Even when you are used to seeing it on a regular basis, the hypocrisy of The Birmingham News can still be jolting.
Take an editorial from today's paper (please!). The News huffs and puffs about the latest from Alabama's two-year college scandal, a story the paper loves, evidently because the wrongdoing involves mostly Democrats.
Listen to the "tsk, tsk" from the News:
"One of the dangers in reading about so much corruption is that you sometimes get jaded to it, so much that it's hard to be shocked and outraged when the next chapter unfolds on the front page. So excuse us while we pause to remind ourselves it's not business as usual when public servants enrich themselves at our expense."
Oh, really? When Bob Riley, Alabama's Republican governor, appears to be up to his neck in doo-doo, it's evidently business as usual--so much so that the News ignores it.
The story about Riley's possible violations of Alabama campaign-finance laws, both in 2002 and 2006, has been all over the Web now for more than three days. Has the News written the first word about it? Nope.
Let's review a few other stories about Riley's shenanigans that the News either has ignored or given only the most cursory of glances:
* Evidence that vote tabulations in Baldwin County were electronically manipulated, allowing the election to be stolen for Riley over Democrat Don Siegelman.
* Evidence that convicted felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon (a former Riley aide) helped funnel Mississippi Choctaw gambling money into Riley's 2002 campaign.
* Evidence that Riley has displayed blatant cronyism in his awarding of state contracts.
* Evidence that Riley had a quid pro quo arrangement with Huntsville supporters, which resulted in state support for a biotech center in Huntsville while stiffing the biotech infrastructure that already existed at UAB.
* Evidence that Riley's children, Rob and Minda, have improperly benefitted from their father's position as governor.
* Evidence that Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek has ties to Jack Abramoff and comes from a family with an almost 30-year history of ethical violations in the legal profession.
* Evidence that Riley instigated a criminal investigation against Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff in retaliation for Goff filing a lawsuit against Riley and others who allegedly took improper actions that ruined one of Goff's companies.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. The two-year colleges scandal is an important story, and Democrats involved in wrongdoing should be dealt with under the law. But that standard also should apply to Riley and his cronies.
Here's the bottom line: Compelling evidence suggests that Alabama has been ruled for about five years by a governor who was elected based on fraudulent tampering with the voting process. Evidence is even stronger that we've been ruled for five years by a governor who was elected with the help of unlawful activity.
Does this concern the braintrust at Alabama's largest newspaper? Evidently, not in the least.
Monday, December 31, 2007
A National View of Judicial Corruption
Just how corrupt was U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate in his handling of the Paul Minor trial, which has resulted in three men (an attorney and two former state judges) going to federal prison for crimes they did not commit?
That question, which we have examined in detail here at Legal Schnauzer, received national attention recently with a post from Scott Horton of Harper's.org.
Horton does not use the "C" word in his account. He uses somewhat more charitable language--"irregular," "unsettling," "doesn't look right"--to describe Wingate's shenanigans in the Minor case.
Horton's assessment of Wingate's performance can be summed up in these two statements:
* "Most judges would have shut down this prosecution at the start."
* "Every significant ruling by Judge Wingate in the case broke in favor of the prosecution. Some were truly breathtaking."
That's a kind way of saying Wingate, a Reagan appointee, acted corruptly in his handling of a trial that resulted in unlawful prison terms for three Mississippi Democrats.
We've been showing for some time on this blog that Wingate acted corruptly, and we will continue to show that when we soon begin a summary of our 25-part "Mississippi Churning" series.
What is shocking, or "breathtaking" to use Horton's term, is just how blatant Wingate was about it. He made little, if any, effort to cover up what he was doing.
I suspect that's because he knows that his actions will spark little, if any, outrage in the legal community. Lawyers, even the smartest and most honest among them, have a natural inclination to protect fellow members of the clan, at least a little. When Horton interviewed lawyers in Mississippi about the Minor case, many of them--even those who disagreed vehemently with the judges handling of the case--seemed to pull their punches. They were reluctant to call Wingate what he is: a crook.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I have no reason to pull punches. So I will say what lawyers will not: Henry Wingate is a dirtbag, and his actions probably rise to the level of criminal activity. Someone should look into impeachment proceedings against him, and he probably belongs behind bars.
Want to get an idea for just how corrupt Wingate was in his handling of the Minor case? Check out this post. Or here is another one, that shows Wingate actually used Mississippi state bribery law in order to get a conviction in federal court. I'm not making this stuff up, folks.
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced the Minor case at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution. Hopefully, he can lead the way on exposing Wingate, who is every bit as corrupt and evil as U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, the man who is largely responsible for unlawfully putting former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in federal prison.
That question, which we have examined in detail here at Legal Schnauzer, received national attention recently with a post from Scott Horton of Harper's.org.
Horton does not use the "C" word in his account. He uses somewhat more charitable language--"irregular," "unsettling," "doesn't look right"--to describe Wingate's shenanigans in the Minor case.
Horton's assessment of Wingate's performance can be summed up in these two statements:
* "Most judges would have shut down this prosecution at the start."
* "Every significant ruling by Judge Wingate in the case broke in favor of the prosecution. Some were truly breathtaking."
That's a kind way of saying Wingate, a Reagan appointee, acted corruptly in his handling of a trial that resulted in unlawful prison terms for three Mississippi Democrats.
We've been showing for some time on this blog that Wingate acted corruptly, and we will continue to show that when we soon begin a summary of our 25-part "Mississippi Churning" series.
What is shocking, or "breathtaking" to use Horton's term, is just how blatant Wingate was about it. He made little, if any, effort to cover up what he was doing.
I suspect that's because he knows that his actions will spark little, if any, outrage in the legal community. Lawyers, even the smartest and most honest among them, have a natural inclination to protect fellow members of the clan, at least a little. When Horton interviewed lawyers in Mississippi about the Minor case, many of them--even those who disagreed vehemently with the judges handling of the case--seemed to pull their punches. They were reluctant to call Wingate what he is: a crook.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I have no reason to pull punches. So I will say what lawyers will not: Henry Wingate is a dirtbag, and his actions probably rise to the level of criminal activity. Someone should look into impeachment proceedings against him, and he probably belongs behind bars.
Want to get an idea for just how corrupt Wingate was in his handling of the Minor case? Check out this post. Or here is another one, that shows Wingate actually used Mississippi state bribery law in order to get a conviction in federal court. I'm not making this stuff up, folks.
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced the Minor case at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution. Hopefully, he can lead the way on exposing Wingate, who is every bit as corrupt and evil as U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, the man who is largely responsible for unlawfully putting former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in federal prison.
Horton adds some important information to the Minor saga:
* He points out that federal prosecutors easily can time the return of an indictment to coincide with the availability of a certain, desired judge. This is a quaint form of judge shopping, which prosecutors almost certainly practiced to ensure that Wingate would handle the Minor case.
* He points out a key fact that we have addressed here at Legal Schnauzer: Wingate's jury instrution on bribery did not require a quid pro quo, even though Fifth Circuit precedent clearly requires such a "something-for-something" arrangement. This jury instruction, Horton says, was "unconscionable." I've got a better word for it: corrupt.
* He points out another key fact that we have noted: Wingate wrongfully did not allow the defense to present expert witnesses, showing that judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield made rulings that were correct under the law at the time. "Wingate was rather dramatically remapping Mississippi law as he went along," Horton writes. Bingo!
* He notes that Wingate allowed the jury to keep copies of the government indictment from day one, with no corresponding documents from the defense. And yet when it came to the complex jury instructions, Wingate did not allow jurors to have a copy of those. And the judge actually conducted voir dire examination of defense witnesses outside hearing of the jury, reviewing in advance what would be asked and how it would be answered. Wingate took a "blue pencil" to the testimony, "essentially doing the prosecution's work for them," Horton writes.
Henry Wingate's handling of the Minor case is a pox on American justice. Let's hope Rep. Cohen can lead the effort in the new year to expose scoundrels like Wingate, who have taught us the true perverted meaning of "justice" in the Age of Rove.
A couple of points I would add to Horton's account:
* This bears repeating: Not only did Wingate not get the law right in the Minor case, he did not even get the right kind of law right. He unlawfully used Mississippi state bribery law in crafting jury instructions for a federal case. That's a bit like getting convicted in South Dakota based on South Carolina law.
* Horton says he does not like the defendants' chances of winning on appeal in the Minor case, citing the GOP-controlled and notoriously partisan nature of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. If Horton is right about that, we might as well shut down our courts, blow up the law schools, tear up all bar cards, and start over from scratch. (Actually, I think that's a pretty good idea anyway.) This case, by law, has to be overturned on too many grounds to mention here. Democrats and others who are concerned about justice should watch this appeal with the utmost concern. Let me state again: By law, this case must be overturned on multiple grounds. If it is not, I would suggest that Congressional action must be taken.
* Here is an even more important point: Wingate was leading a trial that accused Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield of honest-services mail fraud. At the heart of that offense is using the U.S. mails in furtherance of an unlawful and dishonest scheme. We have shown that Teel and Whitfield did not even come close to committing that offense. But guess who almost certainly did? Wingate himself. Many of Wingate's unlawful rulings came in open court, in front of God and everybody. But if the U.S. mails were used at any point in his scheme to rob citizens of their intangible right to honest services--and Wingate had reason to foresee that the mails would be used--Wingate committed a federal crime. And the same would apply to any judges on the Fifth Circuit who vote to uphold the unlawful trial verdict in the Minor case. The mails certainly will be used in the appeals process.
* What about impeachment of a federal judge? That is a rarity in our country, and my research indicates it would be unlikely in Wingate's case. But the issue already is on the table in Wingate's neck of the woods. And naturally, the judge in the cross hairs is a Democratic appointee, by Bill Clinton. But compare the alleged wrongdoing of this federal judge to what we know Wingate has done. Whose behavior was worse. Given that Wingate is responsible for three human beings being wrongfully imprisoned, I don't think it's even a close call.
Could Exxon Ruling be Set Aside?
Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill is leading an effort to have the Alabama Supreme Court's ExxonMobil ruling set aside.
The ruling, in which the court overturned a $3.6 billion jury verdict for the state, could be set aside because an aide to Justice Tom Parker is not licensed to practice law in Alabama.
Parker wrote the Exxon ruling. But John Eidsmoe, one of Parker's senior staff attorneys, is not licensed to practice law in Alabama, Hill reports. If Eidsmoe prepared a significant portion of the opinion for Parker, the ruling could be void.
Here's a question: If Eidsmoe's participation could void the ExxonMobil ruling, would that apply to all rulings that involved a Parker/Eidsmoe collaboration? Wouldn't that be lovely to see hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases overturned because of a nutcase GOPer on our high court?
Come to think of it, I'm guessing Parker voted not to grant certiorari in my Legal Schnauzer case, violating his oath to uphold the law in the process. Hmmm.
Former employees of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, led by Hill, are seeking to have the ruling set aside.
Hill also provides this insight into Parker and the Exxon ruling.
For good measure, Hill adds this entertaining account of how things really get done in Montgomery, Alabama's seat of power.
The ruling, in which the court overturned a $3.6 billion jury verdict for the state, could be set aside because an aide to Justice Tom Parker is not licensed to practice law in Alabama.
Parker wrote the Exxon ruling. But John Eidsmoe, one of Parker's senior staff attorneys, is not licensed to practice law in Alabama, Hill reports. If Eidsmoe prepared a significant portion of the opinion for Parker, the ruling could be void.
Here's a question: If Eidsmoe's participation could void the ExxonMobil ruling, would that apply to all rulings that involved a Parker/Eidsmoe collaboration? Wouldn't that be lovely to see hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases overturned because of a nutcase GOPer on our high court?
Come to think of it, I'm guessing Parker voted not to grant certiorari in my Legal Schnauzer case, violating his oath to uphold the law in the process. Hmmm.
Former employees of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, led by Hill, are seeking to have the ruling set aside.
Hill also provides this insight into Parker and the Exxon ruling.
For good measure, Hill adds this entertaining account of how things really get done in Montgomery, Alabama's seat of power.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Will Real Campaign Manager Please Stand Up?
One of many interesting questions raised by the Montgomery Independent's stories on Bob Riley's flirtations with Alabama's campaign-finance laws is this: Who in the heck was Riley's campaign manager in 2006?
One of the Independent's stories says Riley's son, Rob Riley, managed both his 2002 and 2006 campaigns.
But it has been widely reported on the Web that Montgomery-based GOP "consultant" Dax Swatek was campaign manager for Riley's re-election bid in '06.
So which is it? Is Rob Riley trying to deflect attention away from Swatek for some reason? Did Swatek puff up his resume in order to get a short-lived position with the John McCain campaign? Did Bob Riley have more than one campaign manager in '06?
Dax Swatek, of course, is the son of Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that led to numerous unlawful rulings by Republican state judges in Alabama--and to the blog you are now reading.
If Dax Swatek did not fall far from the tree, one has to wonder about his ethics. William E. Swatek has a 30-year record of unethical behavior in his law career. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, etc. He also has been tried for perjury in criminal court.
We will be going into Bill Swatek's sleazy history in painstaking detail here at Legal Schnauzer. And keep this point in mind: This dirtbag attorney has been repeatedly protected by GOP judges in Alabama, both at the trial-court level in Shelby County and at the appellate level.
Even the Alabama Supreme Court, the same Republican-packed body that screwed the state out of a $3.6 billion ruling against oil giant ExxonMobil, has made unlawful rulings in order to protect Bill Swatek from being held accountable for filing a lawsuit that had no basis in fact or law.
Is that because Bill Swatek is Dax Swatek's daddy, and the Daxter has close ties to the Bob Riley camp? We'll lay out the story, and you be the judge.
After all, it will be interesting to see if Dax Swatek winds up in the middle of Riley's campaign-finance mess. Given his father's history, it shouldn't be surprising if Dax Swatek winds up connected to something sleazy.
In fact, the Daxter's fingerprints already have been found in some interesting places. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, has noted the Daxter's connections to Jack Abramoff. And it was the flow of Abramoff money to the Riley campaign that might have led to the latest allegations involving use of planes and improper reporting of campaign finances.
Will Dax Swatek wind up adding mud to his family's already less-than-stellar reputation? Stay tuned.
One of the Independent's stories says Riley's son, Rob Riley, managed both his 2002 and 2006 campaigns.
But it has been widely reported on the Web that Montgomery-based GOP "consultant" Dax Swatek was campaign manager for Riley's re-election bid in '06.
So which is it? Is Rob Riley trying to deflect attention away from Swatek for some reason? Did Swatek puff up his resume in order to get a short-lived position with the John McCain campaign? Did Bob Riley have more than one campaign manager in '06?
Dax Swatek, of course, is the son of Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that led to numerous unlawful rulings by Republican state judges in Alabama--and to the blog you are now reading.
If Dax Swatek did not fall far from the tree, one has to wonder about his ethics. William E. Swatek has a 30-year record of unethical behavior in his law career. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, etc. He also has been tried for perjury in criminal court.
We will be going into Bill Swatek's sleazy history in painstaking detail here at Legal Schnauzer. And keep this point in mind: This dirtbag attorney has been repeatedly protected by GOP judges in Alabama, both at the trial-court level in Shelby County and at the appellate level.
Even the Alabama Supreme Court, the same Republican-packed body that screwed the state out of a $3.6 billion ruling against oil giant ExxonMobil, has made unlawful rulings in order to protect Bill Swatek from being held accountable for filing a lawsuit that had no basis in fact or law.
Is that because Bill Swatek is Dax Swatek's daddy, and the Daxter has close ties to the Bob Riley camp? We'll lay out the story, and you be the judge.
After all, it will be interesting to see if Dax Swatek winds up in the middle of Riley's campaign-finance mess. Given his father's history, it shouldn't be surprising if Dax Swatek winds up connected to something sleazy.
In fact, the Daxter's fingerprints already have been found in some interesting places. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, has noted the Daxter's connections to Jack Abramoff. And it was the flow of Abramoff money to the Riley campaign that might have led to the latest allegations involving use of planes and improper reporting of campaign finances.
Will Dax Swatek wind up adding mud to his family's already less-than-stellar reputation? Stay tuned.
Will Riley Story Have Legs?
A gritty small Alabama newspaper breaks a major story two days ago about the state's Republican governor possibly violating campaign-finance laws in 2002 and 2006.
A major Web news site, Raw Story, quickly picks up on the news broken by the Montgomery Independent and reporter Bob Gambacurta. A number of Alabama bloggers--Highway 431, Left in Alabama, Locust Fork News, Legal Schnauzer--soon follow suit. A nationally prominent blogger, Scott Horton of Harper's.org, picks up on the story and provides important analysis and context. So does another key national blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely.
So where are Alabama's major daily newspapers in all of this? Missing in action, apparently. And that should be no surprise to those of us who have seen the concerted effort by The Birmingham News, Mobile Press-Register, Huntsville Times, and Montgomery Advertiser to ignore the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal.
But why would these paragons of Alabama journalism be interested? After all, the nationwide DOJ scandal only has its roots in Alabama, courtesy of the partisan prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
And the latest story about current Governor Bob Riley (a Republican) and his apparent efforts to skirt campaign-finance laws? The Birmingham News hasn't touched it. If the other three papers have done anything, it isn't readily apparent from checking their Web sites.
How long will the state's major papers ignore the story? And if they do decide to tackle it, what approaches will they take to cover up any possible wrongdoing by the Riley crowd? Can't wait to see if ace "attack chihuahua" Brett Blackledge will jump on this for the News.
What does the Montgomery Independent's scoop mean? For one, it seems to grow from the dispute between Riley and Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff. A former Riley supporter, Goff has sued Riley and others for allegedly conspiring to ruin one of his companies. Riley appears to have retaliated by encouraging a criminal investigation of Goff.
Horton notes the close connections between Goff's account of his dealings with the Riley bunch and the account of Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate, another former Riley backer.
And Horton notes the connections between this story and GOP efforts to remove Siegelman from office. But Horton goes even further:
"They were an effort to obliterate the state's democratic process. And they were pulled off with remarkable aplomb and considerable cover, courtesy of a mass market print media which failed miserably in its duty of critical inquiry."
Alexandrovna's account raises a number of interesting questions. She asks if other former Riley associates--John Giles, once head of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, and attorney Hoyt Baugh--might decide to start singing some interesting songs. She also wonders if Riley's children--Rob and Minda--might also wind up being heavily involved in Plane-Gate.
Here is an excellent wrapup at Left in Alabama, with links to work by a number of bloggers.
A major Web news site, Raw Story, quickly picks up on the news broken by the Montgomery Independent and reporter Bob Gambacurta. A number of Alabama bloggers--Highway 431, Left in Alabama, Locust Fork News, Legal Schnauzer--soon follow suit. A nationally prominent blogger, Scott Horton of Harper's.org, picks up on the story and provides important analysis and context. So does another key national blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely.
So where are Alabama's major daily newspapers in all of this? Missing in action, apparently. And that should be no surprise to those of us who have seen the concerted effort by The Birmingham News, Mobile Press-Register, Huntsville Times, and Montgomery Advertiser to ignore the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal.
But why would these paragons of Alabama journalism be interested? After all, the nationwide DOJ scandal only has its roots in Alabama, courtesy of the partisan prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
And the latest story about current Governor Bob Riley (a Republican) and his apparent efforts to skirt campaign-finance laws? The Birmingham News hasn't touched it. If the other three papers have done anything, it isn't readily apparent from checking their Web sites.
How long will the state's major papers ignore the story? And if they do decide to tackle it, what approaches will they take to cover up any possible wrongdoing by the Riley crowd? Can't wait to see if ace "attack chihuahua" Brett Blackledge will jump on this for the News.
What does the Montgomery Independent's scoop mean? For one, it seems to grow from the dispute between Riley and Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff. A former Riley supporter, Goff has sued Riley and others for allegedly conspiring to ruin one of his companies. Riley appears to have retaliated by encouraging a criminal investigation of Goff.
Horton notes the close connections between Goff's account of his dealings with the Riley bunch and the account of Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate, another former Riley backer.
And Horton notes the connections between this story and GOP efforts to remove Siegelman from office. But Horton goes even further:
"They were an effort to obliterate the state's democratic process. And they were pulled off with remarkable aplomb and considerable cover, courtesy of a mass market print media which failed miserably in its duty of critical inquiry."
Alexandrovna's account raises a number of interesting questions. She asks if other former Riley associates--John Giles, once head of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, and attorney Hoyt Baugh--might decide to start singing some interesting songs. She also wonders if Riley's children--Rob and Minda--might also wind up being heavily involved in Plane-Gate.
Here is an excellent wrapup at Left in Alabama, with links to work by a number of bloggers.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Did Riley Violate Campaign Finance Laws?
Alabama Governor Bob Riley might have attempted to conceal illegal corporate donations to his 2002 and 2006 campaigns by representing them in campaign-finance reports as having come from individuals, according to reports by the Montgomery Independent and Raw Story.
