The Mississippi Supreme Court eventually ruled that USF&G did not owe coverage, setting new legal precedent. But at the time of his ruling, Teel clearly was within established Mississippi law. Just as in Whitfield's case, Teel ruled correctly based on the facts and the law at the time, and therefore was not influenced by any alleged "bribe" from attorney Paul Minor.
* So we've looked at the two underlying lawsuits at the heart of the government's corruption case against Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. And we've shown just how weak the government's case was in both instances. And keep this in mind: This was the best the government could come up with.
* Finally, let's look at the financial activity upon which the government built its case. It showed that Minor had helped guarantee loans to Teel and Whitfield. According to the government, Minor used these loan guarantees to gain an "unfair advantage" in cases he had before the two judges. But here is the key: Under Mississippi law at the time, it was perfectly legal for an attorney to give money, guarantee a loan, or provide other financial gifts to judges. (It still is legal, although caps have been put on the amounts that can be given.) The government shined a spotlight on Paul Minor for guaranteeing loans to two judges? But how widespread was the practice of lawyers providing financial help to judges or judicial candidates? In 1998, 580 Mississippi lawyers gave money to lawyers who were running for office.
* So we know that Paul Minor was one of 580 Mississippi lawyers in 1998 to give money to lawyers running for office. Which raises this question: Paul Minor was indicted because his clients received "favorable" rulings in two cases before judges Minor had helped financially. Does that mean that the 579 other Mississippi lawyers never won a case before a judge they had supported financially? Does that seem a little hard to believe to you? It sure does to me? So where are the indictments on these other lawyers? Is it possible that these lawyers were not as wealthy as Paul Minor, and had not been as upfront about supporting Democratic candidates, so therefore they were not targets of the government?
* According to the government's perverse logic, any lawyer who had given financial support to a judge (which is legal) would have to lose every case before that judge. If the lawyer did not lose every case, both the lawyer and the judge would be guilty of federal crimes.
* And finally, let's return to this critical point. The government's indictment said Minor used loan guarantees to gain an "unfair advantage" in certain cases and to receive "favorable rulings." But the terms "unfair advantage" and "favorable rulings" are nowhere to be found in the statutory language involving bribery and honest-services mail fraud, the two key charges in the Minor case. Under the actual law, here' s what matters in a federal bribery case: That the act was done "corruptly," meaning it was done with knowledge that it was "unlawful." Teel and Whitfield did not make unlawful rulings in the cases involving Paul Minor. In fact, they ruled as they should have based on the facts and the law. And under the actual law, here's what matters in an honest-services mail fraud case: That the public actually was "deprived" of a public official's "honest services." There was nothing dishonest about Teel and Whitfield's rulings. In fact, it would have been dishonest for them to rule against Minor's clients in these two cases. So under actual statutory language, the government's case falls apart. I suspect that's why the government used non-statutory, layman's terms in the indictment, and Judge Henry Wingate let them get away with it.
* One final point. Just how perverse is this? Had Teel and Whitfield ruled against Minor's clients in these two cases, ignoring the clear facts and the law, they would have technically been committing honest-services mail fraud. But that would have been fine with the government, and Teel and Whitfield would not be looking at heading to federal prison in December. In other words: The judges could have stayed out of federal prison had they been willing to commit a federal crime. Does that sound nuts? Hey, it's the world we live in under the Bush Justice Department.
Insight on al.com and Censorship
We noted in a recent post that references to Legal Schnauzer have repeatedly been deleted at al.com's Hoover Forum.
Evidently, I'm not the only one who has experienced this kind of censorship on the al.com forum. Largely because of this censorship, another Hoover Forum has been created. I received the following interesting e-mail from the moderator of that site:
As you may or may not know, your blog has been linked several times on our web site THE Hoover Forum (http://www.hooverforum.com/).
The most recent version of your blog talks about being censored on al.com.
Shortly after our launch in July 2007, THE Hoover Forum was also censored on al.com's forums and all references to it removed. If an al.com forum poster typed out hooverforum.com and submitted the post, the word filter on al.com would reply "OOPS! Your post was rejected because it contained inappropriate language," and the words hooverforum.com would have to be deleted before the poster could proceed.
We have attributed this action to come from al.com's Ken Booth. As you may know, al.com not only streams the Hoover High School football games on their site, but they are also a sponsor of the Hoover football booster club (hooverbuc.com). Since many of our members have posted things that are not complimentary (although truthful) about the coaching staff, al.com has taken issue with this and has censored us.
The entire reason for our forum's existence is because al.com chose to censor posts regarding Hoover High School football, which we felt trampled on Hoover residents' right to exercise their freedom-of-speech rights.
Al.com, Mr. Booth, and the publishers of The Birmingham News are within their rights as a private business to publish and not publish what they want. They are not, however, doing the residents of Alabama a favor as a newspaper to censor certain viewpoints. One of my favorite articles regarding the responsibilities of a newspaper is the following:
"Social Responsibilities of the Newspaper." I won't quote the entire article to you, just the first two paragraphs:
"The press is a quasi-public agency because the founders of its freedom created it for the public purpose--as a substitute for revolution. It is an instrument for democracy to produce reform by methods of peace instead of force.
"The press has even greater social responsibilities than the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary. They are servants of the people to exercise certain rights which the people have entrusted to government. The press, however, is the special servant of the people in that great estate in which the people have reserved to themselves other rights which, by long experience, they have found it foolhardy to surrender to any government--an estate which governments try hard to invade. And in every case in which government invasion has been accomplished, an impotent press has given up the ghost before the people themselves have succumbed."
You may read the entire article here.
Sad that The Birmingham News and al.com don't live up to their end.
Moderator,
THE Hoover Forum
moderator@hooverforum.com
Evidently, I'm not the only one who has experienced this kind of censorship on the al.com forum. Largely because of this censorship, another Hoover Forum has been created. I received the following interesting e-mail from the moderator of that site:
As you may or may not know, your blog has been linked several times on our web site THE Hoover Forum (http://www.hooverforum.com/).
The most recent version of your blog talks about being censored on al.com.
Shortly after our launch in July 2007, THE Hoover Forum was also censored on al.com's forums and all references to it removed. If an al.com forum poster typed out hooverforum.com and submitted the post, the word filter on al.com would reply "OOPS! Your post was rejected because it contained inappropriate language," and the words hooverforum.com would have to be deleted before the poster could proceed.
We have attributed this action to come from al.com's Ken Booth. As you may know, al.com not only streams the Hoover High School football games on their site, but they are also a sponsor of the Hoover football booster club (hooverbuc.com). Since many of our members have posted things that are not complimentary (although truthful) about the coaching staff, al.com has taken issue with this and has censored us.
The entire reason for our forum's existence is because al.com chose to censor posts regarding Hoover High School football, which we felt trampled on Hoover residents' right to exercise their freedom-of-speech rights.
Al.com, Mr. Booth, and the publishers of The Birmingham News are within their rights as a private business to publish and not publish what they want. They are not, however, doing the residents of Alabama a favor as a newspaper to censor certain viewpoints. One of my favorite articles regarding the responsibilities of a newspaper is the following:
"Social Responsibilities of the Newspaper." I won't quote the entire article to you, just the first two paragraphs:
"The press is a quasi-public agency because the founders of its freedom created it for the public purpose--as a substitute for revolution. It is an instrument for democracy to produce reform by methods of peace instead of force.
"The press has even greater social responsibilities than the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary. They are servants of the people to exercise certain rights which the people have entrusted to government. The press, however, is the special servant of the people in that great estate in which the people have reserved to themselves other rights which, by long experience, they have found it foolhardy to surrender to any government--an estate which governments try hard to invade. And in every case in which government invasion has been accomplished, an impotent press has given up the ghost before the people themselves have succumbed."
You may read the entire article here.
Sad that The Birmingham News and al.com don't live up to their end.
Moderator,
THE Hoover Forum
moderator@hooverforum.com
Here's What's Shoddy
The Birmingham News has written an editorial about the ExxonMobil ruling that might be the most egregious waste of space I've ever seen.
In an editorial titled "Shoddy, not fraud-y," the News more or less defends the Alabama Supreme Court's indefensible ruling to throw out $3.5 billion in punitive damages a trial court had found Exxon owed the state of Alabama.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the News' piece is that the writer gives no indication he or she has read the Supreme Court's ruling. Yes, the opinion is long--125 pages--but these are full-time editorial writers at the News. What else are they busy doing--looking for more ways to prop up Rob Riley?
You would think they could go to the trouble to read the ruling before opining about it.
The News' concludes that while Exxon might have been guilty of shoddy business practices, that does not constitute fraud.
But that's not what the opinion says at all. In fact, the opinion makes it clear that there was nothing "shoddy" about Exxon's actions at all. Shoddy indicates that Exxon's actions were sloppy, perhaps reckless. But even the eight judges who agreed on the majority view never said the company's actions were sloppy. In fact, the record clearly shows the company's actions were intentional, and the justices note that the company took an "aggressive" interpretation of the contract with our state. "Aggressively fraudulent" might have been a better term, but there certainly was nothing shoddy about it.
The gist of the court's finding is this: Because the state intended to audit the transaction all along, it therefore did not "rely" on alleged misrepresentations by Exxon. That, according to the GOP justices, was the missing prong in the state's fraud claim. Never mind that the court's ruling, as dissenting Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb points out, differs from settled law in 49 other states, and at the federal level.
The News does say, correctly, that the case feeds the perception that justice is for sale in Alabama. But if the editorial writer had actually read the opinion, he or she would have seen that this case does more than feed a perception that justice is for sale in our state. It proves that justice is for sale.
A solution? The News proposes a merit-based appointment system for appeals-court judges, which would be an improvement over what we have. (By the way, such a system also should apply to trial-court judges; that's where the corruption problem starts.) But the paper really wants to take a lazy way out.
A far better solution? To have real news organizations in this state who would take hard, objective looks at the corruption that is rampant in our state courts. A good place to start? Shelby County. But wait, that's a Republican hotbed. Mustn't go there.
Of course we're talking about reporting that would take honest and real work on the part of the News. Why do that when you can sit in your right-wing ivory tower and lazily bat out worthless editorials?
In an editorial titled "Shoddy, not fraud-y," the News more or less defends the Alabama Supreme Court's indefensible ruling to throw out $3.5 billion in punitive damages a trial court had found Exxon owed the state of Alabama.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the News' piece is that the writer gives no indication he or she has read the Supreme Court's ruling. Yes, the opinion is long--125 pages--but these are full-time editorial writers at the News. What else are they busy doing--looking for more ways to prop up Rob Riley?
You would think they could go to the trouble to read the ruling before opining about it.
The News' concludes that while Exxon might have been guilty of shoddy business practices, that does not constitute fraud.
But that's not what the opinion says at all. In fact, the opinion makes it clear that there was nothing "shoddy" about Exxon's actions at all. Shoddy indicates that Exxon's actions were sloppy, perhaps reckless. But even the eight judges who agreed on the majority view never said the company's actions were sloppy. In fact, the record clearly shows the company's actions were intentional, and the justices note that the company took an "aggressive" interpretation of the contract with our state. "Aggressively fraudulent" might have been a better term, but there certainly was nothing shoddy about it.
The gist of the court's finding is this: Because the state intended to audit the transaction all along, it therefore did not "rely" on alleged misrepresentations by Exxon. That, according to the GOP justices, was the missing prong in the state's fraud claim. Never mind that the court's ruling, as dissenting Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb points out, differs from settled law in 49 other states, and at the federal level.
The News does say, correctly, that the case feeds the perception that justice is for sale in Alabama. But if the editorial writer had actually read the opinion, he or she would have seen that this case does more than feed a perception that justice is for sale in our state. It proves that justice is for sale.
A solution? The News proposes a merit-based appointment system for appeals-court judges, which would be an improvement over what we have. (By the way, such a system also should apply to trial-court judges; that's where the corruption problem starts.) But the paper really wants to take a lazy way out.