This story could have important connections to the unlawful actions by Republican Alabama state judges, which are at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer blog. The campaign manager for Riley's 2006 re-election campaign was Montgomery-based consultant Dax Swatek.
Swatek's father, William E. Swatek, filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me that touched off what we have come to call the Legal Schnauzer case. That case has involved multiple unlawful rulings by Republican judges in Shelby County, Alabama, plus unlawful affirmances by the state's Republican-packed appellate courts.
Dax Swatek has raised funds for at least one Alabama appellate judge, Glenn Murdock, who refused to recuse himself from my case and then voted unlawfully to uphold a lower-court ruling favoring Dax Swatek's father.
Bob Riley went on national television following the disappearance in Aruba of Alabama resident Natalee Holloway, calling for a travel boycott of Aruba and stating that he wanted to know about any irregularities citizens have experienced in Alabama's justice system. The Riley administration has taken no action on multiple e-mails I have sent regarding unlawful actions by Alabama judges that favored William E. Swatek, the father of Riley's campaign manager.
Dax Swatek also served as campaign manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Martin now is U.S. attorney in Birmingham, and she has taken affirmative steps to ensure that federal crimes committed in my case have been covered up. You will recall that Martin brought the first case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which was thrown out by a federal judge. Siegelman later was convicted in a second case, tried in Montgomery.
As campaign manager for Riley's 2006 campaign, Dax Swatek could be responsible for any violations of campaign-finance laws.
Raw Story's Muriel Kane reports that the Montgomery Independent found that the Riley campaign in 2006 reported the use of airplanes owned by two corporations as if they were personal "in-kind" donations from the presidents of these corporations. The campaign also listed
the provision of an advertising billboard as a personal donation from the president of the ad agency. Together, these in-kind donations had a value of more than $25,000, far beyond the $500 limit allowed for any one corporation in a single election cycle.
Bob Martin, publisher of the Independent, has called for further investigation of the matter, stating in an editorial, "The question which stands out front-and-center is whether or not the listing of individuals instead of the true corporate donors was intentional, as in to bypass the legal limits on corporate donations, or was just a mistake in reporting."
If Riley is not able to clear himself in the matter, Martin says he is prepared to call for legal action, noting the violation of the law, if not refuted, is "just as serious as the matters for which former Gov. Don Siegelman was convicted."
Kane notes that Raw Story is conducting an ongoing investigation into the 2002 Alabama governor's election, in which Riley pulled ahead of Siegelman based on mysterious changing vote totals in Republican stronghold Baldwin County.
Links to the original Independent story and editorial can be accessed through the Raw Story link above.
The Independent story is written by reporter Bob Gambacurta, who we recently praised here at Legal Schnauzer for his work on the case involving Riley and insurance executive John W. Goff.
This story could have important connections to the unlawful actions by Republican Alabama state judges, which are at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer blog. The campaign manager for Riley's 2006 re-election campaign was Montgomery-based consultant Dax Swatek.
Swatek's father, William E. Swatek, filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me that touched off what we have come to call the Legal Schnauzer case. That case has involved multiple unlawful rulings by Republican judges in Shelby County, Alabama, plus unlawful affirmances by the state's Republican-packed appellate courts.
Dax Swatek has raised funds for at least one Alabama appellate judge, Glenn Murdock, who refused to recuse himself from my case and then voted unlawfully to uphold a lower-court ruling favoring Dax Swatek's father.
Bob Riley went on national television following the disappearance in Aruba of Alabama resident Natalee Holloway, calling for a travel boycott of Aruba and stating that he wanted to know about any irregularities citizens have experienced in Alabama's justice system. The Riley administration has taken no action on multiple e-mails I have sent regarding unlawful actions by Alabama judges that favored William E. Swatek, the father of Riley's campaign manager.
Dax Swatek also served as campaign manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Martin now is U.S. attorney in Birmingham, and she has taken affirmative steps to ensure that federal crimes committed in my case have been covered up. You will recall that Martin brought the first case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which was thrown out by a federal judge. Siegelman later was convicted in a second case, tried in Montgomery.
As campaign manager for Riley's 2006 campaign, Dax Swatek could be responsible for any violations of campaign-finance laws.
Raw Story's Muriel Kane reports that the Montgomery Independent found that the Riley campaign in 2006 reported the use of airplanes owned by two corporations as if they were personal "in-kind" donations from the presidents of these corporations. The campaign also listed
the provision of an advertising billboard as a personal donation from the president of the ad agency. Together, these in-kind donations had a value of more than $25,000, far beyond the $500 limit allowed for any one corporation in a single election cycle.
Bob Martin, publisher of the Independent, has called for further investigation of the matter, stating in an editorial, "The question which stands out front-and-center is whether or not the listing of individuals instead of the true corporate donors was intentional, as in to bypass the legal limits on corporate donations, or was just a mistake in reporting."
If Riley is not able to clear himself in the matter, Martin says he is prepared to call for legal action, noting the violation of the law, if not refuted, is "just as serious as the matters for which former Gov. Don Siegelman was convicted."
Kane notes that Raw Story is conducting an ongoing investigation into the 2002 Alabama governor's election, in which Riley pulled ahead of Siegelman based on mysterious changing vote totals in Republican stronghold Baldwin County.
Links to the original Independent story and editorial can be accessed through the Raw Story link above.
The Independent story is written by reporter Bob Gambacurta, who we recently praised here at Legal Schnauzer for his work on the case involving Riley and insurance executive John W. Goff.
Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex
Justice and the Presidential Campaign
Have I missed something or have the presidential candidates been awfully quiet about the Bush Justice Department scandal?
You can understand why Rudy, Romney, Huckabee & Co. would be quiet about it? But why haven't Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards made more of an issue of it? Heck, there is strong evidence to suggest that Edwards and Clinton donors were specifically targeted by the Bush DOJ. Shouldn't that irk the candidates just a bit?
A strong argument could be made that this is the single most important domestic issue out there. We have at least four Democrats--Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield--being held political prisoner. This is in the US of A folks, and Democratic candidates do not see this as worthy of discussion?
Perhaps the most important decision a Democratic president could make in 2009 would be the appointment of an attorney general. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear who the candidates might nominate? What do they think should be done about the trashing of one of our most treasured institutions--the justice department?
And by the way, who would be good AG candidates in a Democratic administration? Eliot Spitzer? Patrick Fitzgerald?
By God, if Ellen Brooks would get off her duff and get moving down in Montgomery County, Alabama, I would support her for AG. Ms. Brooks, our friend Robby Scott Hill says you have the authority to go after some of the Republican sleazebags who have turned Alabama into a justice cesspool. Are you ready to go, girl?
Putin? Person of the Year?
What on earth was Time magazine thinking when it named Russian president Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year?
If there ever was an open-and-shut candidate for Person of the Year, it came in 2007--and his name is Al Gore. He's won a Nobel prize, an Emmy, and an Oscar. He has led the effort to build public awareness on global warming--the single most important issue of this, or any other, age. And perhaps his greatest achievement is the utter dignity and class with which he has handled being the victim of perhaps the biggest screw job in modern times--the U.S. Supreme Court's gift wrapping of the presidency for George W. Bush in 2000.
And Time picks Vladimir Putin? Something tells me the Time folks did not want to put up with the grief they would have taken from right wingers for making the obvious choice of Gore.
Fred Hiatt, of the Washington Post, has an interesting take on the pick of Putin.
Citizen Stands Up to Riley
Let's hear it for Fred Plump, of Fairfield, Alabama, who has the spine to stand up to Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Plump filed a lawsuit against Riley, claiming the governor lacked jurisdiction to name a replacement to the Jefferson County Commission seat left vacant when Larry Langford became Birmingham mayor.
The case is set for hearing Jan. 15 before a three-judge panel in Montgomery. If legal precedent counts, this should be a no-brainer. As we noted in an earlier post, Riley tried to pull a similar stunt in Mobile, and a federal court overruled him. Evidently the governor is hard-headed, just like a certain resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Now normal people, with Congress investigating the Bush Justice Department, would straighten up and fly right. But Fuller, Riley & Co. are not normal people. They are on a mission from God. And they will never change unless Democrats in Congress gird their loins and fight to take back our country's justice system.
Republican sleazebags have a deep sense of entitlement--that they deserve to run things, especially in the South. And they will not give that up lightly. If Congressional Democrats are not prepared for the fight of their lives, Republicans will go on running roughshod over the Constitution.
If I've learned one thing from my almost 30 years of living in the South, it is this: Southerners flat out know how to fight. The Civil War should have been the biggest mismatch in the history of man. But the Rebs were mean as rattlesnakes, and they were tougher fighters than the Yanks. If the resources on the two sides had been remotely equal, we would all be whistling Dixie right now. And why do you think Southerners are so good at all the sports that involve violence--football, stock-car racing (OK, hockey's an exception)?
And Southerners love a winner who doesn't mind breaking a few rules to get his way. Heck, it's no accident that the two cheatingest conferences in the history of college football are the old Southwest Conference (based mostly in Texas) and the Southeastern Conference, with headquarters in Birmingham.
Guys like Fuller and Riley--and George W. Bush, for that matter--know this. That's why they cloak themselves in religion and righteousness and feel perfectly fine about treating the law as their personal plaything.
Here's a thought: On Christmas Eve, I would bet my mortgage that Fuller and Riley and their kindred souls were at various church services, drinking in the Holy Spirit. Did it ever occur to them that they were responsible for imprisoning innocent people? Did they feel the slightest bit of guilt about that?
I doubt it.
Hey, Why No Legal Schnauzer?
I was bitterly disappointed the other day when The Birmingham News did not include Legal Schnauzer in its story celebrating local bloggers.
After all the nice things I've had to say about the paper, you would think they could give me a little plug. Think I'll call Brett Blackledge and Tom Scarritt, two of my favorites, to ask about this oversight.
On a serious note, I was pleased to see that Fleabomb.com, by my friend Stanley Holditch, was mentioned in the article. In fact, Stanley was so shocked at the coverage, that he had to write about it.
Aren't We Really Talking About "Jury Hellholes?"
A thought occurred to me after posting the other day about the news that Alabama had been removed from some list of "judicial hellholes."
A tort-reform group came up with the list, and Alabama Governor Bob Riley saw it as a good thing that Alabama no longer is a place where corporate giants like ExxonMobil can be held accountable for their wrongdoing.
But isn't this another clever use of the language by right wingers? What the righties don't like is large jury verdicts. After all, it was a jury that awarded Alabama $3.6 billion in damages in a case against ExxonMobil.
But the GOPers don't want to use the term "jury hellholes." After all, juries are made up of regular people, ones who vote (sometimes).
So the GOPers come up with the term "judicial hellhole." Very clever. And amazingly enough, they get away with it.
We're Surrounded by Nutjobs!
Ever feel like you are surrounded by rude, thoughtless, witless jerk-offs? Ever think we've seen the last of decency and common courtesy? Ever drive down the road and wonder: "Who are these nutjobs weaving in and out of traffic, honking horns, flipping birds, riding bumpers, ignoring speed limits, and running red lights?"
Well, you're not alone. Check out this column by Dick Meyer, of the Washington Post, about his experience at a recent professional football game. If you really want to experience boorishness, sounds like the NFL is the place to be.
Another Case of Animal Cruelty
Speaking of lowlifes and cretins, we have another case of animal cruelty in the Birmingham area. This time a female Siamese cat was tied up in a kitchen garbage bag, stuffed in a gym bag and left dangling from a tree in a Mountain Brook office park.
An architect who worked in the area noticed the gym bag in the tree, and an attorney made the rescue call. The attorney and another employee dried off the cat, who had clawed its way out of the plastic bag. "I thought it was absolutely disgusting," said Keri Kelly, the attorney. "It makes you wonder what is up with the world today."
The cat now is in good condition and with the Birmingham animal rescue group TEARS. A TEARS representative said the cat was well cared for, indicating it probably was someone's pet. They hope to reunite the cat with her owner.
As the proud parents of two Siamese cats, brother and sister Baxter and Chloe, my wife and I were disgusted to read this story. Let's hope authorities can nail the sicko responsible for this.
And by the way, animal lovers are not giving up in their hopes of finding out what happened to Anne, the Cullman County beagle who had to be euthanized after being skinned over most of her body. A forensics report by an Auburn University veterinarian indicated the dog probably was skinned by machinery and not by human hands. But a reward fund has grown to $35,000, and a Cullman County animal-protection official says many residents do not believe the forensics report. The Justice for Anne fund remains in place.
A Red-Faced Schnauzer
Your humble blogger is even more humble than usual today, and a bit red-faced, after a weak attempt at humor didn't go quite as planned.
I recently referred to the blog Buck Naked Politics and an item written by "D Cupples." Being a typical red-blooded, hetero American guy, I can take any phrase that even remotely could refer to breasts and run with it. So after noting the writer's name, D Cupples, I cleverly wrote in parentheses, "How's that for a descriptive nickname."
Now in my defense, my mind might not have so quickly gone in a certain direction had the writer's first initial been, say, "S" or "Q." And I've seen that last name before, but it's always been spelled "Couples," as in the golfer Fred Couples. Somehow, seeing the initial "D" with the spelling "Cup," my mind went to . . . well, you know where.
My wife properly chastised me upon reading the post. "God, you sound like Bevis and Butthead," she said. "I do not," I replied, "huh-huh, huh-huh."
Anyway, turns out D. Cupples is not a nickname. It's the real name of Buck Naked Politics writer Deb Cupples. And I received an e-mail the next day from Ms. Cupples, who, Thank God, has a wonderful sense of humor.
She wrote:
"Hi there,
"Thanks for giving us a nod at your blog. I wanted to let you know that "D. Cupples" is my first initial and last name (not a nickname). A few others have thought that it was a nickname, too.
I'm NOT offended. In fact, I'm laughing.
Happy holidays!
Deb"
Now, how's that for class? And Deb, I'm laughing with you. Whew!
Have I missed something or have the presidential candidates been awfully quiet about the Bush Justice Department scandal?
You can understand why Rudy, Romney, Huckabee & Co. would be quiet about it? But why haven't Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards made more of an issue of it? Heck, there is strong evidence to suggest that Edwards and Clinton donors were specifically targeted by the Bush DOJ. Shouldn't that irk the candidates just a bit?
A strong argument could be made that this is the single most important domestic issue out there. We have at least four Democrats--Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield--being held political prisoner. This is in the US of A folks, and Democratic candidates do not see this as worthy of discussion?
Perhaps the most important decision a Democratic president could make in 2009 would be the appointment of an attorney general. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear who the candidates might nominate? What do they think should be done about the trashing of one of our most treasured institutions--the justice department?
And by the way, who would be good AG candidates in a Democratic administration? Eliot Spitzer? Patrick Fitzgerald?
By God, if Ellen Brooks would get off her duff and get moving down in Montgomery County, Alabama, I would support her for AG. Ms. Brooks, our friend Robby Scott Hill says you have the authority to go after some of the Republican sleazebags who have turned Alabama into a justice cesspool. Are you ready to go, girl?
Putin? Person of the Year?
What on earth was Time magazine thinking when it named Russian president Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year?
If there ever was an open-and-shut candidate for Person of the Year, it came in 2007--and his name is Al Gore. He's won a Nobel prize, an Emmy, and an Oscar. He has led the effort to build public awareness on global warming--the single most important issue of this, or any other, age. And perhaps his greatest achievement is the utter dignity and class with which he has handled being the victim of perhaps the biggest screw job in modern times--the U.S. Supreme Court's gift wrapping of the presidency for George W. Bush in 2000.
And Time picks Vladimir Putin? Something tells me the Time folks did not want to put up with the grief they would have taken from right wingers for making the obvious choice of Gore.
Fred Hiatt, of the Washington Post, has an interesting take on the pick of Putin.
Citizen Stands Up to Riley
Let's hear it for Fred Plump, of Fairfield, Alabama, who has the spine to stand up to Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Plump filed a lawsuit against Riley, claiming the governor lacked jurisdiction to name a replacement to the Jefferson County Commission seat left vacant when Larry Langford became Birmingham mayor.
The case is set for hearing Jan. 15 before a three-judge panel in Montgomery. If legal precedent counts, this should be a no-brainer. As we noted in an earlier post, Riley tried to pull a similar stunt in Mobile, and a federal court overruled him. Evidently the governor is hard-headed, just like a certain resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman prosecution, is on the three-judge panel, so I would say Riley has one vote in the bag.
"Somebody had to step out," Plump said. "I had no problem doing that." Good for him.
But with Fuller in the game, Plump is going to need help. I hope Democrats and activists who care about justice will watch this case closely. There doesn't appear to be much doubt that Riley is in the wrong. But don't be surprised if he comes out on top in this case.
Here's a pet theory of mine: I think Fuller, Riley and other GOP wackos, deep down, believe they are anointed by God to rule our country and protect us from people with dark skin. Without Fuller, Riley & Co., America (in their minds) would be overrun by people with dark skin--and that must not be allowed to happen. That, I propose, is why they are so threatened by white, male, Southern progressives like Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Bill Clinton, and so on.Now normal people, with Congress investigating the Bush Justice Department, would straighten up and fly right. But Fuller, Riley & Co. are not normal people. They are on a mission from God. And they will never change unless Democrats in Congress gird their loins and fight to take back our country's justice system.
Republican sleazebags have a deep sense of entitlement--that they deserve to run things, especially in the South. And they will not give that up lightly. If Congressional Democrats are not prepared for the fight of their lives, Republicans will go on running roughshod over the Constitution.
If I've learned one thing from my almost 30 years of living in the South, it is this: Southerners flat out know how to fight. The Civil War should have been the biggest mismatch in the history of man. But the Rebs were mean as rattlesnakes, and they were tougher fighters than the Yanks. If the resources on the two sides had been remotely equal, we would all be whistling Dixie right now. And why do you think Southerners are so good at all the sports that involve violence--football, stock-car racing (OK, hockey's an exception)?
And Southerners love a winner who doesn't mind breaking a few rules to get his way. Heck, it's no accident that the two cheatingest conferences in the history of college football are the old Southwest Conference (based mostly in Texas) and the Southeastern Conference, with headquarters in Birmingham.
Guys like Fuller and Riley--and George W. Bush, for that matter--know this. That's why they cloak themselves in religion and righteousness and feel perfectly fine about treating the law as their personal plaything.
Here's a thought: On Christmas Eve, I would bet my mortgage that Fuller and Riley and their kindred souls were at various church services, drinking in the Holy Spirit. Did it ever occur to them that they were responsible for imprisoning innocent people? Did they feel the slightest bit of guilt about that?
I doubt it.
Hey, Why No Legal Schnauzer?
I was bitterly disappointed the other day when The Birmingham News did not include Legal Schnauzer in its story celebrating local bloggers.
After all the nice things I've had to say about the paper, you would think they could give me a little plug. Think I'll call Brett Blackledge and Tom Scarritt, two of my favorites, to ask about this oversight.
On a serious note, I was pleased to see that Fleabomb.com, by my friend Stanley Holditch, was mentioned in the article. In fact, Stanley was so shocked at the coverage, that he had to write about it.
Aren't We Really Talking About "Jury Hellholes?"
A thought occurred to me after posting the other day about the news that Alabama had been removed from some list of "judicial hellholes."
A tort-reform group came up with the list, and Alabama Governor Bob Riley saw it as a good thing that Alabama no longer is a place where corporate giants like ExxonMobil can be held accountable for their wrongdoing.
But isn't this another clever use of the language by right wingers? What the righties don't like is large jury verdicts. After all, it was a jury that awarded Alabama $3.6 billion in damages in a case against ExxonMobil.
But the GOPers don't want to use the term "jury hellholes." After all, juries are made up of regular people, ones who vote (sometimes).
So the GOPers come up with the term "judicial hellhole." Very clever. And amazingly enough, they get away with it.
We're Surrounded by Nutjobs!
Ever feel like you are surrounded by rude, thoughtless, witless jerk-offs? Ever think we've seen the last of decency and common courtesy? Ever drive down the road and wonder: "Who are these nutjobs weaving in and out of traffic, honking horns, flipping birds, riding bumpers, ignoring speed limits, and running red lights?"
Well, you're not alone. Check out this column by Dick Meyer, of the Washington Post, about his experience at a recent professional football game. If you really want to experience boorishness, sounds like the NFL is the place to be.
Another Case of Animal Cruelty
Speaking of lowlifes and cretins, we have another case of animal cruelty in the Birmingham area. This time a female Siamese cat was tied up in a kitchen garbage bag, stuffed in a gym bag and left dangling from a tree in a Mountain Brook office park.
An architect who worked in the area noticed the gym bag in the tree, and an attorney made the rescue call. The attorney and another employee dried off the cat, who had clawed its way out of the plastic bag. "I thought it was absolutely disgusting," said Keri Kelly, the attorney. "It makes you wonder what is up with the world today."
The cat now is in good condition and with the Birmingham animal rescue group TEARS. A TEARS representative said the cat was well cared for, indicating it probably was someone's pet. They hope to reunite the cat with her owner.
As the proud parents of two Siamese cats, brother and sister Baxter and Chloe, my wife and I were disgusted to read this story. Let's hope authorities can nail the sicko responsible for this.
And by the way, animal lovers are not giving up in their hopes of finding out what happened to Anne, the Cullman County beagle who had to be euthanized after being skinned over most of her body. A forensics report by an Auburn University veterinarian indicated the dog probably was skinned by machinery and not by human hands. But a reward fund has grown to $35,000, and a Cullman County animal-protection official says many residents do not believe the forensics report. The Justice for Anne fund remains in place.
A Red-Faced Schnauzer
Your humble blogger is even more humble than usual today, and a bit red-faced, after a weak attempt at humor didn't go quite as planned.
I recently referred to the blog Buck Naked Politics and an item written by "D Cupples." Being a typical red-blooded, hetero American guy, I can take any phrase that even remotely could refer to breasts and run with it. So after noting the writer's name, D Cupples, I cleverly wrote in parentheses, "How's that for a descriptive nickname."
Now in my defense, my mind might not have so quickly gone in a certain direction had the writer's first initial been, say, "S" or "Q." And I've seen that last name before, but it's always been spelled "Couples," as in the golfer Fred Couples. Somehow, seeing the initial "D" with the spelling "Cup," my mind went to . . . well, you know where.
My wife properly chastised me upon reading the post. "God, you sound like Bevis and Butthead," she said. "I do not," I replied, "huh-huh, huh-huh."
Anyway, turns out D. Cupples is not a nickname. It's the real name of Buck Naked Politics writer Deb Cupples. And I received an e-mail the next day from Ms. Cupples, who, Thank God, has a wonderful sense of humor.
She wrote:
"Hi there,
"Thanks for giving us a nod at your blog. I wanted to let you know that "D. Cupples" is my first initial and last name (not a nickname). A few others have thought that it was a nickname, too.
I'm NOT offended. In fact, I'm laughing.
Happy holidays!
Deb"
Now, how's that for class? And Deb, I'm laughing with you. Whew!
Thursday, December 27, 2007
A Beacon for Justice in Alabama?
Could there be a beacon for justice in Alabama--for Don Siegelman and others who have suffered under corrupt state and federal officials? Could that beacon come in the person of Ellen Brooks, district attorney for Montgomery County, Alabama?
Blogger Robby Scott Hill raises this intriguing question in a post today at Novationeering.
Hill's voice is one deserving of attention on legal issues. While yours truly is a pseudo lawyer at best--"Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer" my wife likes to call me--Hill is pretty much the real deal. He has a law degree and has worked in state government.
And here is what he says: As district attorney for Montgomery County, Ellen Brooks has statewide jurisdiction over state government, which resides in her county. She has, Hill says, criminal jurisdiction over any federal law-enforcement officer who committed perjury or false arrest upon a state officer.
Hill goes on to note that, as a licensed attorney at the time of his conviction, Don Siegelman was an officer of the Alabama Supreme Court and therefore an officer of the state.
Hill worked as an intern for Ms. Brooks in 1997 and says she was not afraid to prosecute government corruption at that time. "Let's see if that is still a true statement," he writes.
You can read about Ms. Brooks here. She is a Democrat. Let me repeat: She is a Democrat.
You can contact her office here.
While we are pondering the issue that Robby Scott Hill has raised, let's allow our imagination to run wild for a moment. Could Ms. Brooks help answer the following questions:
* Did Bob Riley win the governor's office as a result of election fraud in 2002? Riley serves in Montgomery County, so would this question come under Ms. Brooks' purview?
* Did Leura Canary, Louis Franklin, Steve Feaga and other luminaries in the Montgomery U.S. Attorneys Office commit crimes that would come under Ms. Brooks' purview?
* Did Bob Riley, Leura Canary, Steve Windom and others commit crimes in causing a criminal investigation to be launched against Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, apparently in retaliation for a lawsuit Goff filed? Would this come under Ms. Brooks purview?
* If Republican officials at the national level--Noel Hillman, Karl Rove--caused Don Siegelman to be wrongfully prosecuted, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
* If the eight Republican judges on the Alabama Supreme Court committed a crime against the state by fraudulently overturning a $3.6 billion verdict against ExxonMobil, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
And let's ponder a few questions regarding our own Legal Schnauzer case:
* If the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court committed a crime against the state by fraudulently upholding unlawful trial-court rulings, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
* If Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves were involved in a conspiracy to get the appellate courts to uphold their own bogus rulings, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
* If this conspiracy involved Shelby County attorney William E. Swatek, and if his son Dax Swatek played a role in furthering the conspiracy, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute both of them?
Perhaps your humble blogger is going a bit overboard here. But I haven't been able to wipe the smile off my face since these thoughts came to mind.
I'm not naive enough to think all, or any, of this going to happen. But it sure is fun to think about. Praise God for Robby Scott Hill and Novationeering!
Blogger Robby Scott Hill raises this intriguing question in a post today at Novationeering.
Hill's voice is one deserving of attention on legal issues. While yours truly is a pseudo lawyer at best--"Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer" my wife likes to call me--Hill is pretty much the real deal. He has a law degree and has worked in state government.
And here is what he says: As district attorney for Montgomery County, Ellen Brooks has statewide jurisdiction over state government, which resides in her county. She has, Hill says, criminal jurisdiction over any federal law-enforcement officer who committed perjury or false arrest upon a state officer.
Hill goes on to note that, as a licensed attorney at the time of his conviction, Don Siegelman was an officer of the Alabama Supreme Court and therefore an officer of the state.
Hill worked as an intern for Ms. Brooks in 1997 and says she was not afraid to prosecute government corruption at that time. "Let's see if that is still a true statement," he writes.
You can read about Ms. Brooks here. She is a Democrat. Let me repeat: She is a Democrat.
You can contact her office here.
While we are pondering the issue that Robby Scott Hill has raised, let's allow our imagination to run wild for a moment. Could Ms. Brooks help answer the following questions:
* Did Bob Riley win the governor's office as a result of election fraud in 2002? Riley serves in Montgomery County, so would this question come under Ms. Brooks' purview?
* Did Leura Canary, Louis Franklin, Steve Feaga and other luminaries in the Montgomery U.S. Attorneys Office commit crimes that would come under Ms. Brooks' purview?
* Did Bob Riley, Leura Canary, Steve Windom and others commit crimes in causing a criminal investigation to be launched against Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, apparently in retaliation for a lawsuit Goff filed? Would this come under Ms. Brooks purview?
* If Republican officials at the national level--Noel Hillman, Karl Rove--caused Don Siegelman to be wrongfully prosecuted, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
* If the eight Republican judges on the Alabama Supreme Court committed a crime against the state by fraudulently overturning a $3.6 billion verdict against ExxonMobil, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
And let's ponder a few questions regarding our own Legal Schnauzer case:
* If the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court committed a crime against the state by fraudulently upholding unlawful trial-court rulings, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
* If Shelby County judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves were involved in a conspiracy to get the appellate courts to uphold their own bogus rulings, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute them?
* If this conspiracy involved Shelby County attorney William E. Swatek, and if his son Dax Swatek played a role in furthering the conspiracy, could Ms. Brooks seek to prosecute both of them?
Perhaps your humble blogger is going a bit overboard here. But I haven't been able to wipe the smile off my face since these thoughts came to mind.
I'm not naive enough to think all, or any, of this going to happen. But it sure is fun to think about. Praise God for Robby Scott Hill and Novationeering!
Our Political-Prisoner Population Grows
Today should be a sobering day for all Americans, as our population of known political prisoners doubles in size.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor have been in federal prison for months now. They are joined today by former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, both convicted with Minor on corruption-related charges.
The real crimes of all four men? Being active and successful Democrats in Deep South states, where Republicans in the Age of Rove will brook no competition.
Let me repeat that to ensure that it sinks in: At least four Americans, all Democrats, are being held political prisoner, right now. Most Americans have not realized the enormity of this story. When is the last (or the first) time that you have heard a presidential candidate from either party mention it?
A strong argument could be made that it is the most important domestic issue in our country at the moment. Few Americans can grasp the concept that our Department of Justice (DOJ) is knowingly imprisoning people who have committed no crimes. But that is exactly what has taken place with Siegelman, Minor, Teel, and Whitfield.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org., has written with stark clarity about the Siegelman case, and we here at Legal Schnauzer are among a number of bloggers who have followed the story closely. As for the Minor case, we have written 30-plus posts about the case, showing that the three defendants did not even come close to committing federal crimes.
Horton also has written a number of major posts about the Minor case, the most recent coming yesterday and focusing on Wes Teel. The headline: Collateral Damage: Is Mississippi Judge Wes Teel the Victim of a Political Prosecution?
The answer to that question is a resounding yes. And Horton goes on to outline the absurdity of the government's "case" against Teel. Horton earlier had reported that Paul Minor, a successful Gulf Coast attorney, was a generous donor to Democratic campaigns, including those of Teel and Whitfield. Minor also supported Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, and Horton has reported on an apparent campaign by the Bush DOJ to target Edwards' trial-lawyer supporters.
"Of course, they were out after Paul Minor," Teel tells Horton, days before reporting to federal prison in Atlanta. "I was just collateral damage."
Indeed, evidence strongly suggests that both Teel and Whitfield got caught in the ugly crossfire aimed at a successful Democratic attorney who had successfully sued the asbestos and tobacco industries, not to mention oil interests. Those are traits Minor shares with another political prisoner--Don Siegelman.
Horton provides valuable insight on the underlying lawsuit that wound up putting Wes Teel in prison. The lawsuit involved The Peoples Bank, represented by Paul Minor, against the insurer USF&G. The bank contended that it was owed coverage on a policy designed to address liability arising from automobiles that the bank financed. When the insurance company failed to provide coverage under the policy, the bank sued.
The case was straightforward, Horton reports. The issue was the interpretation of specific insurance contract language. Then he makes a critical point:
"Of course the insurance company had written the contract language, which is why, as a general premise, ambiguities would not be settled in its favor."
It should not have been a surprise to the insurance company then that Teel ruled in the bank's favor on liability. Teel also had ruled in the bank's favor on a discovery matter.
But did any of Teel's actions indicate he was corrupt, ruling contrary to the facts and law in the case? Evidently even the insurance company did not think so. As Horton notes, the insurance company did not take a number of steps it could have taken if it thought Teel was clearly wrong and/or corrupt in his rulings. Instead, it chose to settle the case.
So Wes Teel did not even make a final ruling in the lawsuit, and there is no evidence that he ruled contrary to law. And yet, because of this case, Wes Teel is reporting to federal prison today.
How could that be? After the insurance company chose to settle, the Mississippi Supreme Court handed down a split decision in a similar case, siding with the insurance company and against the bank. As tends to happen in our modern courts, the ruling had politics written all over it: Republican justices sided with the insurance company, Democrats supported the bank.
But get this: The government used this ruling, which came well after the lawsuit that had settled before Teel, as proof that Teel had acted corruptly. Never mind that Teel's decisions did not run counter to any law that was settled at the time of his rulings.
"It looks to me like the prosecution of Judge Teel was motivated by a very emotional case of buyer's remorse on the part of the insurance company and its lawyers," Horton writes. "As it turned out, they didn't call things correctly. The Supreme Court went their way. The criminal prosecution offered a way to get restitution and overturn the settlement.
"This is, to put it mildly, not an appropriate use of the criminal justice system. But it's just the sort of use to which the Bush Justice Department is itching to put it."
I've had the pleasure of getting to know Wes Teel via e-mail over the past several months. He is a good-natured fellow, with a keen sense of humor. So it is appropriate that Horton managed to find some humor in the Teel saga, by noting the strange premise upon which the government built its case.
"The Justice Department's contention is that the insurance company wouldn't have entered into the settlement but for the pressure of Judge Teel," Horton writes. "That means the Justice Department has decided to treat the insurance companies and their high-priced lawyers with the sort of special paternalistic deference reserved in the nineteenth century for widows, imbeciles, and orphans. . . . Now the insurance company and its fancy lawyers were definitely not widows or orphans, and whether they were imbeciles would be a judgment call I am not prepared to make. But for the Bush Justice Department they are, apparently, to be viewed as persons who cannot fend for themselves in the rough wilderness of Mississippi's judiciary . . . "
Were the insurance-company lawyers truly helpless? Hardly. Just consider the weapons at their disposal. One was to accept Teel's rulings and move forward to trial, confident in the strength of their case. If the trial didn't go well, they could appeal to a higher court, confident in the strength of their case. And if they truly thought Teel was wrong, they had two weapons they could have used right then and there.
You can read about these weapons here, provided by the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, which appear to be pretty much identical to the Alabama rules. Under Rule 5, the insurance company could have sought an interlocutory appeal by permission. If Teel failed to grant permission--and the evidence suggests he would have been perfectly fine with the insurance company taking the question to a higher court--the company could have sought a writ of mandamus. This is an extraordinary writ, asking a higher court to direct a lower-court judge to take a certain action that is in line with its interpretation of the law.
The insurance company had all kinds of weapons at its disposal--if it had been confident in its case. But that's the problem. Evidence suggests that the insurance company knew it was on shaky legal footing. Based on my reading of the criminal-trial transcript, I understand that the contentious discovery issue involved a document in which insurance-company officials acknowledged that they were on shaky legal footing under the law at the time.
As I recall, the insurance company contended that the document was privileged, but Teel ruled that it was discoverable. My guess is this: The real reason the insurance company settled is that one of their own documents had come to light showing they didn't have a very good case--and they knew it.
And irony of irony, a very similar document came to light in the ExxonMobil case, where the Alabama Supreme Court overturned a $3.6 billion verdict in favor of the state against the oil giant.
What does this tell us about Republican justice in the Age of Rove: When you uncover one of their dirty little corporate secrets, watch out. They will do their darnedest to make somebody pay.
Scott Horton has more posts coming about the people who have wrongfully been forced to pay in the Paul Minor case. Horton evidently will focus like a laser on U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who presided over the Minor trial.
We here at Legal Schnauzer will do the same. We have shown conclusively, through our "Mississippi Churning" series, that Wingate made numerous unlawful rulings that all but ensured the defendants would be convicted. Wingate's key errors, which almost certainly were not accidental, involved the following:
* Expert witnesses for the defense, who would have shown that Teel and Whitfield ruled correctly based on the facts and law before them.
* Jury instructions on bribery, which were not at all in line with actual federal bribery law.
* Jury instructions on honest-services mail fraud, which were not at all in line with actual federal bribery law.
We soon will be presenting a summary of our "Mississippi Churning" series. Three innocent Americans currently are in federal prison because of the Paul Minor case. It is critical that Americans understand the corrupt actions of the federal judge who put them there.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor have been in federal prison for months now. They are joined today by former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, both convicted with Minor on corruption-related charges.
The real crimes of all four men? Being active and successful Democrats in Deep South states, where Republicans in the Age of Rove will brook no competition.
Let me repeat that to ensure that it sinks in: At least four Americans, all Democrats, are being held political prisoner, right now. Most Americans have not realized the enormity of this story. When is the last (or the first) time that you have heard a presidential candidate from either party mention it?
A strong argument could be made that it is the most important domestic issue in our country at the moment. Few Americans can grasp the concept that our Department of Justice (DOJ) is knowingly imprisoning people who have committed no crimes. But that is exactly what has taken place with Siegelman, Minor, Teel, and Whitfield.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org., has written with stark clarity about the Siegelman case, and we here at Legal Schnauzer are among a number of bloggers who have followed the story closely. As for the Minor case, we have written 30-plus posts about the case, showing that the three defendants did not even come close to committing federal crimes.
Horton also has written a number of major posts about the Minor case, the most recent coming yesterday and focusing on Wes Teel. The headline: Collateral Damage: Is Mississippi Judge Wes Teel the Victim of a Political Prosecution?
The answer to that question is a resounding yes. And Horton goes on to outline the absurdity of the government's "case" against Teel. Horton earlier had reported that Paul Minor, a successful Gulf Coast attorney, was a generous donor to Democratic campaigns, including those of Teel and Whitfield. Minor also supported Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, and Horton has reported on an apparent campaign by the Bush DOJ to target Edwards' trial-lawyer supporters.
"Of course, they were out after Paul Minor," Teel tells Horton, days before reporting to federal prison in Atlanta. "I was just collateral damage."
Indeed, evidence strongly suggests that both Teel and Whitfield got caught in the ugly crossfire aimed at a successful Democratic attorney who had successfully sued the asbestos and tobacco industries, not to mention oil interests. Those are traits Minor shares with another political prisoner--Don Siegelman.
Horton provides valuable insight on the underlying lawsuit that wound up putting Wes Teel in prison. The lawsuit involved The Peoples Bank, represented by Paul Minor, against the insurer USF&G. The bank contended that it was owed coverage on a policy designed to address liability arising from automobiles that the bank financed. When the insurance company failed to provide coverage under the policy, the bank sued.
The case was straightforward, Horton reports. The issue was the interpretation of specific insurance contract language. Then he makes a critical point:
"Of course the insurance company had written the contract language, which is why, as a general premise, ambiguities would not be settled in its favor."
It should not have been a surprise to the insurance company then that Teel ruled in the bank's favor on liability. Teel also had ruled in the bank's favor on a discovery matter.
But did any of Teel's actions indicate he was corrupt, ruling contrary to the facts and law in the case? Evidently even the insurance company did not think so. As Horton notes, the insurance company did not take a number of steps it could have taken if it thought Teel was clearly wrong and/or corrupt in his rulings. Instead, it chose to settle the case.
So Wes Teel did not even make a final ruling in the lawsuit, and there is no evidence that he ruled contrary to law. And yet, because of this case, Wes Teel is reporting to federal prison today.
How could that be? After the insurance company chose to settle, the Mississippi Supreme Court handed down a split decision in a similar case, siding with the insurance company and against the bank. As tends to happen in our modern courts, the ruling had politics written all over it: Republican justices sided with the insurance company, Democrats supported the bank.
But get this: The government used this ruling, which came well after the lawsuit that had settled before Teel, as proof that Teel had acted corruptly. Never mind that Teel's decisions did not run counter to any law that was settled at the time of his rulings.
"It looks to me like the prosecution of Judge Teel was motivated by a very emotional case of buyer's remorse on the part of the insurance company and its lawyers," Horton writes. "As it turned out, they didn't call things correctly. The Supreme Court went their way. The criminal prosecution offered a way to get restitution and overturn the settlement.
"This is, to put it mildly, not an appropriate use of the criminal justice system. But it's just the sort of use to which the Bush Justice Department is itching to put it."
I've had the pleasure of getting to know Wes Teel via e-mail over the past several months. He is a good-natured fellow, with a keen sense of humor. So it is appropriate that Horton managed to find some humor in the Teel saga, by noting the strange premise upon which the government built its case.
"The Justice Department's contention is that the insurance company wouldn't have entered into the settlement but for the pressure of Judge Teel," Horton writes. "That means the Justice Department has decided to treat the insurance companies and their high-priced lawyers with the sort of special paternalistic deference reserved in the nineteenth century for widows, imbeciles, and orphans. . . . Now the insurance company and its fancy lawyers were definitely not widows or orphans, and whether they were imbeciles would be a judgment call I am not prepared to make. But for the Bush Justice Department they are, apparently, to be viewed as persons who cannot fend for themselves in the rough wilderness of Mississippi's judiciary . . . "
Were the insurance-company lawyers truly helpless? Hardly. Just consider the weapons at their disposal. One was to accept Teel's rulings and move forward to trial, confident in the strength of their case. If the trial didn't go well, they could appeal to a higher court, confident in the strength of their case. And if they truly thought Teel was wrong, they had two weapons they could have used right then and there.
You can read about these weapons here, provided by the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, which appear to be pretty much identical to the Alabama rules. Under Rule 5, the insurance company could have sought an interlocutory appeal by permission. If Teel failed to grant permission--and the evidence suggests he would have been perfectly fine with the insurance company taking the question to a higher court--the company could have sought a writ of mandamus. This is an extraordinary writ, asking a higher court to direct a lower-court judge to take a certain action that is in line with its interpretation of the law.
The insurance company had all kinds of weapons at its disposal--if it had been confident in its case. But that's the problem. Evidence suggests that the insurance company knew it was on shaky legal footing. Based on my reading of the criminal-trial transcript, I understand that the contentious discovery issue involved a document in which insurance-company officials acknowledged that they were on shaky legal footing under the law at the time.
As I recall, the insurance company contended that the document was privileged, but Teel ruled that it was discoverable. My guess is this: The real reason the insurance company settled is that one of their own documents had come to light showing they didn't have a very good case--and they knew it.
And irony of irony, a very similar document came to light in the ExxonMobil case, where the Alabama Supreme Court overturned a $3.6 billion verdict in favor of the state against the oil giant.
What does this tell us about Republican justice in the Age of Rove: When you uncover one of their dirty little corporate secrets, watch out. They will do their darnedest to make somebody pay.
Scott Horton has more posts coming about the people who have wrongfully been forced to pay in the Paul Minor case. Horton evidently will focus like a laser on U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who presided over the Minor trial.