A far better solution? To have real news organizations in this state who would take hard, objective looks at the corruption that is rampant in our state courts. A good place to start? Shelby County. But wait, that's a Republican hotbed. Mustn't go there.
Of course we're talking about reporting that would take honest and real work on the part of the News. Why do that when you can sit in your right-wing ivory tower and lazily bat out worthless editorials?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Hoover High and Me, Part II
On December 12, 1998, there were two big stories connected to high-school football in Birmingham.
Briarwood Christian had just won its first state championship, two days earlier. And Hoover High School was looking for a new coach after firing Gerald Gann in early November following a 4-6 season.
Did those two stories collide, starting a chain of events that would lead to massive legal headaches for yours truly--and lead to gross judicial corruption in Shelby County that prompted me to begin this blog? And more importantly, did one of those schools--Briarwood Christian--act in a reckless and negligent manner that caused significant financial and emotional harm to innocent parties (my wife and me)? And did Briarwood Christian take those hasty steps in an effort to secure its football coach (and two star players), keeping them from being lured away by an attractive suitor--Hoover High School?
Join me on a twisting journey, and let's see what answers we come up.
On the morning of December 12, 1998, I awoke to the sounds of a barking dog. Many of you probably live in neighborhoods much like mine. The houses are fairly close together, and a lot of folks have dogs. Most of the dogs bark occasionally, but it has never been bothersome. In fact, it has kind of become the background music to our lives. Until this morning, the only one I had ever really noticed much was a cocker spaniel who lived behind us named Rover (pretty creative name). He will sometimes let out this mournful, pining, wailing sound, kind of like something you'd hear in a country song. We usually say something like, "Rover's got the blues again," and it stops pretty soon.
But the sound on December 12 was different and unfamiliar. It was piercingly loud and grating, and it sounded like an unusual kind of dog--maybe a hunting dog. "Where in the heck is that coming from," I thought.
My wife could sleep through a Ted Nugent concert, so I knew she wasn't going to do anything about it. Murphy, our miniature schnauzer, was in her usual place--stretched out between us, with her head plopped between our two pillows. Schnauzers are a vigilant sort, and she usually was pretty good about checking out unusual sounds. In fact, we called her our director of security. But it was chilly in the house that morning, and she didn't seem interested in getting out from under the covers. She looked at me as if to say, "I'm toasty at the moment. Why don't you go check on it and report back to me."
(By the way, this blog is inspired by, and dedicated to, Murphy's memory. Without her, I don't think my wife and I would have maintained our sanity through this legal ordeal. In fact, I'm not sure we would even be alive. Anyone who ever has had and lost a beloved pet might be interested in a series of posts about Murphy, which begins here.)
So I padded downstairs on my own and looked out our back kitchen window, toward the house to our east. That's where a local celebrity now resided. Fred Yancey, football coach at Briarwood Christian High, had led the Lions to their first state championship two days earlier.
I was surprised to see the offending canine in Fred's backyard, howling at . . . well, I have no idea what the dog was howling at. I just knew I had never heard a howl quite like that before. And I was surprised to see a dog in Fred's yard. Fred had never seemed like much of an animal person to me. He seemed to be mostly into God and football, not necessarily in that order.
(One of the great things about having Fred as a neighbor was that he was almost as useless as I was when it came to handyman things. I never had to worry about him developing a prizewinning lawn or otherwise showing me up in the "honey-do" category. Fred was a coach, end of story. On the home-care front, he was lucky if he could get the lawnmower started. I like guys like that. The neighbor on the other side, at the time, was another story. He built a deck on his house--himself. And I had a workman tell me one time that it was the best-built deck he had ever seen. In fact, the workman told me he couldn't afford to build a deck of that quality. I hated that neighbor.)
As my ears tried to adjust to the dog's howling, I noticed something else: Fred had fenced his yard. That's strange, I thought. The Yanceys were always very considerate neighbors, and putting up a fence is usually the kind of thing you mention to a neighbor before you start--just to make sure the fence is in the right place, etc. I didn't have a problem with the fence, but I was surprised Fred hadn't mentioned it. And here's something else I couldn't figure: Fred had been in the midst of trying to win the first state championship in his school's history. Seemed like a strange time to suddenly get a dog and fence his yard.
My wife still was hibernating, but I was dying to get her thoughts on these events. So I went upstairs and cranked up one of my old Alice Cooper albums. (She can sleep through Ted Nugent, but nobody sleeps through Alice Cooper--heh, heh.)
Once my wife was out of her "morning comatose" state, she looked out the kitchen window and noticed something else. "Hey, there's a strange guy out there." She was right. A thin guy with a mustache was standing in Fred's backyard, with the dog howling at full force. We'd never seen this guy before. But Fred often had members of his coaching staff over to his house, so I figured this guy must be an assistant coach. The Yanceys had a "mother-in-law" apartment in their basement. We thought maybe this guy was a new staff member and was living in the basement apartment while he got settled in.
The guy had gone indoors when we went outside to check things out. We stood on the edge of the driveway, and the dog came to the side of the fence nearest us. He was a handsome fellow, and he quieted down once he had company. We talked with him a little, telling him how good looking he was, the way we did with Murphy. He seemed to like that.
Then we noticed the guy, standing above us, on the steps of the deck. We said hello and introduced ourselves. We said he had a good-looking dog. "He doesn't normally bark this much," the guy said. We hadn't said anything about his barking.
We asked what kind of dog he was. "A shepherd/coonhound mix," the guy said. The coonhound part would explain the piercing bark. (We're dog people, so it's ironic that this little tale starts with a dog issue. But it certainly was not the dog's fault. Coonhounds really are not pets; they are working dogs, and they are bred to hunt. Sticking them in a small backyard, with little exercise and nothing much to do, is just asking for problems. We would soon discover that these people had no clue how to handle a dog like this.)
The fellow said his name was Mike McGarity. An unfamiliar woman appeared briefly on the deck, but she didn't come out to visit. I asked McGarity if he worked with Fred at Briarwood. "No, I work at Blue Cross and Blue Shield."
Oh, I guess you're just staying with Fred awhile? "Oh no, we live here; this is our house."
Well, Herve Villechaize could have knocked me over. There had been no for-sale sign in the yard. The Yanceys hadn't said a word to us about moving.
"Where did Fred and Sharon go?" I said.
"They moved to a house on the Briarwood campus. The school has a house, and that's where they are going to live."
McGarity didn't seem interested in having a lengthy conversation, and we were too stunned to say much, so we chatted a little while longer before saying our goodbyes. I do remember that I was wearing a University of Missouri sweatshirt, and McGarity noticed and said something about Larry Smith, Mizzou's coach at the time. "Wow, if he knows who Missouri's coach is, he must be a serious sports fan," I thought. I figured we'd get along great.
As we went back into our garage, my wife said something I will never forget. "Something about him doesn't seem right."
I was stunned. I'd never heard her say that about anybody. And the guy seemed fine to me.
"What do you mean?" I said.
"I don't know; something just doesn't seem right," she said. "Didn't you think it was strange that he stayed on the stairs, above us, the whole time and didn't come down to where we were? And his wife didn't say a thing? Isn't that unusual?"
"Well, maybe a little. Maybe they're just stressed out from the move."
"That could be. But the whole thing just seems strange."
Well, I've heard of a "woman's intuition." But I had no idea just how sharp my wife's intuition would prove to be.
Briarwood Christian had just won its first state championship, two days earlier. And Hoover High School was looking for a new coach after firing Gerald Gann in early November following a 4-6 season.
Did those two stories collide, starting a chain of events that would lead to massive legal headaches for yours truly--and lead to gross judicial corruption in Shelby County that prompted me to begin this blog? And more importantly, did one of those schools--Briarwood Christian--act in a reckless and negligent manner that caused significant financial and emotional harm to innocent parties (my wife and me)? And did Briarwood Christian take those hasty steps in an effort to secure its football coach (and two star players), keeping them from being lured away by an attractive suitor--Hoover High School?
Join me on a twisting journey, and let's see what answers we come up.
On the morning of December 12, 1998, I awoke to the sounds of a barking dog. Many of you probably live in neighborhoods much like mine. The houses are fairly close together, and a lot of folks have dogs. Most of the dogs bark occasionally, but it has never been bothersome. In fact, it has kind of become the background music to our lives. Until this morning, the only one I had ever really noticed much was a cocker spaniel who lived behind us named Rover (pretty creative name). He will sometimes let out this mournful, pining, wailing sound, kind of like something you'd hear in a country song. We usually say something like, "Rover's got the blues again," and it stops pretty soon.
But the sound on December 12 was different and unfamiliar. It was piercingly loud and grating, and it sounded like an unusual kind of dog--maybe a hunting dog. "Where in the heck is that coming from," I thought.
My wife could sleep through a Ted Nugent concert, so I knew she wasn't going to do anything about it. Murphy, our miniature schnauzer, was in her usual place--stretched out between us, with her head plopped between our two pillows. Schnauzers are a vigilant sort, and she usually was pretty good about checking out unusual sounds. In fact, we called her our director of security. But it was chilly in the house that morning, and she didn't seem interested in getting out from under the covers. She looked at me as if to say, "I'm toasty at the moment. Why don't you go check on it and report back to me."
(By the way, this blog is inspired by, and dedicated to, Murphy's memory. Without her, I don't think my wife and I would have maintained our sanity through this legal ordeal. In fact, I'm not sure we would even be alive. Anyone who ever has had and lost a beloved pet might be interested in a series of posts about Murphy, which begins here.)
So I padded downstairs on my own and looked out our back kitchen window, toward the house to our east. That's where a local celebrity now resided. Fred Yancey, football coach at Briarwood Christian High, had led the Lions to their first state championship two days earlier.
I was surprised to see the offending canine in Fred's backyard, howling at . . . well, I have no idea what the dog was howling at. I just knew I had never heard a howl quite like that before. And I was surprised to see a dog in Fred's yard. Fred had never seemed like much of an animal person to me. He seemed to be mostly into God and football, not necessarily in that order.
(One of the great things about having Fred as a neighbor was that he was almost as useless as I was when it came to handyman things. I never had to worry about him developing a prizewinning lawn or otherwise showing me up in the "honey-do" category. Fred was a coach, end of story. On the home-care front, he was lucky if he could get the lawnmower started. I like guys like that. The neighbor on the other side, at the time, was another story. He built a deck on his house--himself. And I had a workman tell me one time that it was the best-built deck he had ever seen. In fact, the workman told me he couldn't afford to build a deck of that quality. I hated that neighbor.)
As my ears tried to adjust to the dog's howling, I noticed something else: Fred had fenced his yard. That's strange, I thought. The Yanceys were always very considerate neighbors, and putting up a fence is usually the kind of thing you mention to a neighbor before you start--just to make sure the fence is in the right place, etc. I didn't have a problem with the fence, but I was surprised Fred hadn't mentioned it. And here's something else I couldn't figure: Fred had been in the midst of trying to win the first state championship in his school's history. Seemed like a strange time to suddenly get a dog and fence his yard.
My wife still was hibernating, but I was dying to get her thoughts on these events. So I went upstairs and cranked up one of my old Alice Cooper albums. (She can sleep through Ted Nugent, but nobody sleeps through Alice Cooper--heh, heh.)
Once my wife was out of her "morning comatose" state, she looked out the kitchen window and noticed something else. "Hey, there's a strange guy out there." She was right. A thin guy with a mustache was standing in Fred's backyard, with the dog howling at full force. We'd never seen this guy before. But Fred often had members of his coaching staff over to his house, so I figured this guy must be an assistant coach. The Yanceys had a "mother-in-law" apartment in their basement. We thought maybe this guy was a new staff member and was living in the basement apartment while he got settled in.