We here at Legal Schnauzer will do the same. We have shown conclusively, through our "Mississippi Churning" series, that Wingate made numerous unlawful rulings that all but ensured the defendants would be convicted. Wingate's key errors, which almost certainly were not accidental, involved the following:
* Expert witnesses for the defense, who would have shown that Teel and Whitfield ruled correctly based on the facts and law before them.
* Jury instructions on bribery, which were not at all in line with actual federal bribery law.
* Jury instructions on honest-services mail fraud, which were not at all in line with actual federal bribery law.
We soon will be presenting a summary of our "Mississippi Churning" series. Three innocent Americans currently are in federal prison because of the Paul Minor case. It is critical that Americans understand the corrupt actions of the federal judge who put them there.
Siegelman and Such
Outrageous GOP "Justice"
The Alabama Democratic Party today presents an important post on its official blog.
The post notes that, as of today, it has been 50 days since the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' second order directing U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to show cause for denying Don Siegelman appeal bond.
"Don Siegelman has now been imprisoned for 5 months and 29 days with no explanation as to why he was denied an appeal bond," the post states.
The post's opening paragraph gets to the heart of the matter:
"The 11th Circuit should release Don Siegelman because he has been denied his right to an appeal bond based on a technicality, and Judge Fuller is refusing to come clean about why he refused bond for the former governor. Alabama, where is the outrage? Republicans talk about activist judges being bad for our society. I can't think of anything more activist than partisan justice from the DOJ and the federal bench."
This is an excellent post, but I would urge the Alabama Democratic Party to also look at our state bench. Partisan justice also is prevalent there--and not only in the ExxonMobil case. I am just one Alabamian who has been the victim of clear partisan justice at the hands of Republican trial and appellate judges in Alabama. But my conversations with people who are knowledgeable about the workings of our corporate-controlled courts tell me I am far from alone. I suspect many Alabamians get cheated by Republican judges without even knowing it. As happened with me, corrupt judges like to use a citizen's own attorneys against them. That keeps the scales firmly planted over the eyes of many citizens.
But this is one citizen who spent hours at a local law library before the scales fell from my eyes. And now I am doing my darnedest to help educate other Alabamians about what can happen to them in our corrupt courthouses.
I urge the Alabama Democratic Party to join me in that effort. The corrupt judges in my case have been overwhelmingly Republican. But I have little doubt that corrupt Democrat judges also exist in our state, and the party should do everything in its power to give those judges the boot.
It's not enough for Democrats to merely point fingers at corrupt Republicans. Democrats should make an honest justice system a top priority, at both the state and national level. And if that means exposing a few corrupt Democrats, I say good. Only strengthens the party's credibility on the issue.
An Unusual Christmas Message
When we remember those in need during the holiday season, we usually think of the poor, the hungry, perhaps those unfortunate enough to live in oppressive societies.
But this year, those in need include Americans who once enjoyed considerable power and means. And what caused their misfortune? Being active and successful Democrats in the Deep South during the Republican Age of Rove.
Scott Horton of Harper's.org brings this home brilliantly in a Christmas-Day post. His thoughts, Horton writes, are with the families of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former Mississippi judge Wes Teel.
"They stand as a symbol of a new phenomenon: political prisoners on American soil," Horton writes. "My hope is that in the coming year, Americans will wake up to the injustices practiced in their name. Maybe we will again have a Department of Justice that places value on justice ahead of doing the political dirty work of its partisan masters. Maybe we will again have judges who place their duty to the Constitution and law ahead of their support of a political party. Christmas is a day for peace and contemplation. But the New Year will be a time for accountability for those who betray the public trust--the message promised by the trumpet is simple: The truth shall be known, and justice shall be done."
A Call for Action
The New York Times, like Scott Horton, is calling for action and accountability in the investigation of apparent wrongdoing by the Bush Justice Department. The Times notes that it has been almost a year since the U.S. attorneys scandal broke, and no full investigation has even come close to being done.
The Times notes that a number of key figures in the scandal have left Washington and a few key reforms have been instituted. But much more needs to be done, and leadership must come from Attorney General Michael Mukasey, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"The integrity of the Justice Department is precious," the Times writes. "The fair application of the law is the cornerstone of American justice and American democracy. A halfway resolution of this scandal is not enough. It needs to be investigated vigorously and completely."
Republicans have left "the cornerstone of American justice" in tatters. And Scott Horton notes that Mukasey, a Bush appointee, has shown almost no sign that he is willing to correct the situation. It will be up to Democrats to put it back together and punish those who caused its destruction in the first place. Do Democrats have the backbone needed for such a task?
The Alabama Democratic Party today presents an important post on its official blog.
The post notes that, as of today, it has been 50 days since the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' second order directing U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to show cause for denying Don Siegelman appeal bond.
"Don Siegelman has now been imprisoned for 5 months and 29 days with no explanation as to why he was denied an appeal bond," the post states.
The post's opening paragraph gets to the heart of the matter:
"The 11th Circuit should release Don Siegelman because he has been denied his right to an appeal bond based on a technicality, and Judge Fuller is refusing to come clean about why he refused bond for the former governor. Alabama, where is the outrage? Republicans talk about activist judges being bad for our society. I can't think of anything more activist than partisan justice from the DOJ and the federal bench."
This is an excellent post, but I would urge the Alabama Democratic Party to also look at our state bench. Partisan justice also is prevalent there--and not only in the ExxonMobil case. I am just one Alabamian who has been the victim of clear partisan justice at the hands of Republican trial and appellate judges in Alabama. But my conversations with people who are knowledgeable about the workings of our corporate-controlled courts tell me I am far from alone. I suspect many Alabamians get cheated by Republican judges without even knowing it. As happened with me, corrupt judges like to use a citizen's own attorneys against them. That keeps the scales firmly planted over the eyes of many citizens.
But this is one citizen who spent hours at a local law library before the scales fell from my eyes. And now I am doing my darnedest to help educate other Alabamians about what can happen to them in our corrupt courthouses.
I urge the Alabama Democratic Party to join me in that effort. The corrupt judges in my case have been overwhelmingly Republican. But I have little doubt that corrupt Democrat judges also exist in our state, and the party should do everything in its power to give those judges the boot.
It's not enough for Democrats to merely point fingers at corrupt Republicans. Democrats should make an honest justice system a top priority, at both the state and national level. And if that means exposing a few corrupt Democrats, I say good. Only strengthens the party's credibility on the issue.
An Unusual Christmas Message
When we remember those in need during the holiday season, we usually think of the poor, the hungry, perhaps those unfortunate enough to live in oppressive societies.
But this year, those in need include Americans who once enjoyed considerable power and means. And what caused their misfortune? Being active and successful Democrats in the Deep South during the Republican Age of Rove.
Scott Horton of Harper's.org brings this home brilliantly in a Christmas-Day post. His thoughts, Horton writes, are with the families of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former Mississippi judge Wes Teel.
"They stand as a symbol of a new phenomenon: political prisoners on American soil," Horton writes. "My hope is that in the coming year, Americans will wake up to the injustices practiced in their name. Maybe we will again have a Department of Justice that places value on justice ahead of doing the political dirty work of its partisan masters. Maybe we will again have judges who place their duty to the Constitution and law ahead of their support of a political party. Christmas is a day for peace and contemplation. But the New Year will be a time for accountability for those who betray the public trust--the message promised by the trumpet is simple: The truth shall be known, and justice shall be done."
A Call for Action
The New York Times, like Scott Horton, is calling for action and accountability in the investigation of apparent wrongdoing by the Bush Justice Department. The Times notes that it has been almost a year since the U.S. attorneys scandal broke, and no full investigation has even come close to being done.
The Times notes that a number of key figures in the scandal have left Washington and a few key reforms have been instituted. But much more needs to be done, and leadership must come from Attorney General Michael Mukasey, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"The integrity of the Justice Department is precious," the Times writes. "The fair application of the law is the cornerstone of American justice and American democracy. A halfway resolution of this scandal is not enough. It needs to be investigated vigorously and completely."
Republicans have left "the cornerstone of American justice" in tatters. And Scott Horton notes that Mukasey, a Bush appointee, has shown almost no sign that he is willing to correct the situation. It will be up to Democrats to put it back together and punish those who caused its destruction in the first place. Do Democrats have the backbone needed for such a task?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
GOP Sleaze Can Hit Close to Home
I suspect many folks read Scott Horton's work at Harper's.org with great interest but also with a somewhat detached view. Wrongful convictions . . . sleazy prosecutors . . . corrupt judges . . . people being ruined financially . . . people having their freedom taken away for political reasons.
Those are the kinds of things that happen to other people, right?
That would have been my mindset several years ago. But not anymore.
Horton is the nation's primary chronicler of Republican sleaze in the Age of Rove, and he tends to focus on the wrongs that have been committed against prominent political figures--Don Siegelman in Alabama, Paul Minor in Mississippi, Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin, and so on.
Horton's reporting and analysis invariably makes for fascinating reading. And all too often, it hits uncomfortably close to home for your humble blogger. In fact, I'm stunned at the number of times I've been reading a Horton post and said to myself, "My God, this sounds like it's coming right from my own life."
The techniques that Republicans use to cheat and harm innocent people are at the heart of Horton's work. And I've had an up-close-and-personal view of these techniques for going on 10 years now.
Two recent Horton posts provide examples of how his work strikes a chord here at Legal Schnauzer. First there was a post about the release from federal prison of Lanny Young, a chief accuser in the Siegelman case. Horton makes several key points in the post:
* A source told Horton some time ago that Young's two-year prison sentence merely was for show. Young would be released by year's end, the source said. And the source was right on the money.
* The Birmingham News is playing its usual stellar role in selling the Young story to the public. News' reporter Kim Chandler cites two reasons for Young's release: He is being threatened by other prisoners, and he cannot complete a drug-rehab program because of a chicken-pox outbreak in the prison system. Horton makes it clear that he isn't buying either of these explanations.
* The theory behind the prosecution of Siegelman was that he personally benefitted from Richard Scrushy's donation to a campaign. According to that theory, there currently should be 146 criminal investigations of George W. Bush and Karl Rove and people connected to them. Horton notes that 146 individuals made or procured donations of $100,000 or more for the Bush-Cheney campaign and then received appointments in the administration. Some cabinet members are included in this crowd. But where are those prosecutions for bribery and honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy?
Horton hits really close to home with his final paragraph, which refers to the shenanigans of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who clearly was biased in the Siegelman case and created an uneven playing field. Horton notes that the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to an impartial judge.
Horton is referring to the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is what "guarantees" all citizens--me, you, Don Siegelman--the right to an impartial judge. The 14th Amendment also "guarantees" equal protection of the law.
Siegelman clearly did not get an impartial judge or equal protection, and I know what that feels like. I went before Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner, who repeatedly ruled contrary to clear law in favor of the opposing party. And this benefitted the opposing party's attorney, William E. Swatek, who has direct ties to the Alabama and national GOP hierarchy--Bill Canary, Bob Riley, Karl Rove, Alice Martin--through his son, GOP "consultant" and campaign manager Dax Swatek.
Did I get an impartial judge? Not even close. I would have come closer to getting justice in Afghanistan.
And then there is Horton's post about the GOP phone-jamming caper in New Hampshire in 2002. A new book is coming out that will provide details about the scheme, and Think Progress has produced an article showing that the Bush White House was involved.
Three GOP operatives ended up in prison for their involvement in the case. But Horton notes that the prosecution did not come until after the 2004 election.
This kind of politicization of the U.S. Justice Department hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer. For almost a year and a half, I've provided information to both the FBI and the Birmingham U.S. attorney's office about criminal wrongdoing by Republican judges and at least one lawyer in my case.
The FBI has simply ignored me, even though it has a special Web site for reporting white-collar crime and public corruption. The Web page appears to be legit. But if your allegations are of wrongdoing by Republicans in Alabama, the page is just for show.
U.S. attorney Alice Martin has tried her best to ignore me. But she finally responded once I had her personal e-mail address. And eventually, she made it clear that she was taking affirmative steps to ensure that my case would not see the light of day. I'm sure she thought I would be too dumb to realize that by sending my complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, she was sending it to the wrong agency--and therefore to oblivion.
But I know exactly what she was pulling, and I will be reporting on the "Malice of Alice" in the near future.
My key point: Don Siegelman, Paul Minor and other powerful folks are not the only targets of GOP dirty tricks. Such tricks also can be used against regular folks like you and me. In fact, just in the past week or so, I've seen signs that dirty tricks are continuing to come my way. Some involve my personal property. And another apparently involves my job. I will be sharing these curious events with readers here at Legal Schnauzer.
Those are the kinds of things that happen to other people, right?
That would have been my mindset several years ago. But not anymore.
Horton is the nation's primary chronicler of Republican sleaze in the Age of Rove, and he tends to focus on the wrongs that have been committed against prominent political figures--Don Siegelman in Alabama, Paul Minor in Mississippi, Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin, and so on.
Horton's reporting and analysis invariably makes for fascinating reading. And all too often, it hits uncomfortably close to home for your humble blogger. In fact, I'm stunned at the number of times I've been reading a Horton post and said to myself, "My God, this sounds like it's coming right from my own life."
The techniques that Republicans use to cheat and harm innocent people are at the heart of Horton's work. And I've had an up-close-and-personal view of these techniques for going on 10 years now.
Two recent Horton posts provide examples of how his work strikes a chord here at Legal Schnauzer. First there was a post about the release from federal prison of Lanny Young, a chief accuser in the Siegelman case. Horton makes several key points in the post:
* A source told Horton some time ago that Young's two-year prison sentence merely was for show. Young would be released by year's end, the source said. And the source was right on the money.
* The Birmingham News is playing its usual stellar role in selling the Young story to the public. News' reporter Kim Chandler cites two reasons for Young's release: He is being threatened by other prisoners, and he cannot complete a drug-rehab program because of a chicken-pox outbreak in the prison system. Horton makes it clear that he isn't buying either of these explanations.
* The theory behind the prosecution of Siegelman was that he personally benefitted from Richard Scrushy's donation to a campaign. According to that theory, there currently should be 146 criminal investigations of George W. Bush and Karl Rove and people connected to them. Horton notes that 146 individuals made or procured donations of $100,000 or more for the Bush-Cheney campaign and then received appointments in the administration. Some cabinet members are included in this crowd. But where are those prosecutions for bribery and honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy?
Horton hits really close to home with his final paragraph, which refers to the shenanigans of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who clearly was biased in the Siegelman case and created an uneven playing field. Horton notes that the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to an impartial judge.
Horton is referring to the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is what "guarantees" all citizens--me, you, Don Siegelman--the right to an impartial judge. The 14th Amendment also "guarantees" equal protection of the law.
Siegelman clearly did not get an impartial judge or equal protection, and I know what that feels like. I went before Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner, who repeatedly ruled contrary to clear law in favor of the opposing party. And this benefitted the opposing party's attorney, William E. Swatek, who has direct ties to the Alabama and national GOP hierarchy--Bill Canary, Bob Riley, Karl Rove, Alice Martin--through his son, GOP "consultant" and campaign manager Dax Swatek.
Did I get an impartial judge? Not even close. I would have come closer to getting justice in Afghanistan.
And then there is Horton's post about the GOP phone-jamming caper in New Hampshire in 2002. A new book is coming out that will provide details about the scheme, and Think Progress has produced an article showing that the Bush White House was involved.
Three GOP operatives ended up in prison for their involvement in the case. But Horton notes that the prosecution did not come until after the 2004 election.
This kind of politicization of the U.S. Justice Department hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer. For almost a year and a half, I've provided information to both the FBI and the Birmingham U.S. attorney's office about criminal wrongdoing by Republican judges and at least one lawyer in my case.
The FBI has simply ignored me, even though it has a special Web site for reporting white-collar crime and public corruption. The Web page appears to be legit. But if your allegations are of wrongdoing by Republicans in Alabama, the page is just for show.
U.S. attorney Alice Martin has tried her best to ignore me. But she finally responded once I had her personal e-mail address. And eventually, she made it clear that she was taking affirmative steps to ensure that my case would not see the light of day. I'm sure she thought I would be too dumb to realize that by sending my complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, she was sending it to the wrong agency--and therefore to oblivion.
But I know exactly what she was pulling, and I will be reporting on the "Malice of Alice" in the near future.
My key point: Don Siegelman, Paul Minor and other powerful folks are not the only targets of GOP dirty tricks. Such tricks also can be used against regular folks like you and me. In fact, just in the past week or so, I've seen signs that dirty tricks are continuing to come my way. Some involve my personal property. And another apparently involves my job. I will be sharing these curious events with readers here at Legal Schnauzer.
Monday, December 24, 2007
A Message for the Season
Thank you to Pam Miles for sending this Christmas message from former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. I would like to, in turn, share it with Legal Schnauzer readers. May we all keep these powerful words in our minds, and in our hearts, in the weeks and months ahead.
Merry Christmas to all of you, with heartfelt gratitude for your support.
Please enjoy this meaningful holiday season and appreciate your freedom, your homes, and your loved ones. I look forward to cherishing these precious gifts, more than ever, in the coming year.
With your continued hard work, I believe this Christmas will be my only one within these walls. Despite the grim conditions here, I will celebrate this special day by keeping my faith, and by maintaining the hope that, with your help, we can move Congress to expand their investigation and restore American justice --our once bright beacon in the free world.
I cannot thank you enough, or ask more emphatically that you continue and intensify your extremely important efforts. May the many blessings of this season bring joy to each of you.
Don Siegelman
Oakdale, LA
Don Siegelman # 24775-001
Satellite Prison Camp
Post Office Box 5010
Oakdale, LA 71463-5019
Merry Christmas to all of you, with heartfelt gratitude for your support.
Please enjoy this meaningful holiday season and appreciate your freedom, your homes, and your loved ones. I look forward to cherishing these precious gifts, more than ever, in the coming year.
With your continued hard work, I believe this Christmas will be my only one within these walls. Despite the grim conditions here, I will celebrate this special day by keeping my faith, and by maintaining the hope that, with your help, we can move Congress to expand their investigation and restore American justice --our once bright beacon in the free world.
I cannot thank you enough, or ask more emphatically that you continue and intensify your extremely important efforts. May the many blessings of this season bring joy to each of you.
Don Siegelman
Oakdale, LA
Don Siegelman # 24775-001
Satellite Prison Camp
Post Office Box 5010
Oakdale, LA 71463-5019
Spreading the Word
The Legal Schnauzer has had the good fortune to draw the attention of several prominent bloggers in recent days. We appreciate the links, and we hope our readers will check out these blogs on a regular basis. All have interesting takes on issues connected to justice.
We live in a time where people actually are being held political prisoners in the United States. At least two Democrats, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, have been political prisoners for several months now. Two more, former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, become political prisoners on Thursday (Dec. 27).
If the United States is to return to a system of honorable justice, it will take a team effort. I vote for Scott Horton of Harper's as team captain. But I'm always delighted to discover other key members of the team:
* Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely, who has become a major voice on the Don Siegelman case and other justice-related stories, notes the Schnauzer and a number of other sites about citizen journalism.
* The blogger "D Cupples" (now how's that for a descriptive nickname?) at Buck Naked Politics mentions the Schnauzer in a roundup of thoughts from the blogosphere. Buck Naked Politics has been on a our blogroll for a while, and I hope Schnauzer readers will make regular stops there.
* And then there is a fascinating post from a site that is new to me. It's called The Disbrimstone Daily Pitchfork. The site bills itself as "Hell's Leading Daily Newspaper." (I like a dark sense of humor.) The post is titled "The Fourteen Points of Fascism: A Political Prisoner in Alabama is No Mere Commoner." The post, by Sarah Bloch, makes numerous intriguing points and is very well written. The site itself might be a bit racy for some folks' tastes. And I get the feeling the administrators aren't terribly fond of organized religion, which might offend others. But the site is funky, quirky, provocative, and justice-oriented. That's all right in my book, and I plan to make frequent visits in the future. We need some edgy folks on the justice team.
By the way, Bloch's post makes an excellent companion piece to a recent Naomi Wolf essay, which has drawn widespread attention in both the mainstream and alternative press.
We live in a time where people actually are being held political prisoners in the United States. At least two Democrats, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, have been political prisoners for several months now. Two more, former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, become political prisoners on Thursday (Dec. 27).
If the United States is to return to a system of honorable justice, it will take a team effort. I vote for Scott Horton of Harper's as team captain. But I'm always delighted to discover other key members of the team:
* Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely, who has become a major voice on the Don Siegelman case and other justice-related stories, notes the Schnauzer and a number of other sites about citizen journalism.
* The blogger "D Cupples" (now how's that for a descriptive nickname?) at Buck Naked Politics mentions the Schnauzer in a roundup of thoughts from the blogosphere. Buck Naked Politics has been on a our blogroll for a while, and I hope Schnauzer readers will make regular stops there.
* And then there is a fascinating post from a site that is new to me. It's called The Disbrimstone Daily Pitchfork. The site bills itself as "Hell's Leading Daily Newspaper." (I like a dark sense of humor.) The post is titled "The Fourteen Points of Fascism: A Political Prisoner in Alabama is No Mere Commoner." The post, by Sarah Bloch, makes numerous intriguing points and is very well written. The site itself might be a bit racy for some folks' tastes. And I get the feeling the administrators aren't terribly fond of organized religion, which might offend others. But the site is funky, quirky, provocative, and justice-oriented. That's all right in my book, and I plan to make frequent visits in the future. We need some edgy folks on the justice team.
By the way, Bloch's post makes an excellent companion piece to a recent Naomi Wolf essay, which has drawn widespread attention in both the mainstream and alternative press.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Psychological Torture, GOP Style
How wicked are some members of the modern-day Republican Party? Consider the case of former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel.
Teel and fellow state judge John Whitfield were convicted along with attorney Paul Minor on a variety of corruption charges. All three are Democrats, and the prosecution was led by the Republican-controlled Bush Justice Department.
Minor has been in federal prison for several months, currently near Pensacola, FL. Teel and Whitfield are to report to federal prison on December 27, four days from now. That prospect probably does not make for a terribly cheery Christmas.
But keep this fact in mind: All three of these men did not commit the crimes they were charged with. A jury found them guilty of bribery, honest-services mail fraud, and conspiracy because of wrongdoing by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate.
Wingate gave the jury unlawful instructions related to the two key charges--bribery and honest-services mail fraud. And he improperly did not allow the defense to put on expert witnesses who would have shown that Teel and Whitfield ruled correctly under the law on underlying lawsuits involving Minor's clients. In other words, they were not influenced by loan guarantees they had received from Minor, which are legal under Mississippi law.
So not only is Wingate responsible for sending three innocent men to prison--for political reasons--but he appears to be making a special effort to toy with Teel and his family.
George Lucas, Teel's attorney, filed a motion some time ago that Teel be allowed to remain free pending his appeal. Wingate has refused to rule on it. Does this sound familiar to those who have followed the Don Siegelman/Judge Mark Fuller saga in Alabama?
Lucas was supposed to meet last Monday with Wingate. One issue they were to discuss was a motion for extension of time to report. The motion was filed mainly because Teel's wife, Myrna, has multiple sclerosis and will require close care while her husband is in prison. The family has made arrangements for Teel's daughter-in-law to be with his wife while the Teels' son works during the day. But Teel's daughter-in-law has epilepsy and needs time to adjust to a new anti-seizure medication.
Does any of this concern Judge Wingate? Evidently not. He stiffed Lucas on the meeting repeatedly last week. Lucas had an appointment, but the meeting still has not taken place.
Teel compared Wingate's antics to psychological torture. And that is an apt term. Psychological torture has been applied to Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and numerous other folks who had the temerity to be politically active and effective Democrats. There is evidence to strongly suggest psychological torture is being employed against Jill Simpson, the Republican whistleblower in the Siegelman case.
It's ironic that Teel used the term "psychological torture" in an e-mail to me about his situation. My wife and I have used that term at several key points in our own ordeal with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts.
This goes back to a point I've made several times on this blog: The modern Republican party is infested with sociopaths, people who do not have a functioning, healthy conscience.
I've had the good fortune to get to know Wes and Myrna Teel via e-mail in recent months. This blog, and our shared status as victims of gross injustice, brought us together. The Teels seem like delightful people; Wes somehow has managed to maintain a sense of humor and it is on display at his Gulf Coast Realist blog.
But my anger and sadness at the Teels' plight goes beyond the fact that I find Wes to be a genuinely likable fellow, and he makes a great e-mail buddy, and we share a similar political philosophy. I've had little if any direct communication with Paul Minor and John Whitfield, but I also grieve for them
So why grieve for people I've never met and hardly know? I grieve because of what this says about our country.
Through more than 25 posts in our Mississippi Churning series, I have shown that these three men are innocent of the charges brought against them. And it's not even a close call. That prosecutor Dunn Lampton--a GOP appointee with reasons to have a personal ax to grind with Paul Minor--would bring the charges, is a disgrace. That Wingate would allow the case to go to a jury, and then make numerous unlawful rulings to ensure conviction, is despicable.
I hope there is an especially warm corner of hell that will someday occupy the likes of Lampton and Wingate (not to mention Mark Fuller, Leura Canary, Alice Martin and numerous GOPers in Alabama).
But assuming that these scoundrels will be on earth for a while, I have a suggestion for Democrats: First, take every action necessary (under the law) to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. And then push hard for aggressive prosecutors to be placed in the U.S. attorneys offices in Mississippi, Alabama, and the rest of the nation. And give these pit bulls a mandate to go after the GOP slimebags who have turned our justice department into a corrupt carnival in recent years. The statute of limitations on many GOP crimes will not have run out by 2009, and these criminals must be punished.
I've heard it said that many Jews have taken a "never again" approach to the conditions that led to the Holocaust. I would suggest that Democrats take a similar approach to administering justice to the sociopaths who have sullied our nation. The time to develop an action plan for justice is right now.
In the name of Wes Teel, Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others who have suffered from GOP psychological torture, Democrats must be prepared to see that justice is done.
Teel and fellow state judge John Whitfield were convicted along with attorney Paul Minor on a variety of corruption charges. All three are Democrats, and the prosecution was led by the Republican-controlled Bush Justice Department.
Minor has been in federal prison for several months, currently near Pensacola, FL. Teel and Whitfield are to report to federal prison on December 27, four days from now. That prospect probably does not make for a terribly cheery Christmas.
But keep this fact in mind: All three of these men did not commit the crimes they were charged with. A jury found them guilty of bribery, honest-services mail fraud, and conspiracy because of wrongdoing by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate.
Wingate gave the jury unlawful instructions related to the two key charges--bribery and honest-services mail fraud. And he improperly did not allow the defense to put on expert witnesses who would have shown that Teel and Whitfield ruled correctly under the law on underlying lawsuits involving Minor's clients. In other words, they were not influenced by loan guarantees they had received from Minor, which are legal under Mississippi law.
So not only is Wingate responsible for sending three innocent men to prison--for political reasons--but he appears to be making a special effort to toy with Teel and his family.
George Lucas, Teel's attorney, filed a motion some time ago that Teel be allowed to remain free pending his appeal. Wingate has refused to rule on it. Does this sound familiar to those who have followed the Don Siegelman/Judge Mark Fuller saga in Alabama?
Lucas was supposed to meet last Monday with Wingate. One issue they were to discuss was a motion for extension of time to report. The motion was filed mainly because Teel's wife, Myrna, has multiple sclerosis and will require close care while her husband is in prison. The family has made arrangements for Teel's daughter-in-law to be with his wife while the Teels' son works during the day. But Teel's daughter-in-law has epilepsy and needs time to adjust to a new anti-seizure medication.
Does any of this concern Judge Wingate? Evidently not. He stiffed Lucas on the meeting repeatedly last week. Lucas had an appointment, but the meeting still has not taken place.
Teel compared Wingate's antics to psychological torture. And that is an apt term. Psychological torture has been applied to Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and numerous other folks who had the temerity to be politically active and effective Democrats. There is evidence to strongly suggest psychological torture is being employed against Jill Simpson, the Republican whistleblower in the Siegelman case.
It's ironic that Teel used the term "psychological torture" in an e-mail to me about his situation. My wife and I have used that term at several key points in our own ordeal with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts.
This goes back to a point I've made several times on this blog: The modern Republican party is infested with sociopaths, people who do not have a functioning, healthy conscience.
I've had the good fortune to get to know Wes and Myrna Teel via e-mail in recent months. This blog, and our shared status as victims of gross injustice, brought us together. The Teels seem like delightful people; Wes somehow has managed to maintain a sense of humor and it is on display at his Gulf Coast Realist blog.
But my anger and sadness at the Teels' plight goes beyond the fact that I find Wes to be a genuinely likable fellow, and he makes a great e-mail buddy, and we share a similar political philosophy. I've had little if any direct communication with Paul Minor and John Whitfield, but I also grieve for them
So why grieve for people I've never met and hardly know? I grieve because of what this says about our country.
Through more than 25 posts in our Mississippi Churning series, I have shown that these three men are innocent of the charges brought against them. And it's not even a close call. That prosecutor Dunn Lampton--a GOP appointee with reasons to have a personal ax to grind with Paul Minor--would bring the charges, is a disgrace. That Wingate would allow the case to go to a jury, and then make numerous unlawful rulings to ensure conviction, is despicable.
I hope there is an especially warm corner of hell that will someday occupy the likes of Lampton and Wingate (not to mention Mark Fuller, Leura Canary, Alice Martin and numerous GOPers in Alabama).
But assuming that these scoundrels will be on earth for a while, I have a suggestion for Democrats: First, take every action necessary (under the law) to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. And then push hard for aggressive prosecutors to be placed in the U.S. attorneys offices in Mississippi, Alabama, and the rest of the nation. And give these pit bulls a mandate to go after the GOP slimebags who have turned our justice department into a corrupt carnival in recent years. The statute of limitations on many GOP crimes will not have run out by 2009, and these criminals must be punished.
I've heard it said that many Jews have taken a "never again" approach to the conditions that led to the Holocaust. I would suggest that Democrats take a similar approach to administering justice to the sociopaths who have sullied our nation. The time to develop an action plan for justice is right now.
In the name of Wes Teel, Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others who have suffered from GOP psychological torture, Democrats must be prepared to see that justice is done.
Church, State, and Siegelman
Robby Scott Hill's Novationeering blog is invariably interesting and often highly entertaining.
Hill has been both recently, posting in rare form.
First, he spotlights the not-always-ethical role the Catholic Church has played in Alabama politics. In fact, he notes that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was viewed as a liberal Catholic, representing interests that were adverse to the church. Meanwhile, former Attorney General Bill Pryor was viewed as a conservative catholic who wholeheartedly backed the church's interests.
Hill notes that it was Pryor who initiated the investigation that led to Siegelman's downfall. Did the antipathy between the two men go beyond political differences? Did it have its genesis in religious difference? And did the Catholic church support the targeting of Don Siegelman?
Hill goes on to note my own interesting legal battle, which appears to have roots through Briarwood Presbyterian Church, a large evangelical, conservative Birmingham congregation with its own private school. This church has strong connections to The Birmingham News, and I've noted how my legal woes seem to be connected to a strange real-estate deal involving the powerhouse football program at Briarwood Christian High School.
Our ethical standards supposedly have their roots in the Bible. But do those who are most likely to quote The Good Book follow an ethical path? Hill does an excellent job of raising that question.
He also appears to be in the process of gathering some most interesting dirt on a number of Alabama politicos. I think we all will want to stay tuned for that.
Hill has been both recently, posting in rare form.
First, he spotlights the not-always-ethical role the Catholic Church has played in Alabama politics. In fact, he notes that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was viewed as a liberal Catholic, representing interests that were adverse to the church. Meanwhile, former Attorney General Bill Pryor was viewed as a conservative catholic who wholeheartedly backed the church's interests.
Hill notes that it was Pryor who initiated the investigation that led to Siegelman's downfall. Did the antipathy between the two men go beyond political differences? Did it have its genesis in religious difference? And did the Catholic church support the targeting of Don Siegelman?
Hill goes on to note my own interesting legal battle, which appears to have roots through Briarwood Presbyterian Church, a large evangelical, conservative Birmingham congregation with its own private school. This church has strong connections to The Birmingham News, and I've noted how my legal woes seem to be connected to a strange real-estate deal involving the powerhouse football program at Briarwood Christian High School.
Our ethical standards supposedly have their roots in the Bible. But do those who are most likely to quote The Good Book follow an ethical path? Hill does an excellent job of raising that question.
He also appears to be in the process of gathering some most interesting dirt on a number of Alabama politicos. I think we all will want to stay tuned for that.
Friday, December 21, 2007
A Reporter Sighting in Alabama?
This might come as a shock, but there are signs that an Alabama-based journalist (aside from bloggers) is actually doing some reporting.
Reporters at small papers in south Alabama have done some good work in the past year on the rampant Republican sleaze in our state. But I can't think of a non-blogging journalist in the northern half of the state who has done squat.
That might be changing, thanks to Bob Gambacurta, who is turning out some serious stuff on the John W. Goff case in Montgomery. Gambacurta is a veteran of the Alabama journalism and political scene, and he reports for the Montgomery Independent on the nastiness between Goff and Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Goff filed a lawsuit, claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin one of Goff's insurance company. In apparent retaliation pushed by Riley, the GOP-led U.S. attorney's office in Montgomery initiated what appears to be a flimsy criminal investigation of Goff.
Gambacurta reports that U.S. Justice Department officials have informed Goff's attorneys that Main Justice in Washington will oversee the federal grand-jury investigation into insurance fraud allegations against Goff.
David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general in Washington, does not remove assistants in the Montgomery office from the case. He says supervision of the case will remain with Montgomery prosecutor Louis Franklin, but oversight will come from Washington.
Sounds like that's only so-so news for Goff.
In a column earlier this week, Gambacurta lays out a series of questions raised by the Goff case. A sampler:
* Why did federal prosecutors launch a grand jury investigation of Goff just months after Goff filed suit against Gov. Riley?
* Why are federal prosecutors using a 3-4 year old complaint which deals with litigation that has long since been resolved, as the basis for the Goff investigation?
* Why did U.S. Attorney Leura Canary recuse herself from the Goff investigation and not recuse the assistant U.S. attorneys who work for her?
* Why does Mrs. Canary refuse to make public her recusal documents?
And here's an interesting one:
* Why, after interviewing Goff's CPA, who staunchly defended Goff and refuted all the charges against him, are federal prosecutors not bringing the accountant before the grand jury to testify?
"These and many other questions will be answered when and if Goff's suit comes to trial," Gambacurta reports.
It seems clear that Riley and his GOP henchpeople are doing everything they can to ensure that does not happen.
But I get the sense that Gambacurta smells the stench of Alabama Republicans. Let's hope he continues to follow the smelly trail.
Reporters at small papers in south Alabama have done some good work in the past year on the rampant Republican sleaze in our state. But I can't think of a non-blogging journalist in the northern half of the state who has done squat.
That might be changing, thanks to Bob Gambacurta, who is turning out some serious stuff on the John W. Goff case in Montgomery. Gambacurta is a veteran of the Alabama journalism and political scene, and he reports for the Montgomery Independent on the nastiness between Goff and Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Goff filed a lawsuit, claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin one of Goff's insurance company. In apparent retaliation pushed by Riley, the GOP-led U.S. attorney's office in Montgomery initiated what appears to be a flimsy criminal investigation of Goff.
Gambacurta reports that U.S. Justice Department officials have informed Goff's attorneys that Main Justice in Washington will oversee the federal grand-jury investigation into insurance fraud allegations against Goff.
David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general in Washington, does not remove assistants in the Montgomery office from the case. He says supervision of the case will remain with Montgomery prosecutor Louis Franklin, but oversight will come from Washington.
Sounds like that's only so-so news for Goff.
In a column earlier this week, Gambacurta lays out a series of questions raised by the Goff case. A sampler:
* Why did federal prosecutors launch a grand jury investigation of Goff just months after Goff filed suit against Gov. Riley?
* Why are federal prosecutors using a 3-4 year old complaint which deals with litigation that has long since been resolved, as the basis for the Goff investigation?
* Why did U.S. Attorney Leura Canary recuse herself from the Goff investigation and not recuse the assistant U.S. attorneys who work for her?
* Why does Mrs. Canary refuse to make public her recusal documents?
And here's an interesting one:
* Why, after interviewing Goff's CPA, who staunchly defended Goff and refuted all the charges against him, are federal prosecutors not bringing the accountant before the grand jury to testify?
"These and many other questions will be answered when and if Goff's suit comes to trial," Gambacurta reports.
It seems clear that Riley and his GOP henchpeople are doing everything they can to ensure that does not happen.
But I get the sense that Gambacurta smells the stench of Alabama Republicans. Let's hope he continues to follow the smelly trail.
Will Dirt Stick to Siegelman Judge?
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely and Raw Story, provides an update on the 60 Minutes Don Siegelman story--along with an extremely juicy tidbit toward the end.
Drawing on a blog post by Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News, Alexandrovna reports that the Siegelman segment probably will air in January. Siegelman supporters had been expecting it to run in December.
Toward the end of her post, Alexandrovna drops a couple of bombshells:
* "And I also have to wonder from whom it was that (former Alabama attorney general Bill) Pryor took bribes and for what purpose?
* "And for those of you who love a good sex scandal, is anyone looking into how (U.S. District Judge Mark) Fuller's alleged mistress is able to maintain her lifestyle?"
Yow! How are those for kickers?
The Fuller item is particularly juicy. If you recall, the affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks outlined a litany of misconduct by Fuller several years before he oversaw the Siegelman prosecution. At the heart of Weeks' charges was evidence that Fuller had misused public funds in order to provide favors for a colleague who had served under him as district attorney.
Could Fuller also have used public funds for a mistress who served under him . . . oh wait, that's a really bad pun? Better close this post while I'm ahead.
Drawing on a blog post by Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News, Alexandrovna reports that the Siegelman segment probably will air in January. Siegelman supporters had been expecting it to run in December.
Toward the end of her post, Alexandrovna drops a couple of bombshells:
* "And I also have to wonder from whom it was that (former Alabama attorney general Bill) Pryor took bribes and for what purpose?
* "And for those of you who love a good sex scandal, is anyone looking into how (U.S. District Judge Mark) Fuller's alleged mistress is able to maintain her lifestyle?"
Yow! How are those for kickers?
The Fuller item is particularly juicy. If you recall, the affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks outlined a litany of misconduct by Fuller several years before he oversaw the Siegelman prosecution. At the heart of Weeks' charges was evidence that Fuller had misused public funds in order to provide favors for a colleague who had served under him as district attorney.
Could Fuller also have used public funds for a mistress who served under him . . . oh wait, that's a really bad pun? Better close this post while I'm ahead.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
A Schnauzer Spy Story, Part II
After more than a year of looking, your wife receives extremely positive feedback on a job with one of your area's largest employers. The position is an excellent fit with her previous experience. She and the woman doing the hiring hit it off great.
In fact, the woman tells your wife some things that, by law, she really shouldn't have said. Several people in their 20s had held the job and didn't find it exciting enough and soon wanted to get promoted. That had caused the position to become a revolving door. The job was important to the functioning of the organization, but the woman decided she needed someone older who could manage the job's details and would be happy to stay in the position a while. People really aren't supposed to base hires on age issues such as that, but this is the woman's way of saying your wife is exactly the kind of person she is looking for.
The woman invites your wife back for a second interview and tells her this is "just a formality." Your wife takes that to mean, realistically you think, that the job is pretty much hers. The woman says she wants to make a hire quickly, so it only seems a matter of time before your wife has a job that she is very excited about.
But days, and then weeks, go by and you still haven't heard anything. Finally, you discover that the hiring decision has been taken out of the hands of the woman who had interviewed your wife. They wind up hiring someone who did not match at all the characteristics your wife had been told they were looking for. Your wife is devastated, and so are you, but she presses on.
With clouds forming over your financial picture, your wife has more strange experiences in the job search. A doctor seems to love your wife's outgoing personality and maturity. The doctor says that's exactly what she needs in a front-office position for her practice. Your wife doesn't get the job.
One interviewer gives your wife extremely positive feedback on a customer-service position and promises to get back with her in a few days. When a couple of weeks go by with no word, your wife calls the woman. We couldn't give you the job because we needed someone with customer-service experience, the woman says. "My resume says that I have eight years of customer-service experience with one of the top companies in the state," your wife says. "Oh," the woman says. "Good luck in your job search."
One man at a dental-supplies company is so impressed with your wife that he interviews her for three hours. He says a decision will be made in a few days, and is most encouraging. Your wife hears nothing for more than a week, and the man does not respond several times when she leaves phone messages. Finally, he comes to the phone and says he's hired someone else. No explanation. Guess he interviewed that person for four hours.
Then a national insurance firm shows interest in your wife. She takes a test that apparently is rather difficult. The two applicants who took it with her, fail. She passes. Her interview goes well, and she is told a decision will be made in two weeks. The company is hiring for multiple positions and expects to hire at least 20 people. Two days later, your wife receives notice that she will not be hired. The letter is dated the day after her interview.
That night, you and your wife wake up in bed with the identical thought. "You know," you say, "it's almost as if someone is going around behind you to cost you these jobs." "I was having that same thought," she says.
Who would want to do that? How could someone do that?
(To be continued)
In fact, the woman tells your wife some things that, by law, she really shouldn't have said. Several people in their 20s had held the job and didn't find it exciting enough and soon wanted to get promoted. That had caused the position to become a revolving door. The job was important to the functioning of the organization, but the woman decided she needed someone older who could manage the job's details and would be happy to stay in the position a while. People really aren't supposed to base hires on age issues such as that, but this is the woman's way of saying your wife is exactly the kind of person she is looking for.