The guy had gone indoors when we went outside to check things out. We stood on the edge of the driveway, and the dog came to the side of the fence nearest us. He was a handsome fellow, and he quieted down once he had company. We talked with him a little, telling him how good looking he was, the way we did with Murphy. He seemed to like that.
Then we noticed the guy, standing above us, on the steps of the deck. We said hello and introduced ourselves. We said he had a good-looking dog. "He doesn't normally bark this much," the guy said. We hadn't said anything about his barking.
We asked what kind of dog he was. "A shepherd/coonhound mix," the guy said. The coonhound part would explain the piercing bark. (We're dog people, so it's ironic that this little tale starts with a dog issue. But it certainly was not the dog's fault. Coonhounds really are not pets; they are working dogs, and they are bred to hunt. Sticking them in a small backyard, with little exercise and nothing much to do, is just asking for problems. We would soon discover that these people had no clue how to handle a dog like this.)
The fellow said his name was Mike McGarity. An unfamiliar woman appeared briefly on the deck, but she didn't come out to visit. I asked McGarity if he worked with Fred at Briarwood. "No, I work at Blue Cross and Blue Shield."
Oh, I guess you're just staying with Fred awhile? "Oh no, we live here; this is our house."
Well, Herve Villechaize could have knocked me over. There had been no for-sale sign in the yard. The Yanceys hadn't said a word to us about moving.
"Where did Fred and Sharon go?" I said.
"They moved to a house on the Briarwood campus. The school has a house, and that's where they are going to live."
McGarity didn't seem interested in having a lengthy conversation, and we were too stunned to say much, so we chatted a little while longer before saying our goodbyes. I do remember that I was wearing a University of Missouri sweatshirt, and McGarity noticed and said something about Larry Smith, Mizzou's coach at the time. "Wow, if he knows who Missouri's coach is, he must be a serious sports fan," I thought. I figured we'd get along great.
As we went back into our garage, my wife said something I will never forget. "Something about him doesn't seem right."
I was stunned. I'd never heard her say that about anybody. And the guy seemed fine to me.
"What do you mean?" I said.
"I don't know; something just doesn't seem right," she said. "Didn't you think it was strange that he stayed on the stairs, above us, the whole time and didn't come down to where we were? And his wife didn't say a thing? Isn't that unusual?"
"Well, maybe a little. Maybe they're just stressed out from the move."
"That could be. But the whole thing just seems strange."
Well, I've heard of a "woman's intuition." But I had no idea just how sharp my wife's intuition would prove to be.
The Serious Implications of Exxon Ruling
The fallout from the ExxonMobil ruling continues to build, and hopefully it will be a key step in returning some sense of balance to the Alabama Supreme Court. Maybe it will help ensure that someday the court actually will follow the law.
The court's ruling last week to throw out $3.5 billion in punitive damages the state was to receive from ExxonMobil has enraged many Democrats and moderates. The 8-1 vote was along party lines, with the lone dissent coming from the court's only Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb.
Experts are saying that the ruling should make Alabama judicial races, already among the most expensive in the nation, even more intense. William Stewart, political scientist at the University of Alabama, said the decision shows that "justice is partisan."
And Lauderdale County District Judge Deborah Bell Paseur became the first Democrat to announce that she is running for the seat that will be vacated by the retirement of Republican Harold See. In announcing her candidacy, Paseur noted the Exxon ruling and the "perception that justice is for sale." She also said she was troubled that the vote fell strictly along party lines.
Stay tuned here at Legal Schnauzer for much more about the ExxonMobil ruling. The decision is 125 pages long, so it takes a while to digest. And much has been written in the mainstream press about the case.
The ruling has generated a fair amount of outrage, but my initial research indicates the public might not fully realize just how unlawful the ruling was. It's one thing for a court to make an unpopular decision, one that generates high emotions from certain quarters. And it's one thing for a court to apparently favor business interests over the interests of average citizens. Those things aren't good, but they might not rise to the level of unlawful behavior.
But it's another thing for a court to take money from business interests and then intentionally rule in a way that is contrary to the facts and the law, to not even use the proper standard for appellate review. My early research indicates that the eight Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court violated their oath to uphold the law.
I want to research this matter before coming to conclusions. But my initial reaction is that this ruling is far worse, and has far more serious implications, than the public might imagine at the moment.
Just keep this in mind: Next door in Mississippi, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was indicted on federal corruption charges for allegedly taking financial favors from attorney Paul Minor and then ruling in Minor's favor. The case against Diaz proved to be preposterously weak, and he was acquitted. But that case shows that Supreme Court justices are not immune from prosecutions for federal crimes.
Of course, the Bush Justice Department won't do anything about the GOPers who dominate Alabama's Supreme Court. But perhaps, come 2008, we will have Democrats in charge of the Justice Department. What then? Will they care to examine the behavior of Alabama's justices in the Exxon case?
Does the Exxon ruling rise to a level to match, or even exceed, the charges against Diaz? That's a question all Alabamians should be asking themselves. And we will ask it here at Legal Schnauzer.
The court's ruling last week to throw out $3.5 billion in punitive damages the state was to receive from ExxonMobil has enraged many Democrats and moderates. The 8-1 vote was along party lines, with the lone dissent coming from the court's only Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb.
Experts are saying that the ruling should make Alabama judicial races, already among the most expensive in the nation, even more intense. William Stewart, political scientist at the University of Alabama, said the decision shows that "justice is partisan."
And Lauderdale County District Judge Deborah Bell Paseur became the first Democrat to announce that she is running for the seat that will be vacated by the retirement of Republican Harold See. In announcing her candidacy, Paseur noted the Exxon ruling and the "perception that justice is for sale." She also said she was troubled that the vote fell strictly along party lines.
Stay tuned here at Legal Schnauzer for much more about the ExxonMobil ruling. The decision is 125 pages long, so it takes a while to digest. And much has been written in the mainstream press about the case.
The ruling has generated a fair amount of outrage, but my initial research indicates the public might not fully realize just how unlawful the ruling was. It's one thing for a court to make an unpopular decision, one that generates high emotions from certain quarters. And it's one thing for a court to apparently favor business interests over the interests of average citizens. Those things aren't good, but they might not rise to the level of unlawful behavior.
But it's another thing for a court to take money from business interests and then intentionally rule in a way that is contrary to the facts and the law, to not even use the proper standard for appellate review. My early research indicates that the eight Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court violated their oath to uphold the law.
I want to research this matter before coming to conclusions. But my initial reaction is that this ruling is far worse, and has far more serious implications, than the public might imagine at the moment.
Just keep this in mind: Next door in Mississippi, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz was indicted on federal corruption charges for allegedly taking financial favors from attorney Paul Minor and then ruling in Minor's favor. The case against Diaz proved to be preposterously weak, and he was acquitted. But that case shows that Supreme Court justices are not immune from prosecutions for federal crimes.
Of course, the Bush Justice Department won't do anything about the GOPers who dominate Alabama's Supreme Court. But perhaps, come 2008, we will have Democrats in charge of the Justice Department. What then? Will they care to examine the behavior of Alabama's justices in the Exxon case?
Does the Exxon ruling rise to a level to match, or even exceed, the charges against Diaz? That's a question all Alabamians should be asking themselves. And we will ask it here at Legal Schnauzer.
Bob Riley's Double Standard
We have devoted considerable attention to Alabama Governor Bob Riley's bizarre attack on U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) following the recent U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
We used the term "irrational" to describe Riley's anger at the notion that Davis might actually fulfill his oversight duty and take a serious look at evidence the Bush Justice Department bases prosecutions on political motives.
Now we might use the term "colossal hypocrite" to describe Blowhard Bob. When the investigative shoe is on the other foot, and Democrats are in the cross hairs, Alabama's governor seems to be all for investigations.
Consider this quote from a February 12, 2002, article in the Mobile Press-Register. It came after reports that prosecutors had subpoenaed the personal financial records of then Governor Don Siegelman. And what did then gubernatorial candidate Bob Riley have to say about it?
"They say 'where there is smoke, there is fire,' and our state government is choking on a lot of smoke right now. Like all Alabamians, I'm tired of all the scandals and embarrassing things our state leaders do from time to time. It's time to clean that place up."
Now read that quote in the context of our recent post, the one about Riley making a call to a north Alabama newspaper publisher to ask him to stop reporting stories about corruption in the awarding of state contracts under the Riley administration. And don't forget this post, about Riley trying to get a second law firm involved in representing the state in the ExxonMobil case, apparently to benefit his son, the omnipresent Rob Riley
Pretty admirable of Blowhard Bob isn't it? Call for an investigation to "clean the place up" when a Democrat is in charge. Sneak around behind the public's back and quash investigations of wrongdoing when a Republican, himself, is in charge.
And maybe Blowhard Bob hasn't noticed, but things look pretty smokey under his administration these days.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Mark Fuller: Two-Timer
Let's return to the affidavit of Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, which casts a most unflattering light on U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who presided over the Don Siegelman trial.
Weeks makes a compelling case that Fuller tried to defraud the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) in 2002.
At the heart of the scheme was an effort to significantly enhance the pension benefits for Bruce DeVane, who had worked as an investigator for Fuller when Fuller was district attorney for Pike and Coffee counties.
Here was the gist of the scheme: In 1999, DeVane was paid $80,307. But in 2000, as he approached retirement, DeVane's pay was almost doubled, zooming to $152,014. Since state-retirement benefits are based on earnings in the highest three years during the last 10 years of work, that huge increase would have raised DeVane's retirement pay by $1,000 per month.
DeVane was 49 years old at the time, and if he lived the average life span expected for a man of his age, retirement officials estimate this one-year pay boost would cost RSA about $333,000.
How badly did Fuller want DeVane to get his extra retirement pay? Evidently bad enough to lie under oath.
In a letter to the RSA dated January 2, 2002, Fuller stated that the extra $70,000 he paid DeVane in 2000 was for additional duties the DA had requested of DeVane "beginning January 1, 1997. The letter also says the DA's office did not have the money to pay DeVane for this additional work until 2000.
When Fuller testified before the RSA appeal board on December 4, 2002, he had a different story. The extra $70,000, Fuller testified under oath, was for additional duties DeVane performed in the year 2000 only.
Why did Fuller change his story? Weeks' affidavit makes it clear. "If the entire $152,014 was paid for work in 2000 only, it would have substantially increased DeVane's average salary--causing DeVane's retirement benefits to increase another $1,000 a month for an estimated 330 months, or $330,000. However, if Fuller had stayed with the story he told in his letter to RSA dated January 2, 2002, his buddy DeVane would have received less benefits because the RSA would have averaged the $70,000-plus over the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000--lowering DeVane's final average salary for purposes of calculating benefits."
This all raises a fairly obvious question: Why was Fuller so determined to help DeVane get enhanced retirement pay?
Weeks' affidavit also shines light on that. On a trip to Alabama in February 2003, Weeks states that he heard that Fuller was frequently gone or out of state while serving as district attorney for the 12th Judicial Circuit. Sources told Weeks that Fuller rarely was seen in court, even though he served as DA for two counties, and he spent large chunks of time in Colorado.
Weeks makes a compelling case that Fuller tried to defraud the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) in 2002.
At the heart of the scheme was an effort to significantly enhance the pension benefits for Bruce DeVane, who had worked as an investigator for Fuller when Fuller was district attorney for Pike and Coffee counties.
Here was the gist of the scheme: In 1999, DeVane was paid $80,307. But in 2000, as he approached retirement, DeVane's pay was almost doubled, zooming to $152,014. Since state-retirement benefits are based on earnings in the highest three years during the last 10 years of work, that huge increase would have raised DeVane's retirement pay by $1,000 per month.
DeVane was 49 years old at the time, and if he lived the average life span expected for a man of his age, retirement officials estimate this one-year pay boost would cost RSA about $333,000.
How badly did Fuller want DeVane to get his extra retirement pay? Evidently bad enough to lie under oath.