The woman invites your wife back for a second interview and tells her this is "just a formality." Your wife takes that to mean, realistically you think, that the job is pretty much hers. The woman says she wants to make a hire quickly, so it only seems a matter of time before your wife has a job that she is very excited about.
But days, and then weeks, go by and you still haven't heard anything. Finally, you discover that the hiring decision has been taken out of the hands of the woman who had interviewed your wife. They wind up hiring someone who did not match at all the characteristics your wife had been told they were looking for. Your wife is devastated, and so are you, but she presses on.
With clouds forming over your financial picture, your wife has more strange experiences in the job search. A doctor seems to love your wife's outgoing personality and maturity. The doctor says that's exactly what she needs in a front-office position for her practice. Your wife doesn't get the job.
One interviewer gives your wife extremely positive feedback on a customer-service position and promises to get back with her in a few days. When a couple of weeks go by with no word, your wife calls the woman. We couldn't give you the job because we needed someone with customer-service experience, the woman says. "My resume says that I have eight years of customer-service experience with one of the top companies in the state," your wife says. "Oh," the woman says. "Good luck in your job search."
One man at a dental-supplies company is so impressed with your wife that he interviews her for three hours. He says a decision will be made in a few days, and is most encouraging. Your wife hears nothing for more than a week, and the man does not respond several times when she leaves phone messages. Finally, he comes to the phone and says he's hired someone else. No explanation. Guess he interviewed that person for four hours.
Then a national insurance firm shows interest in your wife. She takes a test that apparently is rather difficult. The two applicants who took it with her, fail. She passes. Her interview goes well, and she is told a decision will be made in two weeks. The company is hiring for multiple positions and expects to hire at least 20 people. Two days later, your wife receives notice that she will not be hired. The letter is dated the day after her interview.
That night, you and your wife wake up in bed with the identical thought. "You know," you say, "it's almost as if someone is going around behind you to cost you these jobs." "I was having that same thought," she says.
Who would want to do that? How could someone do that?
(To be continued)
Bob Riley and the ExxonMobil Screw Job
Did Alabama Governor Bob Riley actually approve of the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to overturn a jury verdict that would have awarded the state $3.6 billion in a case against oil giant ExxonMobil?
Well, it's looking more and more like our goober of a governor actually thinks it's a good thing that his state got screwed out of billions of dollars.
First, Riley announced that he would not even seek to have the Supreme Court rehear its ruling--which, by the way, any first-year law student could see was unlawfully made. Now, we have Riley touting the fact that the American Tort Reform Association has removed Alabama from its list of "Judicial Hellholes."
"Alabama today is recognized more than we ever have been before for judicial reform and tort reform we've had over the past few years," Riley said. "Impressions of the rest of the country have changed for the better."
Changed for the better? By having our corporate courts rob us of a huge verdict that was earned because a jury found the ExxonMobil had committed fraud in underpaying on natural-gas royalties?
What does the rest of the country really think? That Alabamians are a bunch of dupes for electing goobers like Riley for governor and common corporate crooks for seats on its appellate courts.
This lends more evidence to what many of us have suspected for some time: that Riley did not want the ExxonMobil ruling to be upheld. After all, the same bunch of corporate types who put eight Republicans on the nine-person Supreme Court also put Riley into office.
This concept of "judicial hellholes" is another example of conservatives' gift for playing tricks with the language. "We're pro life," they say. Oh really, then how come you supported raising speed limits on interstates, which has been proven to cost lives? "We're for fiscal responsibility," they say. Oh really, then how come the national debt explodes every time you are in charge?
The truth is this: Alabama has never been a bigger judicial hellhole than it is right now. And the focal point of that hellhole is in the Republican enclave of Shelby County--and probably in the Republican enclave of Baldwin County, where evidence suggests Riley supporters stole the 2002 election from Don Siegelman.
And thanks to the ExxonMobil ruling, we know that the judicial hellhole includes our highest court. But that's not news to us here at Legal Schnauzer. We already knew Alabama appellate courts cheated people and violated their own rules. In the weeks ahead, we will be showing you exactly how they do it.
Well, it's looking more and more like our goober of a governor actually thinks it's a good thing that his state got screwed out of billions of dollars.
First, Riley announced that he would not even seek to have the Supreme Court rehear its ruling--which, by the way, any first-year law student could see was unlawfully made. Now, we have Riley touting the fact that the American Tort Reform Association has removed Alabama from its list of "Judicial Hellholes."
"Alabama today is recognized more than we ever have been before for judicial reform and tort reform we've had over the past few years," Riley said. "Impressions of the rest of the country have changed for the better."
Changed for the better? By having our corporate courts rob us of a huge verdict that was earned because a jury found the ExxonMobil had committed fraud in underpaying on natural-gas royalties?
What does the rest of the country really think? That Alabamians are a bunch of dupes for electing goobers like Riley for governor and common corporate crooks for seats on its appellate courts.
This lends more evidence to what many of us have suspected for some time: that Riley did not want the ExxonMobil ruling to be upheld. After all, the same bunch of corporate types who put eight Republicans on the nine-person Supreme Court also put Riley into office.
This concept of "judicial hellholes" is another example of conservatives' gift for playing tricks with the language. "We're pro life," they say. Oh really, then how come you supported raising speed limits on interstates, which has been proven to cost lives? "We're for fiscal responsibility," they say. Oh really, then how come the national debt explodes every time you are in charge?
The truth is this: Alabama has never been a bigger judicial hellhole than it is right now. And the focal point of that hellhole is in the Republican enclave of Shelby County--and probably in the Republican enclave of Baldwin County, where evidence suggests Riley supporters stole the 2002 election from Don Siegelman.
And thanks to the ExxonMobil ruling, we know that the judicial hellhole includes our highest court. But that's not news to us here at Legal Schnauzer. We already knew Alabama appellate courts cheated people and violated their own rules. In the weeks ahead, we will be showing you exactly how they do it.
More Hoover, Briarwood Connections
The Birmingham News tonight is reporting that Oxford High School's Josh Niblett is the favorite to be named the new head coach at Hoover High School.
Earlier in the day, the News reported that Hoover had narrowed to six its list of candidates for replacing Rush Propst.
We here at Legal Schnauzer found it interesting that one of the six was Jay Mathews, head coach at Christ Presbyterian Christian Academy in Nashville, Tennessee. Mathews spent 13 seasons as an assistant coach at Briarwood Christian High School in Birmingham.
We have noted in a series of posts that my legal problems coincided with a peculiar real-estate deal involving Briarwood head coach Fred Yancey, my former neighbor and Jay Mathews' former boss. The real-estate deal, which wound up with Yancey moving to a house on the Briarwood campus, coincided with Hoover's previous coaching search. That search ended with the hiring of Propst in 1999.
I have speculated that in late 1998, early 1999, Hoover might have been interested in Yancey for its coaching position. And it might have been even more interested in Briarwood's two star players at the time, Tim and Simeon Castille, who went on to play at the University of Alabama.
I have speculated that Briarwood, in a hasty effort to keep Yancey and two stud players, initiated a poorly executed real-estate deal that led to all sorts of legal and financial headaches for yours truly. And we have noted the curious fact that the ethically challenged opposing attorney who filed the lawsuit (William E. Swatek) and the corrupt judge who unlawfully kept it going (J. Michael Joiner) have ties to Briarwood Christian School.
Several readers have scoffed at the notion that someone who was committed to Christian education at Briarwood would consider taking a position to teach and coach a bunch of heathens at a public school like Hoover.
Well, it certainly looks like Jay Mathews is interested in Hoover. And I still wonder if his mentor, Fred Yancey, was interested in Hoover back in late 1998. Today's News story says Yancey recommended Mathews for the Hoover job. Sounds like we have some connections there.
Some people seem to think that folks who wear their religion on their sleeves are somehow more noble than the rest of us. That, unlike us, they aren't tempted by things like power, fame, money, and even greed.
I'm always amused when I hear that because I suspect almost all outwardly Christian football coaches are just like other football coaches--they want to win games and they want to get paid as much as possible to do it. And if they are more likely to accomplish those things at a public school, my guess is they would be more than happy to leave their Christian school.
Anyway, Mathews' interest in the Hoover job certainly does not prove my theory. But it made a certain schnauzer's ears twitch a bit.
Earlier in the day, the News reported that Hoover had narrowed to six its list of candidates for replacing Rush Propst.
We here at Legal Schnauzer found it interesting that one of the six was Jay Mathews, head coach at Christ Presbyterian Christian Academy in Nashville, Tennessee. Mathews spent 13 seasons as an assistant coach at Briarwood Christian High School in Birmingham.
We have noted in a series of posts that my legal problems coincided with a peculiar real-estate deal involving Briarwood head coach Fred Yancey, my former neighbor and Jay Mathews' former boss. The real-estate deal, which wound up with Yancey moving to a house on the Briarwood campus, coincided with Hoover's previous coaching search. That search ended with the hiring of Propst in 1999.
I have speculated that in late 1998, early 1999, Hoover might have been interested in Yancey for its coaching position. And it might have been even more interested in Briarwood's two star players at the time, Tim and Simeon Castille, who went on to play at the University of Alabama.
I have speculated that Briarwood, in a hasty effort to keep Yancey and two stud players, initiated a poorly executed real-estate deal that led to all sorts of legal and financial headaches for yours truly. And we have noted the curious fact that the ethically challenged opposing attorney who filed the lawsuit (William E. Swatek) and the corrupt judge who unlawfully kept it going (J. Michael Joiner) have ties to Briarwood Christian School.
Several readers have scoffed at the notion that someone who was committed to Christian education at Briarwood would consider taking a position to teach and coach a bunch of heathens at a public school like Hoover.
Well, it certainly looks like Jay Mathews is interested in Hoover. And I still wonder if his mentor, Fred Yancey, was interested in Hoover back in late 1998. Today's News story says Yancey recommended Mathews for the Hoover job. Sounds like we have some connections there.
Some people seem to think that folks who wear their religion on their sleeves are somehow more noble than the rest of us. That, unlike us, they aren't tempted by things like power, fame, money, and even greed.
I'm always amused when I hear that because I suspect almost all outwardly Christian football coaches are just like other football coaches--they want to win games and they want to get paid as much as possible to do it. And if they are more likely to accomplish those things at a public school, my guess is they would be more than happy to leave their Christian school.
Anyway, Mathews' interest in the Hoover job certainly does not prove my theory. But it made a certain schnauzer's ears twitch a bit.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex
The Process of Panic?
What does the release of Lanny Young mean in the evolving story of a corrupt Bush Justice Department? Young, a chief accuser of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, has been released by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller.
That's the same Judge Fuller who has ensured that Siegelman and Richard Scrushy would be held in federal prison pending their appeals.
Larisa Alexandrovna, who is leading a Raw Story investigation on the Siegelman case, has an interesting take at her personal blog, at-Largely. Alexandrovna says Young's release could be a sign of panic among such GOP luminaries as Fuller and U.S. attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin.
And then there is federal prosecutor Steve Feaga. Alexandrovna makes an intriguing reference to Feaga and visits to Rosemary Beach (Karl Rove?). She goes on to state that Feaga might be the most likely candidate to pay a serious price if various investigations finally hit home.
Whither Noel Hillman?
The Emptywheel blog raises interesting questions about Noel Hillman, the former director of the U.S. Public Integrity Section and now a federal judge.
Emptywheel reports that Hillman has received a subpoena to testify in the Beam v. Gonzalez case in Chicago. Beam is the lawsuit that came from an apparent Justice Department attempt to target law firms that contributed to the John Edwards campaign.
You might recall, that we have wondered if the DOJ campaign against Edwards donors was behind the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi, the subject of many posts here at Legal Schnauzer.
It looks like Hillman's deposition actually did not take place as scheduled. But Emptywheel states that this apparently marks the first time that someone outside of Congress has subpoenaed someone alleged to have politicized prosecutions at the Bush DOJ.
Scott Horton, at Harper's, has reported that Hillman's fingerprints were all over the Siegelman and Minor prosecutions.
In fact, Emptywheel quotes a segment from Jill Simpson's testimony before Congress, in which she states that Hillman evidently was the DOJ contact that Karl Rove was arm-twisting to go after Siegelman.
Lott and State Farm
Emptywheel also has a most interesting post about U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) and his mysterious decision to retire at the end of the year.
A post from today presents significant evidence that Lott had an almost pathological hatred of State Farm in the aftermath of damage to his home from Hurricane Katrina.
This connects closely to our recent post noting that Lott might have a problem with possible extortion in his efforts to get back at the giant insurance company for failing to provide full coverage on the damage to his home.
Emptywheel is a new discovery for us here at Legal Schnauzer. Looks like that is a site that demands regular checks.
An Update on Animal-Cruelty Case
We have been following the case of Anne, the beagle in Cullman County, Alabama, who had to be euthanized after she was skinned over much of her body.
Investigators initially focused on a human culprit. But an examination by an Auburn University pathologist indicates that the skinning appeared to have been done by a machine and could have been the result of an accident. Officials said a mishap with farm equipment or some other kind of machinery could have caused Anne's injuries.
About $35,000 in reward money has been collected in the case. Officials said the case remains open, but the investigation has been scaled back.
What does the release of Lanny Young mean in the evolving story of a corrupt Bush Justice Department? Young, a chief accuser of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, has been released by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller.
That's the same Judge Fuller who has ensured that Siegelman and Richard Scrushy would be held in federal prison pending their appeals.
Larisa Alexandrovna, who is leading a Raw Story investigation on the Siegelman case, has an interesting take at her personal blog, at-Largely. Alexandrovna says Young's release could be a sign of panic among such GOP luminaries as Fuller and U.S. attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin.
And then there is federal prosecutor Steve Feaga. Alexandrovna makes an intriguing reference to Feaga and visits to Rosemary Beach (Karl Rove?). She goes on to state that Feaga might be the most likely candidate to pay a serious price if various investigations finally hit home.
Whither Noel Hillman?
The Emptywheel blog raises interesting questions about Noel Hillman, the former director of the U.S. Public Integrity Section and now a federal judge.
Emptywheel reports that Hillman has received a subpoena to testify in the Beam v. Gonzalez case in Chicago. Beam is the lawsuit that came from an apparent Justice Department attempt to target law firms that contributed to the John Edwards campaign.
You might recall, that we have wondered if the DOJ campaign against Edwards donors was behind the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi, the subject of many posts here at Legal Schnauzer.
It looks like Hillman's deposition actually did not take place as scheduled. But Emptywheel states that this apparently marks the first time that someone outside of Congress has subpoenaed someone alleged to have politicized prosecutions at the Bush DOJ.
Scott Horton, at Harper's, has reported that Hillman's fingerprints were all over the Siegelman and Minor prosecutions.
In fact, Emptywheel quotes a segment from Jill Simpson's testimony before Congress, in which she states that Hillman evidently was the DOJ contact that Karl Rove was arm-twisting to go after Siegelman.
Lott and State Farm
Emptywheel also has a most interesting post about U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) and his mysterious decision to retire at the end of the year.
A post from today presents significant evidence that Lott had an almost pathological hatred of State Farm in the aftermath of damage to his home from Hurricane Katrina.
This connects closely to our recent post noting that Lott might have a problem with possible extortion in his efforts to get back at the giant insurance company for failing to provide full coverage on the damage to his home.
Emptywheel is a new discovery for us here at Legal Schnauzer. Looks like that is a site that demands regular checks.
An Update on Animal-Cruelty Case
We have been following the case of Anne, the beagle in Cullman County, Alabama, who had to be euthanized after she was skinned over much of her body.
Investigators initially focused on a human culprit. But an examination by an Auburn University pathologist indicates that the skinning appeared to have been done by a machine and could have been the result of an accident. Officials said a mishap with farm equipment or some other kind of machinery could have caused Anne's injuries.
About $35,000 in reward money has been collected in the case. Officials said the case remains open, but the investigation has been scaled back.
A Schnauzer Spy Story
Americans seem to love a good spy story. Whether it's James Bond movies or books by authors such as Robert Ludlum, John le Carre, or Tom Clancy, we can't seem to get enough of the spy trade.
So we offer our own little spy story here at Legal Schnauzer. At least I think it's a spy story. I don't have all the facts nailed down just yet. But I'm getting close. If, and when, I get there, some folks are going to be facing serious issues with federal authorities.
Of course, we already know that federal authorities themselves are abusing the telecommunications industry to illegally gather information on citizens. But I would suggest that abusive surveillance is not limited to federal officials.
Let me ask you to put yourself into this somewhat imaginary scenario, which is very similar to what I have experienced:
Imagine that, through no fault of your own, you have ticked off a state judge. You only came in contact with this judge because someone filed a bogus lawsuit against you (using an unethical attorney in the process), and you are forced to defend yourself. The case, by law, has to be dismissed (summary judgment) in a matter of six to eight months, but the judge repeatedly makes strange rulings, causing the case to drag on for months, for years.
You visit your local law library to conduct research on the judge's rulings and discover that he is cheating you blind. You also discover that your attorney has to know about this, but is doing nothing to serve your interests, instead playing an ugly and illegal game of softball--at the judge's urging, it seems clear.
The judge, you realize, is corrupt. And once you fire your first attorney--and then a second, who also wishes to play footsie with the judge--you begin to represent yourself. Immediately, you file court documents that let the judge know three things: (A) You know what he's up to; (B) You aren't going to play along; (C) You aren't going to be quiet about his wrongdoing.
This is how you ticked off the judge--by standing up for yourself.
Further imagine this: In the course of these legal proceedings, it becomes known to the opposing side (whose attorney has a cozy relationship with the corrupt judge) that your wife is looking for work.
Your wife has a spotless personal and employment history. She is only in the job market because she had taken a voluntary severance package from her previous employer, which was going through a downsizing after she had worked there for almost 18 years.
For family-health reasons, your wife winds up being out of the workplace longer than expected. But when you are in the midst of this legal unpleasantness, your wife both wants, and needs, to return to the workplace.
With her having been out of the workplace a little longer than planned, you figure it might take some time for her to land a job. But your area's employment picture is good, her work and personal history are spotless, her previous employer was (and is) one of the most respected companies in the state, and she is realistic about positions she should be pursuing. In other words, she is looking for positions that are at or below her level of qualifications. And her qualifications are stout. She was an honor student throughout her time in school, from grade school through college.
Months go by, turning into more than a year, and your wife is having no luck in her job search. Actually, no luck is not quite accurate. She is getting lots and lots of interest--interviews seem to go well, she passes tests with flying colors, hiring managers give her very positive feedback.
But there are no job offers. Meanwhile, you regularly read stories in the local newspaper about your area's low unemployment rate. In fact, employers within a 10-mile radius of where you live are almost desperate for workers. This is the area where your wife is concentrating her job search, but she can't get an offer.
Because of the strain of the lawsuit and your wife's unexpected difficulty in landing a job, your once solid financial picture is starting to darken.
And then things begin to get strange.
(To be continued)
So we offer our own little spy story here at Legal Schnauzer. At least I think it's a spy story. I don't have all the facts nailed down just yet. But I'm getting close. If, and when, I get there, some folks are going to be facing serious issues with federal authorities.
Of course, we already know that federal authorities themselves are abusing the telecommunications industry to illegally gather information on citizens. But I would suggest that abusive surveillance is not limited to federal officials.
Why do we Americans tend to enjoy a good spy story? Probably because of their escapist entertainment value. But I'm talking about a spy story that isn't much fun, particularly when you and someone you love appear to be the victims of spying and are paying a big price because of it. I'm talking about the kind of spying and surveillance that is against the law, big time. And if I'm on the right track, and can prove it, we're talking about gross abuse of federal wires and privacy laws by people in positions of public trust.
I don't have all of the specifics confirmed yet, so let me write about this in a general way. Many readers, I'm sure, are interested in the technical matters of surveillance, and those folks might find this spy story particularly compelling. But how might illegal spying hit close to home for regular folks, conducted by local officials? What's it like to be on the receiving end of unlawful spying--or at least to highly suspect you are on the receiving end?Let me ask you to put yourself into this somewhat imaginary scenario, which is very similar to what I have experienced:
Imagine that, through no fault of your own, you have ticked off a state judge. You only came in contact with this judge because someone filed a bogus lawsuit against you (using an unethical attorney in the process), and you are forced to defend yourself. The case, by law, has to be dismissed (summary judgment) in a matter of six to eight months, but the judge repeatedly makes strange rulings, causing the case to drag on for months, for years.
You visit your local law library to conduct research on the judge's rulings and discover that he is cheating you blind. You also discover that your attorney has to know about this, but is doing nothing to serve your interests, instead playing an ugly and illegal game of softball--at the judge's urging, it seems clear.
The judge, you realize, is corrupt. And once you fire your first attorney--and then a second, who also wishes to play footsie with the judge--you begin to represent yourself. Immediately, you file court documents that let the judge know three things: (A) You know what he's up to; (B) You aren't going to play along; (C) You aren't going to be quiet about his wrongdoing.
This is how you ticked off the judge--by standing up for yourself.
Further imagine this: In the course of these legal proceedings, it becomes known to the opposing side (whose attorney has a cozy relationship with the corrupt judge) that your wife is looking for work.
Your wife has a spotless personal and employment history. She is only in the job market because she had taken a voluntary severance package from her previous employer, which was going through a downsizing after she had worked there for almost 18 years.
For family-health reasons, your wife winds up being out of the workplace longer than expected. But when you are in the midst of this legal unpleasantness, your wife both wants, and needs, to return to the workplace.
With her having been out of the workplace a little longer than planned, you figure it might take some time for her to land a job. But your area's employment picture is good, her work and personal history are spotless, her previous employer was (and is) one of the most respected companies in the state, and she is realistic about positions she should be pursuing. In other words, she is looking for positions that are at or below her level of qualifications. And her qualifications are stout. She was an honor student throughout her time in school, from grade school through college.
Months go by, turning into more than a year, and your wife is having no luck in her job search. Actually, no luck is not quite accurate. She is getting lots and lots of interest--interviews seem to go well, she passes tests with flying colors, hiring managers give her very positive feedback.
But there are no job offers. Meanwhile, you regularly read stories in the local newspaper about your area's low unemployment rate. In fact, employers within a 10-mile radius of where you live are almost desperate for workers. This is the area where your wife is concentrating her job search, but she can't get an offer.
Because of the strain of the lawsuit and your wife's unexpected difficulty in landing a job, your once solid financial picture is starting to darken.
And then things begin to get strange.
(To be continued)
Spies On Us
Issues of surveillance and spying have been very much in the news in recent days. The reports, starting with a major investigation in The New York Times, deal with national and international surveillance, supposedly targeted at terrorism and drug trafficking.
But what if surveillance hit closer to home, targeting regular folks like you and me? I have evidence to suggest that it has hit close to home for your humble blogger, and I will present that information soon.
But first, let's consider the larger, national issue. Scott Horton, of Harper's, says The New York Times article describes "the dawn of a new National Surveillance State in the United States, a public-private partnership. And the object of the partnership--which emerges as a criminal conspiracy, quite literally, between telecom companies and the Bush Administration--is to watch and listen to you and everything you do.
"Of course, they will say it's about 'terrorists', or about 'narcotics traffickers.' And indeed every authoritarian and wannabe totalitarian system from the dawn of time has cast its snooping on citizens in just those terms."
A key point Horton makes: This involves abuse of, and by, telecommunications providers. And what if a telecom company objects to mistreating citizens and skirting the law? One company, Qwest, did object. And its CEO quickly became the subject of a Justice Department investigation. Nice.
Glenn Greenwald, of Salon, also weighs in on The Times report. "What these revelations highlight--yet again--is that the U.S. has become precisely the kind of surveillance state that we were always told was the hallmark of tyrannical societies, with literally no limits on the government's ability or willingness to spy on its own citizens," Greenwald writes.
But let's return to our earlier point: Is abusive surveillance limited to national officials? Is it possible that government officials closer to your home might be using the telecom industry in an abusive way?
I have evidence to suggest that such a scenario certainly is possible. Am I a paranoid crackpot or a true victim of official surveillance? You be the judge.
I don't have all of the facts in my situation nailed down, so I will write about it in somewhat theoretical terms, inviting you to walk in my shoes and see what you think. I can guarantee that I'm not remotely connected to terrorism or drug trafficking. But we already suspect such ties are not necessary for the folks who live in BushWorld to want to check you out.
Come along for an interesting tale. We'll call it a "Schnauzer Spy Story."
But what if surveillance hit closer to home, targeting regular folks like you and me? I have evidence to suggest that it has hit close to home for your humble blogger, and I will present that information soon.
But first, let's consider the larger, national issue. Scott Horton, of Harper's, says The New York Times article describes "the dawn of a new National Surveillance State in the United States, a public-private partnership. And the object of the partnership--which emerges as a criminal conspiracy, quite literally, between telecom companies and the Bush Administration--is to watch and listen to you and everything you do.
"Of course, they will say it's about 'terrorists', or about 'narcotics traffickers.' And indeed every authoritarian and wannabe totalitarian system from the dawn of time has cast its snooping on citizens in just those terms."
A key point Horton makes: This involves abuse of, and by, telecommunications providers. And what if a telecom company objects to mistreating citizens and skirting the law? One company, Qwest, did object. And its CEO quickly became the subject of a Justice Department investigation. Nice.
Glenn Greenwald, of Salon, also weighs in on The Times report. "What these revelations highlight--yet again--is that the U.S. has become precisely the kind of surveillance state that we were always told was the hallmark of tyrannical societies, with literally no limits on the government's ability or willingness to spy on its own citizens," Greenwald writes.
But let's return to our earlier point: Is abusive surveillance limited to national officials? Is it possible that government officials closer to your home might be using the telecom industry in an abusive way?
I have evidence to suggest that such a scenario certainly is possible. Am I a paranoid crackpot or a true victim of official surveillance? You be the judge.
I don't have all of the facts in my situation nailed down, so I will write about it in somewhat theoretical terms, inviting you to walk in my shoes and see what you think. I can guarantee that I'm not remotely connected to terrorism or drug trafficking. But we already suspect such ties are not necessary for the folks who live in BushWorld to want to check you out.
Come along for an interesting tale. We'll call it a "Schnauzer Spy Story."
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Siegelman Accuser Released from Prison
Lanny Young, a key witness against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, was released from federal prison yesterday.
Young, a lobbyist and landfill developer, had his two-year sentence reduced by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and was released on December 11.
Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn was outraged by the decision, noting that Fuller has refused to release Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy pending their appeals.Kilborn also noted that Young had pled guilty to several felonies but still received a sharply reduced sentence.
Kilborn called Siegelman's continued imprisonment a "great American tragedy." The Siegelman case is at the heart of a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
Young, a lobbyist and landfill developer, had his two-year sentence reduced by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and was released on December 11.
Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn was outraged by the decision, noting that Fuller has refused to release Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy pending their appeals.Kilborn also noted that Young had pled guilty to several felonies but still received a sharply reduced sentence.
Kilborn called Siegelman's continued imprisonment a "great American tragedy." The Siegelman case is at the heart of a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Schnauzer settles down
We schnauzers are known to be a bit hyper. And the Legal Schnauzer went a bit over the edge while posting yesterday about the ExxonMobil ruling, breaking into a fit of capital letters and exclamation points.
Reading that post reminds me of our beloved Murphy when she used to see crows walking in our front yard. Man, she hated crows, and she would almost try to dive through the window to get at them--until we closed the blinds. (The crows never seemed to notice a thing; they just kept doing that funky crow walk.)
Anyway, I've taken some doggie Xanax, so maybe I can discuss the ExxonMobil case with a bit more clarity tonight.
When I talk about criminal acts by Alabama's Republican Supreme Court justices, it might be best to refer (calmly . . . calmly) to the Bribery: A Primer post that was part of our Mississippi Churning series on the Paul Minor case.
And then we have the Mail Fraud: A Primer post from that same series. Remember those terms: Bribery and honest-services mail fraud. That's what we are talking about here.
Those posts will give you the legal foundation you need to understand what happened in the ExxonMobil case. And we will go into it in more detail soon.
The bottom line? You take money from a party and then act in a corrupt and unlawful manner, you've committed a crime.
Now, I feel better. But I feel the Xanax wearing off. Better go.
To all a good night . . .
Reading that post reminds me of our beloved Murphy when she used to see crows walking in our front yard. Man, she hated crows, and she would almost try to dive through the window to get at them--until we closed the blinds. (The crows never seemed to notice a thing; they just kept doing that funky crow walk.)
Anyway, I've taken some doggie Xanax, so maybe I can discuss the ExxonMobil case with a bit more clarity tonight.
When I talk about criminal acts by Alabama's Republican Supreme Court justices, it might be best to refer (calmly . . . calmly) to the Bribery: A Primer post that was part of our Mississippi Churning series on the Paul Minor case.
And then we have the Mail Fraud: A Primer post from that same series. Remember those terms: Bribery and honest-services mail fraud. That's what we are talking about here.
Those posts will give you the legal foundation you need to understand what happened in the ExxonMobil case. And we will go into it in more detail soon.
The bottom line? You take money from a party and then act in a corrupt and unlawful manner, you've committed a crime.
Now, I feel better. But I feel the Xanax wearing off. Better go.
To all a good night . . .
More Raw Siegelman Story
News is breaking all over today on the Don Siegelman saga, driven largely by investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, both at her personal site (at-Largely) and at Raw Story.
First, Alexandrovna reports that CBS's corporate owners are under heavy pressure to quash the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. In fact, Alabama Governor Bob Riley is bragging that his corporate cronies have pulled the rug over the story. But Alexandrovna says she knows about a particularly hot angle that CBS seems squeamish about. If the 60 Minutes folks do not run with the story, Alexandrovna says she will.
Also, Alexandrovna is hearing from multiple sources that Alabama whistleblowing attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being tailed under orders by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This is the same Alice Martin who has taken clear steps to cover up wrongdoing by Republican judges and political operatives in our own Legal Schnauzer case. We will be reporting in detail on Ms. Martin's two-faced tactics.
Alexandrovna leads a team of Raw Story reporters who have produced part III of their "The Permanent Republican Majority" series. Part III is titled "Running Elections from the White House" and paints an intricate story of a national power grab with roots in Alabama state judicial elections.
Raw Story draws connections between Rove's tactics in Alabama and the Swift Boat Veterans' ads attacking John Kerry in 2004. Included is a fascinating diagram that lays out the sleazy Web linking Alabama to Rove's national plan for GOP dominance.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an interesting take on the Raw Story report and notes how it dovetails nicely with his own investigative work that centers on Alabama.
There is one name that I hope the Raw Story folks will add to their diagram. That name is Dax Swatek. It was Dax Swatek's father, William E. Swatek, who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that led to the blog you are now reading. It also led to the commission of multiple federal crimes by Mr. Swatek and Republican judges in Alabama state courts, starting in district courts in the GOP stronghold of Shelby County and rising up to the Republican-dominated Supreme Court--the same court that recently robbed Alabamians of $3.6 billion in a lawsuit involving oil giant ExxonMobil.
William E. Swatek and his judicial cronies are getting away with their federal crimes. In fact, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has taken clear steps to sweep the case out of public view. And why is that? Well, Dax Swatek was Governor Riley's campaign manager in 2004. And he was manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 campaign for a seat on Alabama's Court of Criminal Appeals.
And who is Dax Swatek's mentor? None other than Bill Canary, who is at the very heart of the Raw Story diagram.
We will be showing in detail soon how we can add a Dax Swatek/Alice Martin wing to the diagram so expertly put together by the Raw Story investigators.
Finally, we have another piece of interesting Siegelman-related news. Journalist Mark Crispin Miller presents a fascinating 2004 interview in which Siegelman talks about the grudge Rove and other Republicans held against him.
How to draw all of this together? The theme is this: Our nation is in the midst of a Justice Department scandal that, if it ever truly is uncovered, might rank with the worst scandals in our nation's history. And where were the seeds planted? In Alabama's state courts? And where is our Legal Schnauzer story planted? In those very same Alabama state courts.
I think Miller, Horton, and Alexandrovna are telling us this: If you want to truly understand the corruption tearing through the Bush administration, you need to first understand the corruption that still can be found in Alabama's state courts. That's where Karl Rove's plan truly started. And that's where the Rove stench remains.
First, Alexandrovna reports that CBS's corporate owners are under heavy pressure to quash the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. In fact, Alabama Governor Bob Riley is bragging that his corporate cronies have pulled the rug over the story. But Alexandrovna says she knows about a particularly hot angle that CBS seems squeamish about. If the 60 Minutes folks do not run with the story, Alexandrovna says she will.
Also, Alexandrovna is hearing from multiple sources that Alabama whistleblowing attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being tailed under orders by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This is the same Alice Martin who has taken clear steps to cover up wrongdoing by Republican judges and political operatives in our own Legal Schnauzer case. We will be reporting in detail on Ms. Martin's two-faced tactics.
Alexandrovna leads a team of Raw Story reporters who have produced part III of their "The Permanent Republican Majority" series. Part III is titled "Running Elections from the White House" and paints an intricate story of a national power grab with roots in Alabama state judicial elections.
Raw Story draws connections between Rove's tactics in Alabama and the Swift Boat Veterans' ads attacking John Kerry in 2004. Included is a fascinating diagram that lays out the sleazy Web linking Alabama to Rove's national plan for GOP dominance.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an interesting take on the Raw Story report and notes how it dovetails nicely with his own investigative work that centers on Alabama.
There is one name that I hope the Raw Story folks will add to their diagram. That name is Dax Swatek. It was Dax Swatek's father, William E. Swatek, who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that led to the blog you are now reading. It also led to the commission of multiple federal crimes by Mr. Swatek and Republican judges in Alabama state courts, starting in district courts in the GOP stronghold of Shelby County and rising up to the Republican-dominated Supreme Court--the same court that recently robbed Alabamians of $3.6 billion in a lawsuit involving oil giant ExxonMobil.
William E. Swatek and his judicial cronies are getting away with their federal crimes. In fact, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has taken clear steps to sweep the case out of public view. And why is that? Well, Dax Swatek was Governor Riley's campaign manager in 2004. And he was manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 campaign for a seat on Alabama's Court of Criminal Appeals.
And who is Dax Swatek's mentor? None other than Bill Canary, who is at the very heart of the Raw Story diagram.
We will be showing in detail soon how we can add a Dax Swatek/Alice Martin wing to the diagram so expertly put together by the Raw Story investigators.
Finally, we have another piece of interesting Siegelman-related news. Journalist Mark Crispin Miller presents a fascinating 2004 interview in which Siegelman talks about the grudge Rove and other Republicans held against him.
How to draw all of this together? The theme is this: Our nation is in the midst of a Justice Department scandal that, if it ever truly is uncovered, might rank with the worst scandals in our nation's history. And where were the seeds planted? In Alabama's state courts? And where is our Legal Schnauzer story planted? In those very same Alabama state courts.
I think Miller, Horton, and Alexandrovna are telling us this: If you want to truly understand the corruption tearing through the Bush administration, you need to first understand the corruption that still can be found in Alabama's state courts. That's where Karl Rove's plan truly started. And that's where the Rove stench remains.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
War of Words over ExxonMobil
A rhetorical war is heating up over the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ruling that threw out most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict for the state in a case against oil giant ExxonMobil.
This is a war that Democrats simply must win. The ExxonMobil ruling is a GOP gift, wrapped in a gigantic bow, saying, "Here, take back the appellate courts--if you have the guts." Do Democrats have the guts?
If Democrats fail to take that gift and beat Republicans over the head with it, there is no hope for justice in Alabama for the foreseeable future.
Joe Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, is making an encouraging start toward educating the public about just how badly they have been screwed by our corporate-owned courts.
Turnham makes many strong points in his recent public statements. He says the $3.6 billion represents only five weeks of ExxonMobil's earnings. He notes that the money could have helped repair county roads and bridges, fill a Medicaid funding gap, added thousands of state troopers and sheriff deputies, provided laptop computers for every Alabama student, and provided college scholarships for thousands of graduates.
But Turnham and the Democrats still are pulling punches. They still are not getting to the key point. Here's the nutshell message: The eight Republican justices who voted to overturn the trial-court verdict are CRIMINALS. Let me repeat: They are CRIMINALS!
If Democrats cannot show that significant numbers of Republican judges in this state are CRIMINALS, they are likely to continue getting clobbered in judicial races. Heck, the Bush Justice Department has prosecuted a Supreme Court justice in Mississippi (one supported by Democrats) for behavior that wasn't even close to what the GOPers in Alabama have done.
Our GOP justices took $5.5 million in campaign contributions from Exxon interests and then ruled unlawfully in their favor. That is a CRIME! It's called honest-services mail fraud. It's also called bribery. People understand the concept of crime. Use it against the Republicans for once.
Democrats, for God's sake, please do what Republicans have done so brilliantly for years: Use clear, simple language that Joe Six-Pack can understand. These GOP judges are CRIMINALS.
How's this for an ad: Republican Judges Control our High Courts. They are CRIMINALS! Here's why . . . "
And you don't even have to do any work to show why. I'll do it for you. Just stay tuned to Legal Schnauzer. Heck, just read Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb's dissent in the ExxonMobil case. She all but calls her colleagues criminals.
Speaking of a rhetorical war, you can check out this piece of garbage from Skip Tucker, director of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse. There is no polite way to say this, so let's be blunt: Mr. Tucker is a paid shill who doesn't have a clue about the facts or the law in the Exxon case. His group should be called Alabama Voters Who Enjoy Bending Over and Taking it up the Wazoo from Corporate Criminals.
If the Democrats can't beat this weenie, God help them.
This is a war that Democrats simply must win. The ExxonMobil ruling is a GOP gift, wrapped in a gigantic bow, saying, "Here, take back the appellate courts--if you have the guts." Do Democrats have the guts?
If Democrats fail to take that gift and beat Republicans over the head with it, there is no hope for justice in Alabama for the foreseeable future.
Joe Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, is making an encouraging start toward educating the public about just how badly they have been screwed by our corporate-owned courts.
Turnham makes many strong points in his recent public statements. He says the $3.6 billion represents only five weeks of ExxonMobil's earnings. He notes that the money could have helped repair county roads and bridges, fill a Medicaid funding gap, added thousands of state troopers and sheriff deputies, provided laptop computers for every Alabama student, and provided college scholarships for thousands of graduates.
But Turnham and the Democrats still are pulling punches. They still are not getting to the key point. Here's the nutshell message: The eight Republican justices who voted to overturn the trial-court verdict are CRIMINALS. Let me repeat: They are CRIMINALS!
If Democrats cannot show that significant numbers of Republican judges in this state are CRIMINALS, they are likely to continue getting clobbered in judicial races. Heck, the Bush Justice Department has prosecuted a Supreme Court justice in Mississippi (one supported by Democrats) for behavior that wasn't even close to what the GOPers in Alabama have done.
Our GOP justices took $5.5 million in campaign contributions from Exxon interests and then ruled unlawfully in their favor. That is a CRIME! It's called honest-services mail fraud. It's also called bribery. People understand the concept of crime. Use it against the Republicans for once.
Democrats, for God's sake, please do what Republicans have done so brilliantly for years: Use clear, simple language that Joe Six-Pack can understand. These GOP judges are CRIMINALS.
How's this for an ad: Republican Judges Control our High Courts. They are CRIMINALS! Here's why . . . "
And you don't even have to do any work to show why. I'll do it for you. Just stay tuned to Legal Schnauzer. Heck, just read Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb's dissent in the ExxonMobil case. She all but calls her colleagues criminals.
Speaking of a rhetorical war, you can check out this piece of garbage from Skip Tucker, director of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse. There is no polite way to say this, so let's be blunt: Mr. Tucker is a paid shill who doesn't have a clue about the facts or the law in the Exxon case. His group should be called Alabama Voters Who Enjoy Bending Over and Taking it up the Wazoo from Corporate Criminals.
If the Democrats can't beat this weenie, God help them.
Goff Turning Tables on Riley?
The battle between Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff and Alabama Governor Bob Riley appears to be taking a very interesting turn.
Bob Gambacurta, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that Goff is taking his case to Congress, appealing for relief from what he calls a conspiracy by Riley and others to ruin him financially.
Goff expects to appear before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA). The subcommittee will conduct hearings on legislation that allows insurance companies to opt out of state charters in favor of federal regulations. Kanjorski has pledged to examine regulatory abuse by state agencies, and Goff says he has been a victim of such abuse.
Meanwhile, Goff's attorneys claim that Riley is attempting to have Goff investigated as payback for a lawsuit Goff filed against Riley and others over insurance matters. Goff's attorneys are asking the Justice Department to examine their claims of a conspiracy involving Riley.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, first brought the Goff situation to national attention, and we have posted about it several times here at Legal Schnauzer. In fact, Horton wrote that Riley was so agitated at the prospect of having to testify under oath in the Goff lawsuit that he was asking U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for help in making it "go away." The federal investigation of Goff appears to be designed to make Riley's wish come true.
But it could be just the latest example of prosecutorial shenanigans in Alabama. And it adds to the mounting evidence that Riley is little more than a scumbag with a goobery smile and some spiffy cowboy boots.
So far, Riley has managed to hide the source of his campaign cash in 2002 (can we say Jack Abramoff?) and his methods for producing funny numbers that gave him a ultra-close victory over Don Siegelman (can we say Dan Gans?). And for what it's worth, he's managed to obscure the fact that William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, has been protected by Republican judges and GOP prosecutor Alice Martin from being held accountable for filing a fraudulent lawsuit (and violating federal law in the process) against your humble blogger.
Can John W. Goff and his aggressive group of attorneys smoke the Riley sleaze machine out into the clear, for all to see? We'll be watching closely.
Bob Gambacurta, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that Goff is taking his case to Congress, appealing for relief from what he calls a conspiracy by Riley and others to ruin him financially.