In a letter to the RSA dated January 2, 2002, Fuller stated that the extra $70,000 he paid DeVane in 2000 was for additional duties the DA had requested of DeVane "beginning January 1, 1997. The letter also says the DA's office did not have the money to pay DeVane for this additional work until 2000.
When Fuller testified before the RSA appeal board on December 4, 2002, he had a different story. The extra $70,000, Fuller testified under oath, was for additional duties DeVane performed in the year 2000 only.
Why did Fuller change his story? Weeks' affidavit makes it clear. "If the entire $152,014 was paid for work in 2000 only, it would have substantially increased DeVane's average salary--causing DeVane's retirement benefits to increase another $1,000 a month for an estimated 330 months, or $330,000. However, if Fuller had stayed with the story he told in his letter to RSA dated January 2, 2002, his buddy DeVane would have received less benefits because the RSA would have averaged the $70,000-plus over the years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000--lowering DeVane's final average salary for purposes of calculating benefits."
This all raises a fairly obvious question: Why was Fuller so determined to help DeVane get enhanced retirement pay?
Weeks' affidavit also shines light on that. On a trip to Alabama in February 2003, Weeks states that he heard that Fuller was frequently gone or out of state while serving as district attorney for the 12th Judicial Circuit. Sources told Weeks that Fuller rarely was seen in court, even though he served as DA for two counties, and he spent large chunks of time in Colorado.
Weeks asked the U.S. Senate for a copy of the questionnaire Fuller completed as part of his confirmation process to become a federal judge. The questionnaire revealed that from 1989 to the present, Fuller was chairman and CEO of Doss Aviation Inc., headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The firm employed 300 people at the time.
"While Fuller was (supposedly) serving as a full-time district attorney for two Alabama counties between 1997-2002, he appears to have also been serving as chairman and chief executive officer for a 300-employee company headquartered in Colorado," Weeks writes. "This seems remarkable."
The questionnaire stated that Fuller received $58,972.56 in non-investment income from Doss for the year 2000. "This suggests Fuller was doing substantial work for Doss while supposedly serving as full-time district attorney in Alabama," Weeks writes.
So who made up for the time Fuller was away, two-timing Alabama taxpayers? Evidently it was folks like Bruce DeVane. "If Fuller was frequently gone . . . instead of performing his full-time duties as an Alabama district attorney, this could explain why Fuller paid questionable compensation and questionable bonuses to key DA office employees," Weeks writes. "These employees may have covered for Fuller while he was frequently out of the DA's office."
Weeks cites U.S. v. Lopez, 222 F. 3d 428 (2000) to show that Fuller might have committed federal crimes in making improper payment to DeVane and possibly others. Lopez involved a defendant who was convicted of conspiracy to embezzle and misapply credit-union funds and conspiring to execute a scheme to defraud. "The scheme also involved paying certain employees what were called 'bonuses' that were in fact payoffs for staying quiet and covering up," Weeks writes.
The affidavit goes on to note that the DA's office under Fuller was having extreme financial difficulties at the same time Fuller was handing out substantial "bonuses" to DeVane. (Note: Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported that Don Siegelman, as governor, asked for an audit on the DA's office where Fuller had served. This may have so enraged Fuller that he vowed to go after Siegelman.) "If Fuller's DA office was having financial difficulties, this would suggest that Fuller and DeVane were handling the DA office money for their own personal benefit, rather than for the benefit of the citizens of Pike and Coffee counties."
Finally, Weeks makes an intriguing point about the relationship between Fuller and DeVane, and the money that changed hands between them. "Any investigation of Fuller should also determine whether DeVane, who made his living investigating people and their crimes, had anything on Fuller. If so, this would explain why Fuller did so much to put so much public money into DeVane's pockets."
This all raises the question we asked in an earlier post: Does Mark Fuller sound like the kind of person who should be in a position of public trust?
Harper Lee and Dubya
Was anyone else nauseated by the sight of Alabama icon Harper Lee receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush?
As the author of To Kill a Mockingbird, Lee wrote perhaps the greatest American novel of all, certainly the seminal work on justice in the Deep South. And to see her receiving an honor from a president whose administration has left our justice system in tatters . . . well, it was hard for these eyes to take.
I'm sure Ms. Lee respects the office and the profound nature of the honor. But you have to think she was struck by the incongruity of her brilliant work being honored by a doofus like Dubya, a president who seems to take pride in the fact he rarely reads books. And you have to wonder what she thinks of her home state's persistent support of Republicans such as Dubya, Bob Riley, and the Supreme Court yes men for ExxonMobil.
Makes me want to puke.
As the author of To Kill a Mockingbird, Lee wrote perhaps the greatest American novel of all, certainly the seminal work on justice in the Deep South. And to see her receiving an honor from a president whose administration has left our justice system in tatters . . . well, it was hard for these eyes to take.
I'm sure Ms. Lee respects the office and the profound nature of the honor. But you have to think she was struck by the incongruity of her brilliant work being honored by a doofus like Dubya, a president who seems to take pride in the fact he rarely reads books. And you have to wonder what she thinks of her home state's persistent support of Republicans such as Dubya, Bob Riley, and the Supreme Court yes men for ExxonMobil.
Makes me want to puke.
Trashing the Alabama Supreme Court
Kudos to the Alabama Democratic Party for standing up and pointing out just how badly the Alabama Supreme Court screwed citizens by tossing out $3.5 billion worth of punitive damages in the ExxonMobil case.
Party chairman Joe Turnham said Republicans on the Supreme Court were "accomplices" for the fraud "(ExxonMobil) perpetrated against Alabama taxpayers,"
Mike Hubbard, state Republican Party chair, fired back, saying Democrats wanted to return the high court to the days when plaintiff lawyers and "jackpot justice" ruled. As usual, Hubbard is full of it. The punitive damages were three times compensatory damages in the case, in accordance with state caps put in place largely by pro-business interests. This was hardly a case of "jackpot justice," and Hubbard either is ignorant or intentionally trying to mislead the public.
Kudos also to Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, for an excellent piece on the ExxonMobil rulings. Wilson's piece includes a link to an AP interview with the jury foreman in the Exxon case. Elementary-school teacher Joe King said he was "completely shocked" by the Supreme Court ruling. "From the moment we walked into the jury room, we were ready to vote, and everybody voted against Exxon," King said. "The only thing we had to consider was the amount."
King also noted the deafening silence from the office of Republican Governor Bob Riley. "I've been listening every day for his reaction and haven't heard anything."
Party chairman Joe Turnham said Republicans on the Supreme Court were "accomplices" for the fraud "(ExxonMobil) perpetrated against Alabama taxpayers,"
Mike Hubbard, state Republican Party chair, fired back, saying Democrats wanted to return the high court to the days when plaintiff lawyers and "jackpot justice" ruled. As usual, Hubbard is full of it. The punitive damages were three times compensatory damages in the case, in accordance with state caps put in place largely by pro-business interests. This was hardly a case of "jackpot justice," and Hubbard either is ignorant or intentionally trying to mislead the public.
Kudos also to Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, for an excellent piece on the ExxonMobil rulings. Wilson's piece includes a link to an AP interview with the jury foreman in the Exxon case. Elementary-school teacher Joe King said he was "completely shocked" by the Supreme Court ruling. "From the moment we walked into the jury room, we were ready to vote, and everybody voted against Exxon," King said. "The only thing we had to consider was the amount."
King also noted the deafening silence from the office of Republican Governor Bob Riley. "I've been listening every day for his reaction and haven't heard anything."
Censors are out at AL.com
A reader wrote recently to tell me of an interesting experience she'd had with the Hoover Forum at al.com.
The reader had come across Legal Schnauzer because of several recent posts about the Hoover High School football controversy. When she posted about the blog on the Hoover Forum, her post was almost immediately deleted. She tried it again, and in her words, the second post was removed faster than you can say "Nazi moderator." They also banned her IP address from posting for 24 hours.
For scientific purposes only, I asked someone else to post about Legal Schnauzer. They had the same thing happen.
Our reader didn't see anything controversial or unusual about her post, or the contents of my blog. In fact, Legal Schnauzer is on al.com's list of Alabama blogs. So she wondered what would make them delete her post about my blog.
Here is my guess: al.com is associated with The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times, and the Mobile Press-Register. Those three Newhouse newspapers form the heart of al.com's news section.
The Birmingham News, and my references to Briarwood Christian High School, are probably the sources of the sensitivity. As I've noted several times, a strange real-estate transaction involving Briarwood coach Fred Yancey took place in December 1998, just as Hoover was searching for a new coach (a search that finished with the hiring of Rush Propst). Sources tell me that the real-estate transaction was hurriedly done, and pushed by Briarwood, evidently because the school was concerned about losing its coach (and possibly star players Tim and Simeon Castille) to another school. My guess is that school was Hoover High.
Could have been some other school, or there could have been some other reason for Fred Yancey's peculiar move. But the timing fits perfectly with the Hoover search. And because the real-estate transaction was done in a hurry, it also was done improperly, causing me the legal headaches that inspired this blog.
Evidence strongly suggests that Briarwood essentially handpicked my new neighbor, who turned out to be a guy named Mike McGarity--and he has at least eight criminal convictions in his background, even though he works at a reputable place, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. Interesting that a fine Christian institution such as Briarwood would associate with someone of McGarity's background.
My research suggests that Briarwood acted negligently in the real-estate transaction and was liable for damages to yours truly. I suspect Briarwood, or someone associated with Briarwood, might have done something to make McGarity unhappy with his end of the real-estate deal. Perhaps someone was liable to him, as well.
But somehow McGarity wound up filing a bogus case against me--on a claim he clearly did not have under the law--costing both me and him thousands of dollars. Was this done to keep him away from filing a possibly legitimate claim against Briarwood, or someone associated with Briarwood? Certainly curious.
Interestingly, the judge in McGarity's lawsuit against me--Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner--has a daughter who goes, or did go, to Briarwood. McGarity's attorney, William E. Swatek, has a son, Chace Swatek, who is a Briarwood graduate. By repeatedly making unlawful rulings and causing McGarity's lawsuit to drag on for five years, Joiner helped ensure that the statute of limitations ran out on any possible claim McGarity might have had resulting from the real-estate deal. Was this done intentionally? Don't know, but it passes the curiosity test with me.
The real-estate deal was done, I suspect, in order to keep Fred Yancey and the Castilles around and procure a championship football program for Briarwood. And it worked. The Lions are undefeated and ranked No. 1 in Class 5A.
But the folks at al.com, and The Birmingham News, don't want you to know about the slick little, under-the-table real-estate deal that led to my legal woes. After all, Victor Hanson II, the longtime publisher of The Birmingham News is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, and the school is a ministry of the church.
I suspect the real-estate deal all started because Hoover, innocently enough, expressed an interest in the Briarwood coach (and probably more importantly, its two star players, who were zoned to Hoover public schools, I believe).
So there, I think, is the reason al.com's censors are on the alert. But they aren't going to censor Legal Schnauzer. And the posts they don't want you to read are coming very soon.
The reader had come across Legal Schnauzer because of several recent posts about the Hoover High School football controversy. When she posted about the blog on the Hoover Forum, her post was almost immediately deleted. She tried it again, and in her words, the second post was removed faster than you can say "Nazi moderator." They also banned her IP address from posting for 24 hours.
For scientific purposes only, I asked someone else to post about Legal Schnauzer. They had the same thing happen.
Our reader didn't see anything controversial or unusual about her post, or the contents of my blog. In fact, Legal Schnauzer is on al.com's list of Alabama blogs. So she wondered what would make them delete her post about my blog.
Here is my guess: al.com is associated with The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times, and the Mobile Press-Register. Those three Newhouse newspapers form the heart of al.com's news section.
The Birmingham News, and my references to Briarwood Christian High School, are probably the sources of the sensitivity. As I've noted several times, a strange real-estate transaction involving Briarwood coach Fred Yancey took place in December 1998, just as Hoover was searching for a new coach (a search that finished with the hiring of Rush Propst). Sources tell me that the real-estate transaction was hurriedly done, and pushed by Briarwood, evidently because the school was concerned about losing its coach (and possibly star players Tim and Simeon Castille) to another school. My guess is that school was Hoover High.
Could have been some other school, or there could have been some other reason for Fred Yancey's peculiar move. But the timing fits perfectly with the Hoover search. And because the real-estate transaction was done in a hurry, it also was done improperly, causing me the legal headaches that inspired this blog.
Evidence strongly suggests that Briarwood essentially handpicked my new neighbor, who turned out to be a guy named Mike McGarity--and he has at least eight criminal convictions in his background, even though he works at a reputable place, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. Interesting that a fine Christian institution such as Briarwood would associate with someone of McGarity's background.
My research suggests that Briarwood acted negligently in the real-estate transaction and was liable for damages to yours truly. I suspect Briarwood, or someone associated with Briarwood, might have done something to make McGarity unhappy with his end of the real-estate deal. Perhaps someone was liable to him, as well.
But somehow McGarity wound up filing a bogus case against me--on a claim he clearly did not have under the law--costing both me and him thousands of dollars. Was this done to keep him away from filing a possibly legitimate claim against Briarwood, or someone associated with Briarwood? Certainly curious.
Interestingly, the judge in McGarity's lawsuit against me--Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner--has a daughter who goes, or did go, to Briarwood. McGarity's attorney, William E. Swatek, has a son, Chace Swatek, who is a Briarwood graduate. By repeatedly making unlawful rulings and causing McGarity's lawsuit to drag on for five years, Joiner helped ensure that the statute of limitations ran out on any possible claim McGarity might have had resulting from the real-estate deal. Was this done intentionally? Don't know, but it passes the curiosity test with me.
The real-estate deal was done, I suspect, in order to keep Fred Yancey and the Castilles around and procure a championship football program for Briarwood. And it worked. The Lions are undefeated and ranked No. 1 in Class 5A.
But the folks at al.com, and The Birmingham News, don't want you to know about the slick little, under-the-table real-estate deal that led to my legal woes. After all, Victor Hanson II, the longtime publisher of The Birmingham News is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, and the school is a ministry of the church.
I suspect the real-estate deal all started because Hoover, innocently enough, expressed an interest in the Briarwood coach (and probably more importantly, its two star players, who were zoned to Hoover public schools, I believe).
So there, I think, is the reason al.com's censors are on the alert. But they aren't going to censor Legal Schnauzer. And the posts they don't want you to read are coming very soon.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Sports Stars of Hoover
I wrote in a recent post about my fond memories of covering high school football in the Birmingham area, especially following the W.A. Berry High School Bucs of the late coach Bob Finley. Berry was the forerunner of Hoover High School, which has been heavily in the news recently due to alleged wrongdoing centered around football coach Rush Propst.
I wrote that Coach Finley's Berry teams usually were very good, although they produced only a handful of players who went on to play major-college football. At the time, I had a feeling I was forgetting some big-time athletes who had grown up in Hoover and played at either Berry or Hoover High.
And indeed, several others have come to mind. The first one I realized I had forgotten was Kurt Crain. Crain was a standout in both football and baseball at Berry (and I think he might have played basketball, too.) He went on to star as a linebacker at Auburn University and was drafted by the old Houston Oilers of the National Football League. I'm a little foggy about Crain's pro career, but I think he spent 2-3 years in the league.
I covered Auburn during Crain's time there, and I remember him as one of the smartest, toughest players on the field. Off the field, he was a nice guy and a great interview. All the sportswriters loved Crain. Just ask him one or two questions and sit back and let him fill up your notebook. And he didn't just babble. It was always thoughtful, insightful stuff.
Probably the former Hoover standout who has gone on to the most athletic success is Jeff Brantley. I don't remember much about Brantley as a football player. I think he was a quarterback, and I seem to recall that he shared the position with another kid--with Brantley being the thrower, and the other guy the runner. And Brantley definitely could throw. He went on to play baseball at SEC powerhouse Mississippi State and then went on to the pros, where he played 14 years and became one of the top relief pitchers in the major leagues. He now is a baseball analyst for ESPN.
Brantley, however, is not the most famous former athlete from Hoover. That title probably would have to go to Birmingham's own American Idol, Taylor Hicks. A 1995 graduate of Hoover High School, Hicks was a pretty fair basketball player during his prep days. But he has become much better known for his musical chops, gray hair, and "Soul Patrol" following.
Taylor Hicks has become quite a popular fellow in the Legal Schnauzer household. My wife is one of many "girlyfans" who flocked to the Gray Charles blog to catch up on the latest. (For some reason, Gray Charles is no more. Don't know what happened to it.) The wife and I were fortunate enough to catch one of Taylor's two soldout shows at the Alabama Theater on his first nationwide tour.
Excuse me for sounding like a wannabe writer for Rolling Stone, but I think the Taylor Hicks debut album is underappreciated by the public. It sold quite well, reaching platinum status (1 million units), I think. But neither of the two singles he released have caught fire. And that's too bad because I think the album is full of good stuff, including four songs that Hicks wrote or co-wrote. It bugs my wife that Chris Daughtry's debut record has produced 2-3 hit singles because she thinks (and I agree) that Taylor's album, overall, is stronger. And the fact we are from Birmingham makes us very objective observers, I'm sure.
The great thing about having a blog is that you can spout off about anything, even stuff you know very little about. So here's what I think Taylor's handlers need to do: Release another single and make it "Soul Thing." It's a somewhat autobiographical tune, the most "Taylor" song on the album. And it's been nicely funked up from the original version on his independent album. Follow that up with "The Right Place," another great "Taylor" song, one that originally was written for his musical hero, Ray Charles. And follow that with "Give Me Tonight," a catchy, infectious number that I thought was a sure hit the first time I heard it. The two singles released so far are good tunes, but they weren't the right ones to help the album catch fire.
Enough of being a rock impresario. But it was fun while it lasted.
I wrote that Coach Finley's Berry teams usually were very good, although they produced only a handful of players who went on to play major-college football. At the time, I had a feeling I was forgetting some big-time athletes who had grown up in Hoover and played at either Berry or Hoover High.
And indeed, several others have come to mind. The first one I realized I had forgotten was Kurt Crain. Crain was a standout in both football and baseball at Berry (and I think he might have played basketball, too.) He went on to star as a linebacker at Auburn University and was drafted by the old Houston Oilers of the National Football League. I'm a little foggy about Crain's pro career, but I think he spent 2-3 years in the league.
I covered Auburn during Crain's time there, and I remember him as one of the smartest, toughest players on the field. Off the field, he was a nice guy and a great interview. All the sportswriters loved Crain. Just ask him one or two questions and sit back and let him fill up your notebook. And he didn't just babble. It was always thoughtful, insightful stuff.
Probably the former Hoover standout who has gone on to the most athletic success is Jeff Brantley. I don't remember much about Brantley as a football player. I think he was a quarterback, and I seem to recall that he shared the position with another kid--with Brantley being the thrower, and the other guy the runner. And Brantley definitely could throw. He went on to play baseball at SEC powerhouse Mississippi State and then went on to the pros, where he played 14 years and became one of the top relief pitchers in the major leagues. He now is a baseball analyst for ESPN.
Brantley, however, is not the most famous former athlete from Hoover. That title probably would have to go to Birmingham's own American Idol, Taylor Hicks. A 1995 graduate of Hoover High School, Hicks was a pretty fair basketball player during his prep days. But he has become much better known for his musical chops, gray hair, and "Soul Patrol" following.
Taylor Hicks has become quite a popular fellow in the Legal Schnauzer household. My wife is one of many "girlyfans" who flocked to the Gray Charles blog to catch up on the latest. (For some reason, Gray Charles is no more. Don't know what happened to it.) The wife and I were fortunate enough to catch one of Taylor's two soldout shows at the Alabama Theater on his first nationwide tour.
Excuse me for sounding like a wannabe writer for Rolling Stone, but I think the Taylor Hicks debut album is underappreciated by the public. It sold quite well, reaching platinum status (1 million units), I think. But neither of the two singles he released have caught fire. And that's too bad because I think the album is full of good stuff, including four songs that Hicks wrote or co-wrote. It bugs my wife that Chris Daughtry's debut record has produced 2-3 hit singles because she thinks (and I agree) that Taylor's album, overall, is stronger. And the fact we are from Birmingham makes us very objective observers, I'm sure.
The great thing about having a blog is that you can spout off about anything, even stuff you know very little about. So here's what I think Taylor's handlers need to do: Release another single and make it "Soul Thing." It's a somewhat autobiographical tune, the most "Taylor" song on the album. And it's been nicely funked up from the original version on his independent album. Follow that up with "The Right Place," another great "Taylor" song, one that originally was written for his musical hero, Ray Charles. And follow that with "Give Me Tonight," a catchy, infectious number that I thought was a sure hit the first time I heard it. The two singles released so far are good tunes, but they weren't the right ones to help the album catch fire.
Enough of being a rock impresario. But it was fun while it lasted.
Six Degrees of Rob Riley
My wife deserves credit for a good line last night.
I was telling her about Scott Horton's post on the Alabama Supreme Court's ExxonMobil ruling, the one that shafted the state out of $3.6 billion in punitive damages. (I hope Mr. Horton appreciates the fact that he is at the heart of dinnertime conversation at our house.) Horton wrote that his sources say Alabama Governor Bob Riley had forced the lead law firm representing Alabama in the ExxonMobile case to engage the services of a second law firm, one with ties to his son, Rob Riley.
The first firm, which had been hired by former governor Don Siegelman, had seemed to be handling the case quite well, garnering a massive judgment on the state's behalf. But in another example of Bob Riley's questionable ethics, he evidently forced a second firm into the action. All evidently in order to benefit Rob Riley, who seems to pop up everywhere.
"You know," I told my wife, "Rob Riley is like one of those pimples that just won't go away. You think you've got it beat, but you wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and see this crater on your chin. It stares back at you and says, 'Hi, I'm Rob Riley.'"
Well, she topped me in the metaphor department. "He sounds like that six degrees of Kevin Bacon deal," she said. "You know, where Kevin Bacon has been in so many movies that almost everybody in Hollywood history can be tied to Kevin Bacon in some way."
She's right. Rob Riley is the Kevin Bacon of Alabama politics. But we owe sincere apologies to Mr. Bacon. He has been in some excellent movies. Hard to tell what Rob Riley has accomplished, other than riding daddy's coattails and having his highly suspect affidavit torn apart by Artur Davis in Congress.
But let's give the missus credit for coining the term: Six Degrees of Rob Riley. Has an interesting ring to it.
I was telling her about Scott Horton's post on the Alabama Supreme Court's ExxonMobil ruling, the one that shafted the state out of $3.6 billion in punitive damages. (I hope Mr. Horton appreciates the fact that he is at the heart of dinnertime conversation at our house.) Horton wrote that his sources say Alabama Governor Bob Riley had forced the lead law firm representing Alabama in the ExxonMobile case to engage the services of a second law firm, one with ties to his son, Rob Riley.
The first firm, which had been hired by former governor Don Siegelman, had seemed to be handling the case quite well, garnering a massive judgment on the state's behalf. But in another example of Bob Riley's questionable ethics, he evidently forced a second firm into the action. All evidently in order to benefit Rob Riley, who seems to pop up everywhere.
"You know," I told my wife, "Rob Riley is like one of those pimples that just won't go away. You think you've got it beat, but you wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and see this crater on your chin. It stares back at you and says, 'Hi, I'm Rob Riley.'"
Well, she topped me in the metaphor department. "He sounds like that six degrees of Kevin Bacon deal," she said. "You know, where Kevin Bacon has been in so many movies that almost everybody in Hollywood history can be tied to Kevin Bacon in some way."
She's right. Rob Riley is the Kevin Bacon of Alabama politics. But we owe sincere apologies to Mr. Bacon. He has been in some excellent movies. Hard to tell what Rob Riley has accomplished, other than riding daddy's coattails and having his highly suspect affidavit torn apart by Artur Davis in Congress.
But let's give the missus credit for coining the term: Six Degrees of Rob Riley. Has an interesting ring to it.
Republicans Under Fire?
An interesting editorial from that bastion of moderate thinking, the Mobile Press-Register.
The P-R's big point: With so many Republicans under investigation, the Bush Justice Department could not possibly be guilty of selective prosecution, of targeting Democrats for political reasons.
Our reply? Not so fast, fellas.
The P-R points to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and California Representative Randy Cunningham as examples of Republicans who have been exposed by the Bush DOJ. But my research indicates the P-R has a pretty weak case.
The Stevens case started with allegations in the Alaska state legislature and was heavily covered by the state's press. Hard for the Bushies to ignore that. The Cunningham case was so blatant, and again drew heavy press coverage, so it was hard to sweep under the rug.
Plus, I don't know that anyone has ever argued that all Republicans received favored treatment. It's "loyal Bushies" and those who can protect the administration's interests who seem to be protected. A Republican in an otherwise blue state, or one who perhaps supported John McCain, probably is fair game. And as we saw in the aftermath of the Karl Rove resignation, many Republicans are just as nauseated by the Bush administration as Democrats are.
The Mobile editorial goes on to cite the Jack Abramoff case to show that Republicans such as Conrad Burns (Montana) and J.D. Hayworth (Arizona) have come under fire.
Again, the case is weak. We suggest the Mobilians read Scott Horton's reporting on Noel Hillman, former chief of the U.S. Public Integrity Section, and his efforts to minimize the damage from the Abramoff scandal. Strong evidence suggests that the Abramoff affair could have been far worse for many Republicans, especially red-staters such as Alabama Governor Bob Riley, if not for Hillman's crisis-management skills.
And finally, we strongly suggest the Mobilians read the work of University of Missouri professor Donald Shields, who testified recently at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's hearing on selective prosecution. Shields said his review of 820 federal investigations from 2001 to 2007 showed that 80 percent targeted Democrats, while only 14 percent focused on Republicans and 6 percent on independents.
We repeat those numbers--80 percent Democrats, 14 percent Republicans.
Mobile, we have a problem. And we will return to the Shields study in a bit.
The P-R's big point: With so many Republicans under investigation, the Bush Justice Department could not possibly be guilty of selective prosecution, of targeting Democrats for political reasons.
Our reply? Not so fast, fellas.
The P-R points to Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and California Representative Randy Cunningham as examples of Republicans who have been exposed by the Bush DOJ. But my research indicates the P-R has a pretty weak case.
The Stevens case started with allegations in the Alaska state legislature and was heavily covered by the state's press. Hard for the Bushies to ignore that. The Cunningham case was so blatant, and again drew heavy press coverage, so it was hard to sweep under the rug.
Plus, I don't know that anyone has ever argued that all Republicans received favored treatment. It's "loyal Bushies" and those who can protect the administration's interests who seem to be protected. A Republican in an otherwise blue state, or one who perhaps supported John McCain, probably is fair game. And as we saw in the aftermath of the Karl Rove resignation, many Republicans are just as nauseated by the Bush administration as Democrats are.
The Mobile editorial goes on to cite the Jack Abramoff case to show that Republicans such as Conrad Burns (Montana) and J.D. Hayworth (Arizona) have come under fire.
Again, the case is weak. We suggest the Mobilians read Scott Horton's reporting on Noel Hillman, former chief of the U.S. Public Integrity Section, and his efforts to minimize the damage from the Abramoff scandal. Strong evidence suggests that the Abramoff affair could have been far worse for many Republicans, especially red-staters such as Alabama Governor Bob Riley, if not for Hillman's crisis-management skills.
And finally, we strongly suggest the Mobilians read the work of University of Missouri professor Donald Shields, who testified recently at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's hearing on selective prosecution. Shields said his review of 820 federal investigations from 2001 to 2007 showed that 80 percent targeted Democrats, while only 14 percent focused on Republicans and 6 percent on independents.
We repeat those numbers--80 percent Democrats, 14 percent Republicans.
Mobile, we have a problem. And we will return to the Shields study in a bit.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Perks of Prep Football
The Birmingham News today takes a look at the perks received by top high school football coaches in Alabama. The story comes on the heels of Rush Propst's announcement last week that he would resign at Hoover High School after the season.
Propst was alleged to have engaged in academic, financial, and personal improprieties at Hoover, and the News examines perks received by other top prep coaches. But the story might be most interesting for what it does not say.
The story focuses mainly on coaches at schools currently ranked in the top 10 in Class 6A. That conveniently leaves out Briarwood Christian High School, which is ranked No. 1 in Class 5A.
Why would the News not examine Briarwood Christian? Could it be because longtime publisher Victor Hanson II is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, and the school is a ministry of the church?
Could it also be that there is something about the football program that Briarwood boosters would prefer to keep hidden? Like the peculiar real-estate transaction that led Coach Fred Yancey, my former next-door neighbor, to move to a house on the Briarwood campus.
This move came in early December 1998, when Hoover High was looking for a new coach. Could Hoover have been interested in Fred Yancey and his two star players, Tim and Simeon Castille, who according to my research, would have been zoned to go to Hoover public schools at the time?
My understanding is that Fred Yancey received housing for about six years at little or no cost. I would say that's a pretty nice perk.
What did I get out of the deal? A neighbor with a criminal record and all kinds of legal headaches, partly caused by the hurried nature of Yancey's move. I don't feel too perky about that.
Think you will be reading about that in The Birmingham News? Nope.
You will read about it at Legal Schnauzer.
Propst was alleged to have engaged in academic, financial, and personal improprieties at Hoover, and the News examines perks received by other top prep coaches. But the story might be most interesting for what it does not say.
The story focuses mainly on coaches at schools currently ranked in the top 10 in Class 6A. That conveniently leaves out Briarwood Christian High School, which is ranked No. 1 in Class 5A.
Why would the News not examine Briarwood Christian? Could it be because longtime publisher Victor Hanson II is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, and the school is a ministry of the church?
Could it also be that there is something about the football program that Briarwood boosters would prefer to keep hidden? Like the peculiar real-estate transaction that led Coach Fred Yancey, my former next-door neighbor, to move to a house on the Briarwood campus.
This move came in early December 1998, when Hoover High was looking for a new coach. Could Hoover have been interested in Fred Yancey and his two star players, Tim and Simeon Castille, who according to my research, would have been zoned to go to Hoover public schools at the time?
My understanding is that Fred Yancey received housing for about six years at little or no cost. I would say that's a pretty nice perk.
What did I get out of the deal? A neighbor with a criminal record and all kinds of legal headaches, partly caused by the hurried nature of Yancey's move. I don't feel too perky about that.
Think you will be reading about that in The Birmingham News? Nope.
You will read about it at Legal Schnauzer.
A GOP Sacrificial Lamb?
A major story broke over the weekend in Birmingham. Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White was indicted on a variety of corruption charges.
The indictment charges that White received goodies for himself from an engineering contractor and an architectural firm doing millions of dollars of business with the county.
A couple of things jump out about this case here at Legal Schnauzer:
* White is a Republican, and I can't remember the last time the local feds--Alice Martin and Co.--went after a GOPer. They've gone after other county commissioners who were black Democrats--Chris McNair and Jeff Germany. And my guess is that it's only a matter of time before former commissioner and new Birmingham mayor Larry Langford is indicted for something. But White? A Republican? Could he be a sacrificial lamb so that Queen Alice and the gang can try to counter charges of selective prosecution?
* One of the charges is that a local architectural firm took White on free South Dakota hunting trips for at least seven years, all while receiving county contracts. That reminded me of a story I heard from a Birmingham lawyer about three years ago. When I told the lawyer what I had experienced from GOP judges in Shelby County, he wasn't surprised in the least. In fact, he couldn't suppress a chuckle. He said certain lawyers who practice regularly in Shelby County take the judges on hunting and fishing junkets to Alaska. My impression was that costs are picked up by the lawyers, who have cases before the judges. This lawyer, who was based in Jefferson County, said he soon was to face one of the favored Shelby lawyers in an estate-related matter in court. The Shelby lawyer had filed a weak case against this lawyer's clients, one that probably should be dismissed summarily. But this lawyer said things probably would not go well for his client. "What chance do I have against this lawyer?" he said. "I don't take the judges to Alaska."
The indictment charges that White received goodies for himself from an engineering contractor and an architectural firm doing millions of dollars of business with the county.
A couple of things jump out about this case here at Legal Schnauzer:
* White is a Republican, and I can't remember the last time the local feds--Alice Martin and Co.--went after a GOPer. They've gone after other county commissioners who were black Democrats--Chris McNair and Jeff Germany. And my guess is that it's only a matter of time before former commissioner and new Birmingham mayor Larry Langford is indicted for something. But White? A Republican? Could he be a sacrificial lamb so that Queen Alice and the gang can try to counter charges of selective prosecution?
* One of the charges is that a local architectural firm took White on free South Dakota hunting trips for at least seven years, all while receiving county contracts. That reminded me of a story I heard from a Birmingham lawyer about three years ago. When I told the lawyer what I had experienced from GOP judges in Shelby County, he wasn't surprised in the least. In fact, he couldn't suppress a chuckle. He said certain lawyers who practice regularly in Shelby County take the judges on hunting and fishing junkets to Alaska. My impression was that costs are picked up by the lawyers, who have cases before the judges. This lawyer, who was based in Jefferson County, said he soon was to face one of the favored Shelby lawyers in an estate-related matter in court. The Shelby lawyer had filed a weak case against this lawyer's clients, one that probably should be dismissed summarily. But this lawyer said things probably would not go well for his client. "What chance do I have against this lawyer?" he said. "I don't take the judges to Alaska."
ExxonMobil Decision Tramples Justice
Alabama voters have consistently favored Republican candidates for the state's appellate courts over the past 10-12 years. Many voters probably pulled the lever for the GOP without thinking much about how an overwhelmingly conservative court might someday affect their lives.
Well, as they say out in the country, the chickens have come to roost. And thanks to the corporate yes men on the Alabama Supreme Court, our state is now $3.6 billion poorer.
The episode also provides us with another chapter in the questionable ethics of Governor Bob Riley.
In wiping out punitive damages in a case involving ExxonMobil last week, the Alabama Supreme Court send a loud and clear message to other corporations: You can come to Alabama and foul our environment, steal from our treasury, and generally cheat us blind, and we will protect you.
The 8-1 decision, with the court's lone Democrat casting the only dissent, should not be a surprise, says Scott Horton, of Harper's. "The eight Republican judges on Alabama's high court who backed ExxonMobil were put in office with the money of the business community and the money of the oil and gas community," Horton says. "No matter what the eight judges say and do, they have left themselves open to the charge that they hold the interests of their corporate donors very dear, but not the interests of the people of Alabama. And it's unlikely that their electors intended that result."
My take? Alabama voters should have known this was coming. As John McCain says, elections have consequences. And Alabama voters are feeling the consequences of their own shortsightedness now.
It's been clear for more than 100 years that Republicans always favor corporate interests over working-class, regular folks. And the ExxonMobil case is just one of several involving oil-and-gas companies where Alabama is likely to get shafted by our business-friendly courts.
What about the future? I seriously doubt if the Alabama Democratic Party will effectively use this ruling as a tool with which to batter Republicans. And even if the party does try to spread the message, I doubt that many Alabama voters will change. Huge numbers of white voters in this state vote GOP because of perceptions about race, and I doubt that's going to change just because the state got screwed out of $3.6 billion.
As for Riley, Horton reports that his sources say the governor pushed the lead law firm representing the state to add another firm to the case. Sources say this second firm has close associations with the governor's son, Rob Riley. The governor evidently said that he would choose other counsel altogether if the first firm did not cut the second firm in on the action.
This of course would be a major violation of ethics law, but who is going to investigate it in Alabama? The Birmingham News?
Well, as they say out in the country, the chickens have come to roost. And thanks to the corporate yes men on the Alabama Supreme Court, our state is now $3.6 billion poorer.
The episode also provides us with another chapter in the questionable ethics of Governor Bob Riley.
In wiping out punitive damages in a case involving ExxonMobil last week, the Alabama Supreme Court send a loud and clear message to other corporations: You can come to Alabama and foul our environment, steal from our treasury, and generally cheat us blind, and we will protect you.
The 8-1 decision, with the court's lone Democrat casting the only dissent, should not be a surprise, says Scott Horton, of Harper's. "The eight Republican judges on Alabama's high court who backed ExxonMobil were put in office with the money of the business community and the money of the oil and gas community," Horton says. "No matter what the eight judges say and do, they have left themselves open to the charge that they hold the interests of their corporate donors very dear, but not the interests of the people of Alabama. And it's unlikely that their electors intended that result."
My take? Alabama voters should have known this was coming. As John McCain says, elections have consequences. And Alabama voters are feeling the consequences of their own shortsightedness now.
It's been clear for more than 100 years that Republicans always favor corporate interests over working-class, regular folks. And the ExxonMobil case is just one of several involving oil-and-gas companies where Alabama is likely to get shafted by our business-friendly courts.
What about the future? I seriously doubt if the Alabama Democratic Party will effectively use this ruling as a tool with which to batter Republicans. And even if the party does try to spread the message, I doubt that many Alabama voters will change. Huge numbers of white voters in this state vote GOP because of perceptions about race, and I doubt that's going to change just because the state got screwed out of $3.6 billion.
As for Riley, Horton reports that his sources say the governor pushed the lead law firm representing the state to add another firm to the case. Sources say this second firm has close associations with the governor's son, Rob Riley. The governor evidently said that he would choose other counsel altogether if the first firm did not cut the second firm in on the action.
This of course would be a major violation of ethics law, but who is going to investigate it in Alabama? The Birmingham News?
Friday, November 2, 2007
ExxonMobil 1, Alabama 0
Many Alabamians must have awakened this morning with soreness in their hindquarters.
That's because we took one up our collective wazoo from the corporate yes-men on the Alabama Supreme Court. Maybe this case will wake Alabamians up to what it means to mindlessly vote for Republicans to staff our appellate courts.
And for those who study the case, it should bring appreciation for former Governor Don Siegelman, now in federal prison on a corruption conviction that appears to be politically motivated.
The state's high court overturned a 2003 circuit-court ruling that ExxonMobil had committed fraud and owed the state $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a dispute over natural-gas royalties. In an 8-1 decision, the court awarded Alabama $51.9 million (plus interest) in compensatory damages and threw out all punitive damages, which made up most of the $3.6 billion verdict.
Guess who cast the lone dissenting vote on the high court? It's only Democrat, Sue Bell Cobb.
The Alabama Conservation Department had sued ExxonMobil, saying it had intentionally underpaid the state for royalties due from natural gas wells the company drilled in state-owned waters along the Alabama coast. The company argued that no fraud was involved, and the case was an ordinary contract dispute.
In 2003, a Montgomery jury agreed with the state's arguments and returned a verdict of $102.8 million in compensatory damages and $11.8 billion in punitive damages. Circuit Judge Tracy McCooey, citing U.S. Supreme Court guidelines, cut the punitive damages award to $3.5 billion.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in yesterday's ruling, slashed the compensatory damages to $51.9 million and threw out all of the punitive damages.
"When a powerful and politically influential corporate giant can get away with what Exxon did to the citizens of our state, it's truly a sad day for Alabama," said Jere Beasley, one of the state's attorneys.
This is a complex case, one that requires considerable study to understand. But my initial research indicates there was ample evidence of fraud, and the $3.5 billion punitive damages award should have been upheld.
Even the legal advisor for Republican Governor Bob Riley was shocked at the result. "I am extremely surprised at the decision, because under the facts of the case, I was relatively certain that there was fraudulent conduct, which would result in punitive damages," Ken Wallis said. "I'm shocked that the court found no fraud."
Why should Wallis be shocked? Corporate interests, the same ones who support Bob Riley, have bought and paid for our appellate courts. For Ken Wallis to say he's shocked at this result, is mindblowingly disingenuous. My guess? Riley and Wallis knew it was coming, and they are fine with it.
In fact, if Riley's hand-picked choice as chief justice (Drayton Nabors) had not been beaten by Cobb, the vote would have been 9-0.
Our previous governor, Don Siegelman, was not fine with it. He committed significant resources to fighting the case on the state's behalf. Of course, Siegelman can't do much about yesterday's verdict. He's busy cleaning toilets in a Louisiana federal prison.
The Riley administration shocked? Just how stupid do they think Alabama voters are?
Will Alabama voters ever wake up? Hard to tell. But this ruling is going to become a source of major attention on our blog, along with the Siegelman case, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.
By the way, my case involved some absurdities related to punitive damages. We will outline how Alabama's high court reacts to punitive damages assessed (wrongly) against a regular citizen compared to such damages assessed (probably correctly) against a corporate giant.
Way too many issues are involved in this ExxonMobil ruling to go into today. But this should be a profoundly important wakeup call to our state. And if the Alabama Democratic Party cannot take this case and use it politically to install some balance on our appellate courts, God help us all. They should use this case like a sledgehammer on the heads of Republican judicial candidates.
For those interested in learning more about the Exxon case, there is a ton of information out there. A good place to start is at the Web site of the Mobile law firm of Cunningham, Bounds, Crowder, Brown & Breedlove. That's the firm that Siegelman engaged to help Alabama fight for the money it was owed. Background on the case can be found here.
That's because we took one up our collective wazoo from the corporate yes-men on the Alabama Supreme Court. Maybe this case will wake Alabamians up to what it means to mindlessly vote for Republicans to staff our appellate courts.
And for those who study the case, it should bring appreciation for former Governor Don Siegelman, now in federal prison on a corruption conviction that appears to be politically motivated.
The state's high court overturned a 2003 circuit-court ruling that ExxonMobil had committed fraud and owed the state $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a dispute over natural-gas royalties. In an 8-1 decision, the court awarded Alabama $51.9 million (plus interest) in compensatory damages and threw out all punitive damages, which made up most of the $3.6 billion verdict.
Guess who cast the lone dissenting vote on the high court? It's only Democrat, Sue Bell Cobb.
The Alabama Conservation Department had sued ExxonMobil, saying it had intentionally underpaid the state for royalties due from natural gas wells the company drilled in state-owned waters along the Alabama coast. The company argued that no fraud was involved, and the case was an ordinary contract dispute.
In 2003, a Montgomery jury agreed with the state's arguments and returned a verdict of $102.8 million in compensatory damages and $11.8 billion in punitive damages. Circuit Judge Tracy McCooey, citing U.S. Supreme Court guidelines, cut the punitive damages award to $3.5 billion.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in yesterday's ruling, slashed the compensatory damages to $51.9 million and threw out all of the punitive damages.
"When a powerful and politically influential corporate giant can get away with what Exxon did to the citizens of our state, it's truly a sad day for Alabama," said Jere Beasley, one of the state's attorneys.
This is a complex case, one that requires considerable study to understand. But my initial research indicates there was ample evidence of fraud, and the $3.5 billion punitive damages award should have been upheld.
Even the legal advisor for Republican Governor Bob Riley was shocked at the result. "I am extremely surprised at the decision, because under the facts of the case, I was relatively certain that there was fraudulent conduct, which would result in punitive damages," Ken Wallis said. "I'm shocked that the court found no fraud."
Why should Wallis be shocked? Corporate interests, the same ones who support Bob Riley, have bought and paid for our appellate courts. For Ken Wallis to say he's shocked at this result, is mindblowingly disingenuous. My guess? Riley and Wallis knew it was coming, and they are fine with it.
In fact, if Riley's hand-picked choice as chief justice (Drayton Nabors) had not been beaten by Cobb, the vote would have been 9-0.
Our previous governor, Don Siegelman, was not fine with it. He committed significant resources to fighting the case on the state's behalf. Of course, Siegelman can't do much about yesterday's verdict. He's busy cleaning toilets in a Louisiana federal prison.
The Riley administration shocked? Just how stupid do they think Alabama voters are?
Will Alabama voters ever wake up? Hard to tell. But this ruling is going to become a source of major attention on our blog, along with the Siegelman case, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.
By the way, my case involved some absurdities related to punitive damages. We will outline how Alabama's high court reacts to punitive damages assessed (wrongly) against a regular citizen compared to such damages assessed (probably correctly) against a corporate giant.
Way too many issues are involved in this ExxonMobil ruling to go into today. But this should be a profoundly important wakeup call to our state. And if the Alabama Democratic Party cannot take this case and use it politically to install some balance on our appellate courts, God help us all. They should use this case like a sledgehammer on the heads of Republican judicial candidates.
For those interested in learning more about the Exxon case, there is a ton of information out there. A good place to start is at the Web site of the Mobile law firm of Cunningham, Bounds, Crowder, Brown & Breedlove. That's the firm that Siegelman engaged to help Alabama fight for the money it was owed. Background on the case can be found here.
DOJ Targeting Hillary Donors?
We have posted previously about an apparent Department of Justice campaign to investigate donors to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
And we noted that such a campaign might have been behind the prosecution of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, a major Edwards donor. The Minor case has been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, and documents related to the case were presented at the recent U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
Now we have a report that the targeting of Democratic donors might have been more widespread than was first thought.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that he when he originally posted on the subject, he received a number of comments saying his focus was "too narrow." Now Horton cites a recent Associated Press story about an investigation of a Hillary Clinton donor. This indicates that the scheme might indeed go beyond the Edwards campaign.
And we noted that such a campaign might have been behind the prosecution of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, a major Edwards donor. The Minor case has been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, and documents related to the case were presented at the recent U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
Now we have a report that the targeting of Democratic donors might have been more widespread than was first thought.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that he when he originally posted on the subject, he received a number of comments saying his focus was "too narrow." Now Horton cites a recent Associated Press story about an investigation of a Hillary Clinton donor. This indicates that the scheme might indeed go beyond the Edwards campaign.
Obstruction in Siegelman Investigation?
Why is the U.S. Attorney's Office in Montgomery refusing to turn over to Congress some 600 documents from the Don Siegelman case?
Probably because there almost has to be written evidence to show the case was politically motivated, according Scott Horton of Harper's.
A retired career Justice Department prosecutor notes the recent revelations that the two most senior career prosecutors on the Siegelman case believed there was no basis to bring criminal charges against the former Alabama governor.
The prosecutor says that means professional staff at the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the DOJ would have had serious questions for Montgomery-based U.S. attorneys who wanted to move forward with the case. And some of these questions, and responses, almost certainly would have been contained in e-mails.
Louis Franklin, U.S. attorney in Montgomery, says he made the decision to move forward, without a push from Washington. But Horton's source says the process of moving forward would not have been easy. "Franklin would have been required to put together a prosecution memo justifying why he thought a case could be made," the source says.
Why has that memo, and other documents, not been produced? Probably because they would point to the political nature of the prosecution, Horton says.
Horton's source goes on to ask a significant question. "Why isn't the conduct of the Montgomery U.S. Attorney's Office obstruction of justice? It sure looks like it. Congress has constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of their doings."
The source cites 18 U.S. Code 1512 and suggests that Congress develop a backbone and begin holding Franklin and others accountable for their obstruction of an investigation.
Probably because there almost has to be written evidence to show the case was politically motivated, according Scott Horton of Harper's.
A retired career Justice Department prosecutor notes the recent revelations that the two most senior career prosecutors on the Siegelman case believed there was no basis to bring criminal charges against the former Alabama governor.
The prosecutor says that means professional staff at the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the DOJ would have had serious questions for Montgomery-based U.S. attorneys who wanted to move forward with the case. And some of these questions, and responses, almost certainly would have been contained in e-mails.
Louis Franklin, U.S. attorney in Montgomery, says he made the decision to move forward, without a push from Washington. But Horton's source says the process of moving forward would not have been easy. "Franklin would have been required to put together a prosecution memo justifying why he thought a case could be made," the source says.
Why has that memo, and other documents, not been produced? Probably because they would point to the political nature of the prosecution, Horton says.
Horton's source goes on to ask a significant question. "Why isn't the conduct of the Montgomery U.S. Attorney's Office obstruction of justice? It sure looks like it. Congress has constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of their doings."
The source cites 18 U.S. Code 1512 and suggests that Congress develop a backbone and begin holding Franklin and others accountable for their obstruction of an investigation.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Havoc in Hoover (Cont.)
The biggest story in the Birmingham area, by far, remains the resignation of Hoover High School football coach Rush Propst and the surrounding controversy involving academic, financial, and personal impropriety.
We noted earlier that the Hoover High story has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer. So let's keep up with the latest:
* Fallout from the investigation is far from over. School Board president Sandra Frazier said more personnel decisions could be coming in the wake of retired judge Samuel Pointer's inquiry. The school system will not be able to truly move forward until those decisions, and a pending lawsuit by former Hoover High School principal Richard Bishop, are dealt with, Frazier says. Communities around the state are feeling the effects of the Hoover story. The Alabama Ethics Commission has received 12 to 15 inquiries from coaches and school boards about mandatory income reports. Former superintendent Connie Williams weighed in, saying she is disappointed that Propst still seems to be blaming others for the mess. "I find it unfortunate that obviously there are people in Hoover who still believe so much of what he says," Williams said.
* Names of possible candidates to replace Propst are beginning to surface. Those include Josh Niblett of Oxford, Bill Clark of Prattville, and Todd Watson of Foley. Ironically, Niblett and Clark recently have had issues connected to ineligible players and ethics forms, two matters that helped get Propst in hot water. People close to the situation say Hoover High still is considered one of the elite jobs in the state (and the nation), and the program is not likely to struggle on the field for long--if at all. "They're not going to let it fail," Birmingham-Southern College coach Joey Jones said. "But it's going to take a (head coach) to come in there and put it together." One problem is that high school does not have a permanent principal in place, so it is unclear who will lead the search for a new coach. One school board member suggested interim principal Ken Jarnigan lead the search, with the help of a committee made up of three parents (one representing freshman, sophomore, and junior classes), one teacher, and the athletics director.
* Speaking of Joey Jones, would he be a candidate? He's getting a Division III (non-scholarship) program off the ground at Birmingham-Southern and left Mountain Brook High School after 10 years for the challenge of the college game. But would he find the Hoover job enticing enough to return to the high-school level? Could Hoover pay Jones more than Birmingham-Southern is paying him? (My guess? Yes.) It would be hard to find a coach with a better reputation, in terms of both coaching ability and community-building skills.
* Birmingham News sports columnist Ray Melick says Hoover should go with someone who is familiar with the type of system that Propst used so successfully with the Bucs. That would mean a wide-open, spread-the-field, shotgun type of offense. Niblett, Watson, and Clark all fit that mold. Melick also threw out the name of Spain Park High School assistant Perry Swindall, who used a wide-open attack to build a powerhouse at Russellville High School.
* A number of Hooverites have expressed dismay about the conditions of Propst's exit--that he will stay in the school system until his resignation takes effect in August 2008, and he will leave with a generous financial settlement in hand. Some have said his transgressions were serious enough, and embarrassing enough to the city, that he should have been dismissed immediately, with no financial settlement. The Alabama Education Association and state tenure laws are to thank for Propst's exit package, says Tom Arenberg, sports editor of The Birmingham News.
We noted earlier that the Hoover High story has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer. So let's keep up with the latest:
* Fallout from the investigation is far from over. School Board president Sandra Frazier said more personnel decisions could be coming in the wake of retired judge Samuel Pointer's inquiry. The school system will not be able to truly move forward until those decisions, and a pending lawsuit by former Hoover High School principal Richard Bishop, are dealt with, Frazier says. Communities around the state are feeling the effects of the Hoover story. The Alabama Ethics Commission has received 12 to 15 inquiries from coaches and school boards about mandatory income reports. Former superintendent Connie Williams weighed in, saying she is disappointed that Propst still seems to be blaming others for the mess. "I find it unfortunate that obviously there are people in Hoover who still believe so much of what he says," Williams said.
* Names of possible candidates to replace Propst are beginning to surface. Those include Josh Niblett of Oxford, Bill Clark of Prattville, and Todd Watson of Foley. Ironically, Niblett and Clark recently have had issues connected to ineligible players and ethics forms, two matters that helped get Propst in hot water. People close to the situation say Hoover High still is considered one of the elite jobs in the state (and the nation), and the program is not likely to struggle on the field for long--if at all. "They're not going to let it fail," Birmingham-Southern College coach Joey Jones said. "But it's going to take a (head coach) to come in there and put it together." One problem is that high school does not have a permanent principal in place, so it is unclear who will lead the search for a new coach. One school board member suggested interim principal Ken Jarnigan lead the search, with the help of a committee made up of three parents (one representing freshman, sophomore, and junior classes), one teacher, and the athletics director.
* Speaking of Joey Jones, would he be a candidate? He's getting a Division III (non-scholarship) program off the ground at Birmingham-Southern and left Mountain Brook High School after 10 years for the challenge of the college game. But would he find the Hoover job enticing enough to return to the high-school level? Could Hoover pay Jones more than Birmingham-Southern is paying him? (My guess? Yes.) It would be hard to find a coach with a better reputation, in terms of both coaching ability and community-building skills.
* Birmingham News sports columnist Ray Melick says Hoover should go with someone who is familiar with the type of system that Propst used so successfully with the Bucs. That would mean a wide-open, spread-the-field, shotgun type of offense. Niblett, Watson, and Clark all fit that mold. Melick also threw out the name of Spain Park High School assistant Perry Swindall, who used a wide-open attack to build a powerhouse at Russellville High School.
* A number of Hooverites have expressed dismay about the conditions of Propst's exit--that he will stay in the school system until his resignation takes effect in August 2008, and he will leave with a generous financial settlement in hand. Some have said his transgressions were serious enough, and embarrassing enough to the city, that he should have been dismissed immediately, with no financial settlement. The Alabama Education Association and state tenure laws are to thank for Propst's exit package, says Tom Arenberg, sports editor of The Birmingham News.
* As for my personal connection to the Hoover High story, we will return to that very soon. This blog started as a result of my experiences with judicial corruption in Alabama's state courts. And those experiences started because of a fraudulent lawsuit filed against me by a troublesome neighbor (with a criminal history) over a property-related matter. And that lawsuit started mainly because my Neighbor From Hell managed to find a Lawyer From Hell (with a lengthy history of ethical problems with the Alabama State Bar), who had no problem filing a claim that had no basis in fact or law. And that lawsuit became a serious problem only because of a corrupt judge in Shelby County, who repeatedly made unlawful rulings that caused the case to drag on for about five years, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars. And I have long suspected that the judge acted corruptly because of his connections--and those of the Lawyer From Hell--to a certain suburban private Birmingham school that has become quite the football power over the past 10 years or so. And curiously, an odd real-estate transaction was taking place involving said private school's football coach in December 1998, which is exactly the time Hoover's last coaching search was heating up. And that odd real-estate transaction with the private-school's coach led directly to huge legal headaches for your humble blogger. It's a story that mixes three Southern passions--politics, religion, and football. So stay tuned.
The Value of Citizen Journalism
Thanks to Jonathan Dube for spotlighting Legal Schnauzer at CyberJournalist.net.
Dube covers our reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, noting numerous citations to the blog in documents filed last week as part of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
For those interested in learning more about citizen journalism, CyberJournalist.net is an excellent place to start. The site is packed with valuable information about a citizen-journalism movement that just blossomed over the past three to five years.
Here is a summary of material available at Dube's site.
As we move along at Legal Schnauzer, we will continue to follow developments in citizen journalism. Our tale of judicial corruption is the type of story that the mainstream press seems increasingly to ignore.
And numerous alternative journalists have shown the power of the Web in reporting the news. Dan Rather, Trent Lott, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig are just a few of the prominent public figures who could tell you about the power of nontraditional journalists to break stories and effect change.
Dube covers our reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, noting numerous citations to the blog in documents filed last week as part of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
For those interested in learning more about citizen journalism, CyberJournalist.net is an excellent place to start. The site is packed with valuable information about a citizen-journalism movement that just blossomed over the past three to five years.
Here is a summary of material available at Dube's site.
As we move along at Legal Schnauzer, we will continue to follow developments in citizen journalism. Our tale of judicial corruption is the type of story that the mainstream press seems increasingly to ignore.
And numerous alternative journalists have shown the power of the Web in reporting the news. Dan Rather, Trent Lott, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig are just a few of the prominent public figures who could tell you about the power of nontraditional journalists to break stories and effect change.
A GOP Voice on Selective Prosecution
An excellent wrapup today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, on the latest in the Don Siegelman case.
Perhaps most interesting is Horton's report that a prominent former Republican attorney general recently completed a network television interview on the Siegelman case. I assume this will be part of the 60 Minutes story that has been in the works for a while. The former attorney general apparently points out the many irregularities in the Siegelman case, including the fact that Siegelman has been moved around the country through the federal prison system. This has been done even though the best known facility for minimum-security prisoners in the United States is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, AL.
"But the Justice Department had another objective," Horton writes. "Silencing the man, assuring that he had no communication with the outside world. . . . It was something from a novel."
Horton goes on to say that a major television network (CBS?) has sought to tape an interview with Siegelman. The request was denied. When a former press aide sent Siegelman a memo with a note covering points he might want to raise in an interview, the letter was intercepted by Justice officials, and its contents seized. Siegelman received an empty envelope.
This is scary stuff, folks. It sounds like something out of Josef Stalin's gulag system. And Don Siegelman is not alone. I don't have a lot of details, but I get the impression Mississippi attorney Paul Minor is being treated in a similar fashion. My last report is that he is in Tallahassee, Florida.
If Congress ever truly gets to the bottom of the Bush Justice Department scandal, it probably will be because of honest Republicans who have seen enough. I'm talking about people like Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, whose affidavit first shined a serious light on the Siegelman case. Now a former GOP attorney general is joining the chorus.
Perhaps most interesting is Horton's report that a prominent former Republican attorney general recently completed a network television interview on the Siegelman case. I assume this will be part of the 60 Minutes story that has been in the works for a while. The former attorney general apparently points out the many irregularities in the Siegelman case, including the fact that Siegelman has been moved around the country through the federal prison system. This has been done even though the best known facility for minimum-security prisoners in the United States is at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, AL.
"But the Justice Department had another objective," Horton writes. "Silencing the man, assuring that he had no communication with the outside world. . . . It was something from a novel."
Horton goes on to say that a major television network (CBS?) has sought to tape an interview with Siegelman. The request was denied. When a former press aide sent Siegelman a memo with a note covering points he might want to raise in an interview, the letter was intercepted by Justice officials, and its contents seized. Siegelman received an empty envelope.
This is scary stuff, folks. It sounds like something out of Josef Stalin's gulag system. And Don Siegelman is not alone. I don't have a lot of details, but I get the impression Mississippi attorney Paul Minor is being treated in a similar fashion. My last report is that he is in Tallahassee, Florida.
If Congress ever truly gets to the bottom of the Bush Justice Department scandal, it probably will be because of honest Republicans who have seen enough. I'm talking about people like Rainsville attorney Jill Simpson, whose affidavit first shined a serious light on the Siegelman case. Now a former GOP attorney general is joining the chorus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)