Goff expects to appear before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA). The subcommittee will conduct hearings on legislation that allows insurance companies to opt out of state charters in favor of federal regulations. Kanjorski has pledged to examine regulatory abuse by state agencies, and Goff says he has been a victim of such abuse.
Meanwhile, Goff's attorneys claim that Riley is attempting to have Goff investigated as payback for a lawsuit Goff filed against Riley and others over insurance matters. Goff's attorneys are asking the Justice Department to examine their claims of a conspiracy involving Riley.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, first brought the Goff situation to national attention, and we have posted about it several times here at Legal Schnauzer. In fact, Horton wrote that Riley was so agitated at the prospect of having to testify under oath in the Goff lawsuit that he was asking U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for help in making it "go away." The federal investigation of Goff appears to be designed to make Riley's wish come true.
But it could be just the latest example of prosecutorial shenanigans in Alabama. And it adds to the mounting evidence that Riley is little more than a scumbag with a goobery smile and some spiffy cowboy boots.
So far, Riley has managed to hide the source of his campaign cash in 2002 (can we say Jack Abramoff?) and his methods for producing funny numbers that gave him a ultra-close victory over Don Siegelman (can we say Dan Gans?). And for what it's worth, he's managed to obscure the fact that William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, has been protected by Republican judges and GOP prosecutor Alice Martin from being held accountable for filing a fraudulent lawsuit (and violating federal law in the process) against your humble blogger.
Can John W. Goff and his aggressive group of attorneys smoke the Riley sleaze machine out into the clear, for all to see? We'll be watching closely.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Campaign Cash and ExxonMobil
What was behind the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to throw out most of a $3.6 billion jury award that the state had secured against oil giant ExxonMobil?
Cold, hard campaign cash, according to Harper's Scott Horton.
Horton reports that in the past six years, Republican candidates for Alabama's highest court have taken more than $5.5 million in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil lobbyists and lawyers, and groups allied with the company.
"That means that the eight judges who voted to throw out the state's massive jury award against ExxonMobil were actually placed on the court with ExxonMobil's money and support--though that support is almost all carefully funnelled in an indirect way, of course," Horton writes.
Where did the money come from? Horton provides a list:
* Tort reform groups whose leadership includes Exxon lobbyists gave $3 million.
* Seven political action committees, controlled by Exxon's Alabama lobbyist Fine Geddie & Associates, gave $293,000.
* Alabama lawyers who represent Exxon in the gas-royalties suit gave thousands of dollars.
* The Business Council of Alabama gave at least $2.1 million. (That's the group headed by Bill Canary, of the famous "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote. And a close associate of Bill Canary is Dax Swatek, whose father William E. Swatek filed a bogus lawsuit against me and is being protected from his crimes by the Bush Justice Department.)
"Just think of it from a corporate perspective," Horton writes. "An investment of $5.5 million to eliminate a $3.6 billion liability? The best investment those oil men ever made."
One thing is for sure: The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling was not based on the law. In fact, the court violated its own well-settled precedents in order to let Exxon off the hook.
In a neighboring state, Mississippi, the Bush Justice Department has treated similar alleged activity by a Supreme Court justice as a federal crime. Actually, the Mississippi justice in question--Oliver Diaz--did not come remotely close to committing a federal crime. But he was tried for it anyway, mainly because he had the support of prominent Democrats.
And in Alabama? The evidence is piling up that eight Republicans on the high court did indeed commit a federal crime. What will the Bushies do about it? Almost certainly nothing.
But we at Legal Schnauzer will be dishing the real dirt on the Supreme Court that flat out stole from the citizens who support them. Another Alabama blogger, Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering, is on top of this story. I highly recommend his site.
Much more coming on the ExxonMobil decision.
Cold, hard campaign cash, according to Harper's Scott Horton.
Horton reports that in the past six years, Republican candidates for Alabama's highest court have taken more than $5.5 million in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil lobbyists and lawyers, and groups allied with the company.
"That means that the eight judges who voted to throw out the state's massive jury award against ExxonMobil were actually placed on the court with ExxonMobil's money and support--though that support is almost all carefully funnelled in an indirect way, of course," Horton writes.
Where did the money come from? Horton provides a list:
* Tort reform groups whose leadership includes Exxon lobbyists gave $3 million.
* Seven political action committees, controlled by Exxon's Alabama lobbyist Fine Geddie & Associates, gave $293,000.
* Alabama lawyers who represent Exxon in the gas-royalties suit gave thousands of dollars.
* The Business Council of Alabama gave at least $2.1 million. (That's the group headed by Bill Canary, of the famous "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote. And a close associate of Bill Canary is Dax Swatek, whose father William E. Swatek filed a bogus lawsuit against me and is being protected from his crimes by the Bush Justice Department.)
"Just think of it from a corporate perspective," Horton writes. "An investment of $5.5 million to eliminate a $3.6 billion liability? The best investment those oil men ever made."
One thing is for sure: The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling was not based on the law. In fact, the court violated its own well-settled precedents in order to let Exxon off the hook.
In a neighboring state, Mississippi, the Bush Justice Department has treated similar alleged activity by a Supreme Court justice as a federal crime. Actually, the Mississippi justice in question--Oliver Diaz--did not come remotely close to committing a federal crime. But he was tried for it anyway, mainly because he had the support of prominent Democrats.
And in Alabama? The evidence is piling up that eight Republicans on the high court did indeed commit a federal crime. What will the Bushies do about it? Almost certainly nothing.
But we at Legal Schnauzer will be dishing the real dirt on the Supreme Court that flat out stole from the citizens who support them. Another Alabama blogger, Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering, is on top of this story. I highly recommend his site.
Much more coming on the ExxonMobil decision.
On Siegelman and Such
Random thoughts on issues connected to Don Siegelman, justice, steroids, and more . . .
Thank God for Dan Abrams!
And while we're at it, let's thank God for MSNBC. With Abrams and Keith Olbermann on the menu, those of us to the left of Rush Limbaugh actually have something to watch on cable these days.
It was heartening to see Abrams multipart "Bush League Justice" series last week. And it ended with a bang on Thursday night, with a report on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) proved to be articulate spokesmen for the growing number of Americans who sense the case was a grotesque example of selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
By its nature, television is a medium of time constraints, and one had the impression that Horton and Davis easily could have talked for two hours or more about key issues connected to the Siegelman case. But the 20 minutes or so that Abrams devoted to the case made for compelling viewing. And the host vowed to follow the Siegelman/DOJ closely, even noting that the days of the mainstream media pretty much ignoring the case are over. Hear, hear!
Horton has a report on the Abrams segment, and notes that at least three major news organizations are working on stories that will break new leads in the Siegelman matter. It's only a matter of nailing down corroborative accounts, and Horton expects to see major news coming by the end of the year. Also, at least one of the developing stories is expected to break ground on close ties between Karl Rove and Alabama Governor Bob Riley related to the Siegelman matter. Can't wait for that.
Pravda of the South at it again
A fairly important national story, with connections to Alabama, broke last week. But you never would know it from reading The Birmingham News, which Harper's Scott Horton has so aptly called "The Pravda of the South."
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee found former presidential adviser Karl Rove and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and turn over documents related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
This all has huge implications for Alabama and the case of former Governor Don Siegelman. But after reading my paper on Friday, I thought, "Where in the heck was the Rove contempt story?" I had already seen it on the Web, and I figured a story with such ties to Alabama would receive prominent play in our state's largest paper.
I figured wrong. After scouring the paper with an electron microscope, I found the story in the National Briefs, on page 7A.
Steroids and Perspective
I've been a baseball fan pretty much all of my life, so I've been following stories about release of the Mitchell Report on steroids and baseball.
I understand it's a big story, and I was not surprised to see The Birmingham News put it on the front page of the paper, with blanket coverage in the sports section.
But it raises this question: Why so much attention to the issue of cheating baseball players and why so relatively little attention to the issue of cheating judges, prosecutors, and others connected to our justice system?
As Birmingham News columnist Ray Melick wrote: "Study after study suggests cheating has been on the rise in all areas of American life." Melick makes a good point. So why doesn't his newspaper cover the cheating by public officials that is going on right under its nose? And it's a form of cheating that is far more important to our society than the cheating that has been going on in baseball.
Oh, and did you see President Bush's comment about the Mitchell Report? "My hope is that this report is a part of putting the steroid era of baseball behind us," he said. "Steroids have sullied the game."
And who has sullied the U.S. Justice Department? And is Bush serious about putting the era of a corrupt justice department behind us? (See item above.)
Langford and the Dome
Looks like we might be in for some interesting stories connected to Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, businessman Milton McGregor, and the proposed new dome for Birmingham.
A multipurpose dome has been discussed in Birmingham for years, usually connected to a need for more convention space. That has seemed to mean the dome would be connected to the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex downtown. But Langford has proposed building the dome near the Birmingham Race Course, in an area where McGregor owns a significant amount of land.
The Birmingham News noted that this smells like a possible quid pro quo, with Langford doing a favor for a campaign supporter. The News has a point, and it appears that Langford could be heading down a slippery slope.
I applaud the News for aggressive reporting on this story. But where is the aggressive reporting when it involves Governor Bob Riley and sweetheart deals involving state contracts and a biotechnology center in Huntsville?
Thank God for Dan Abrams!
And while we're at it, let's thank God for MSNBC. With Abrams and Keith Olbermann on the menu, those of us to the left of Rush Limbaugh actually have something to watch on cable these days.
It was heartening to see Abrams multipart "Bush League Justice" series last week. And it ended with a bang on Thursday night, with a report on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) proved to be articulate spokesmen for the growing number of Americans who sense the case was a grotesque example of selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
By its nature, television is a medium of time constraints, and one had the impression that Horton and Davis easily could have talked for two hours or more about key issues connected to the Siegelman case. But the 20 minutes or so that Abrams devoted to the case made for compelling viewing. And the host vowed to follow the Siegelman/DOJ closely, even noting that the days of the mainstream media pretty much ignoring the case are over. Hear, hear!
Horton has a report on the Abrams segment, and notes that at least three major news organizations are working on stories that will break new leads in the Siegelman matter. It's only a matter of nailing down corroborative accounts, and Horton expects to see major news coming by the end of the year. Also, at least one of the developing stories is expected to break ground on close ties between Karl Rove and Alabama Governor Bob Riley related to the Siegelman matter. Can't wait for that.
Pravda of the South at it again
A fairly important national story, with connections to Alabama, broke last week. But you never would know it from reading The Birmingham News, which Harper's Scott Horton has so aptly called "The Pravda of the South."
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee found former presidential adviser Karl Rove and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and turn over documents related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
This all has huge implications for Alabama and the case of former Governor Don Siegelman. But after reading my paper on Friday, I thought, "Where in the heck was the Rove contempt story?" I had already seen it on the Web, and I figured a story with such ties to Alabama would receive prominent play in our state's largest paper.
I figured wrong. After scouring the paper with an electron microscope, I found the story in the National Briefs, on page 7A.
Steroids and Perspective
I've been a baseball fan pretty much all of my life, so I've been following stories about release of the Mitchell Report on steroids and baseball.
I understand it's a big story, and I was not surprised to see The Birmingham News put it on the front page of the paper, with blanket coverage in the sports section.
But it raises this question: Why so much attention to the issue of cheating baseball players and why so relatively little attention to the issue of cheating judges, prosecutors, and others connected to our justice system?
As Birmingham News columnist Ray Melick wrote: "Study after study suggests cheating has been on the rise in all areas of American life." Melick makes a good point. So why doesn't his newspaper cover the cheating by public officials that is going on right under its nose? And it's a form of cheating that is far more important to our society than the cheating that has been going on in baseball.
Oh, and did you see President Bush's comment about the Mitchell Report? "My hope is that this report is a part of putting the steroid era of baseball behind us," he said. "Steroids have sullied the game."
And who has sullied the U.S. Justice Department? And is Bush serious about putting the era of a corrupt justice department behind us? (See item above.)
Langford and the Dome
Looks like we might be in for some interesting stories connected to Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, businessman Milton McGregor, and the proposed new dome for Birmingham.
A multipurpose dome has been discussed in Birmingham for years, usually connected to a need for more convention space. That has seemed to mean the dome would be connected to the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex downtown. But Langford has proposed building the dome near the Birmingham Race Course, in an area where McGregor owns a significant amount of land.
The Birmingham News noted that this smells like a possible quid pro quo, with Langford doing a favor for a campaign supporter. The News has a point, and it appears that Langford could be heading down a slippery slope.
I applaud the News for aggressive reporting on this story. But where is the aggressive reporting when it involves Governor Bob Riley and sweetheart deals involving state contracts and a biotechnology center in Huntsville?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Issues of Insecurity
Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, is one of my favorite columnists. And he had a particularly thought-provoking column recently.
In a column titled "We, the Paranoid," Robinson writes of attending a panel discussion on "The Insecure American" at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. "(It) turned out to be a revelation--by turns alarming, depressing, and laugh-out-loud amusing--as scholar after scholar presented research showing just how unnerved this society is," Robinson wrote.
One researcher had studied gated communities, noting that people camp behind walls because they are afraid of crime, they feel isolated from neighbors, and they are nostalgic for some kind of Norman Rockwell past. The study showed that there isn't less crime in gated communities and people do not feel closer to their neighbors. In fact, many residents still turn on their burglar alarms, despite the walls and security guards.
This all made me think of my own little experience with our deeply troubled justice system in the United States. My experience has centered around corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama's state courts, with starring roles for some of the same Republican characters who have been featured in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.
I have about as much psychological training as Lucy Van Pelt in the famous Peanuts comic strip. But follow me for a moment, and with Eugene Robinson's help, perhaps we will be onto something.
* The primary judge who repeatedly cheated me--and committed federal crimes in the process--is Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner. Where does Judge Joiner live? A gated community called Highland Lakes. You can read all about here. Where did Judge Joiner go to school? My research indicates he went to Indian Springs School in Birmingham and completed both undergraduate work and law school at Samford University. These are all private institutions. If Judge Joiner's precious fanny has ever touched a desk at a public school, I see no evidence of it. And where does the fine judge go to church? Why a suburban megachurch of course--the Church at Brook Hills. And where do Judge Joiner and his wife, Cathy, send their daughter, Christy, to school? My sources tell me they send her to Briarwood Christian, which is (surprise, surprise!) a private school. Another source says she has been home schooled at times. Either way, sounds like she ain't getting near a public school.
* Now here's where it gets a bit creepy. You might think Mike Joiner became a judge because he was such an outstanding lawyer. You would be wrong. My sources tell me he was a mediocrity at best as a lawyer. But half of south Shelby County, around Columbiana (the county seat), is related to him. There is even an area called Joinertown. No wonder he doesn't have to worry about whether he rules according to the law or not! He's judge for life! My sources tell me that the good judge's parents, Hubert and Christine Joiner, live in the neck of the woods around Joinertown. One of the judge's brothers is an ophthalmologist. On that kind of income, I'm guessing he's a gated-community guy, too.
* Now, let's consider William E. Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me and committed federal crimes in the process. Remember, Mr. Swatek has valuable ties to Alabama Republican royalty. His son, Dax, was Governor Bob Riley's campaign manager. The Daxter also ran the failed campaign of Alice Martin for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Alice Martin, of course, went on to become U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, where she initiated a failed attempt to prosecute Don Siegelman. The "successful" attempt to prosecute Siegelman came in the Middle District of Alabama under the esteemed Leura Canary. You can read all you need to know about Martin and Canary here and here. But back to Bill Swatek. Where does he live? Behind a gated drive off Highway 119 in north Shelby County, the one with an "S" on it. Swatek has plenty of acreage, about 18 acres I think, and you can't even see his house from the road. Guess he likes his privacy. I'm told by someone who has visited the house that there are so many firearms about that "you would think you were in an armed camp." What's Swatek afraid of? Are there some vicious squirrels on his property? Oh, and Swatek has a penchant for private schools, too. Son Chace is a Briarwood Christian grad. And Chace went to law school at Pepperdine University in California, that bastion of progressive thinking. Guess who's dean of the law school there? Yikes!
* And let's not forget Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of the behemoth Briarwood Presbyterian Church. As we've noted before, Briarwood and its powerhouse football program played a role in a strange real-estate deal that caused your humble blogger to wind up with an eight-time criminal for a neighbor and all sorts of legal and financial headaches.
So, do you see a thread here? We're talking about people who are walling themselves off from the public at large--through gated communities, private schools, mammoth doctrinaire churches. And yet what kind of people do those conditions turn out?
Well, Judge J. Michael Joiner and William Swatek are common criminals. And that's not just my opinion. They have repeatedly committed honest services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346) in my case. We will go into more detail on this later, but much of the language related to 1346 refers to "theft" of honest services. And that's what they are--thieves. And who do they steal from? They steal honest services from you, me, and all of the citizens of Alabama. And because they use the U.S. mails, it's a federal crime.
Joiner and Swatek might not look like the guy you envision using a crow bar to break into your home. But they are not one bit better. In fact, they are worse. The guy with the crow bar probably did not take an oath to uphold the law, and he probably isn't on the public payroll.
This brings us back around to one of my pet theories here at Legal Schnauzer. The idea is this: If we are to get to the root of the problem with our modern justice system, we must not look at it only as a legal problem. I submit that it is also a mental-health problem. Based on Eugene Robinson's column, I suspect a lot of sociopathy is being bred behind those gated walls and inside those private schools.
Show me a sociopath, and I will show you someone who--no matter how tough he might appear on the outside--is deeply insecure.
Consider just one example: the Alabama election of 2002. The evidence is overwhelming that numbers were manipulated to give Bob Riley the victory over Don Siegelman. If that's the case, what was at the heart of that act? Insecurity. And I submit insecurity is at the heart of almost everything we have, and will, discuss on this blog--the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.
And we mustn't forget the man who turned Alabama's state courts into a Republican playground and then turned the U.S. Justice Department into a criminal enterprise. That, of course, would be Karl Rove. Think he's got some insecurities?
Let's give Eugene Robinson the last word: "We're afraid of one another, we're afraid of the rest of the world, we're afraid of getting sick, we're afraid of dying. Maybe if we study our insecurities and confront them, we'll learn to keep them in check . . . maybe we'll learn that life isn't really any better behind the walls."
In a column titled "We, the Paranoid," Robinson writes of attending a panel discussion on "The Insecure American" at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. "(It) turned out to be a revelation--by turns alarming, depressing, and laugh-out-loud amusing--as scholar after scholar presented research showing just how unnerved this society is," Robinson wrote.
One researcher had studied gated communities, noting that people camp behind walls because they are afraid of crime, they feel isolated from neighbors, and they are nostalgic for some kind of Norman Rockwell past. The study showed that there isn't less crime in gated communities and people do not feel closer to their neighbors. In fact, many residents still turn on their burglar alarms, despite the walls and security guards.
This all made me think of my own little experience with our deeply troubled justice system in the United States. My experience has centered around corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama's state courts, with starring roles for some of the same Republican characters who have been featured in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.
I have about as much psychological training as Lucy Van Pelt in the famous Peanuts comic strip. But follow me for a moment, and with Eugene Robinson's help, perhaps we will be onto something.
* The primary judge who repeatedly cheated me--and committed federal crimes in the process--is Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner. Where does Judge Joiner live? A gated community called Highland Lakes. You can read all about here. Where did Judge Joiner go to school? My research indicates he went to Indian Springs School in Birmingham and completed both undergraduate work and law school at Samford University. These are all private institutions. If Judge Joiner's precious fanny has ever touched a desk at a public school, I see no evidence of it. And where does the fine judge go to church? Why a suburban megachurch of course--the Church at Brook Hills. And where do Judge Joiner and his wife, Cathy, send their daughter, Christy, to school? My sources tell me they send her to Briarwood Christian, which is (surprise, surprise!) a private school. Another source says she has been home schooled at times. Either way, sounds like she ain't getting near a public school.
* Now here's where it gets a bit creepy. You might think Mike Joiner became a judge because he was such an outstanding lawyer. You would be wrong. My sources tell me he was a mediocrity at best as a lawyer. But half of south Shelby County, around Columbiana (the county seat), is related to him. There is even an area called Joinertown. No wonder he doesn't have to worry about whether he rules according to the law or not! He's judge for life! My sources tell me that the good judge's parents, Hubert and Christine Joiner, live in the neck of the woods around Joinertown. One of the judge's brothers is an ophthalmologist. On that kind of income, I'm guessing he's a gated-community guy, too.
* Now, let's consider William E. Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me and committed federal crimes in the process. Remember, Mr. Swatek has valuable ties to Alabama Republican royalty. His son, Dax, was Governor Bob Riley's campaign manager. The Daxter also ran the failed campaign of Alice Martin for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Alice Martin, of course, went on to become U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, where she initiated a failed attempt to prosecute Don Siegelman. The "successful" attempt to prosecute Siegelman came in the Middle District of Alabama under the esteemed Leura Canary. You can read all you need to know about Martin and Canary here and here. But back to Bill Swatek. Where does he live? Behind a gated drive off Highway 119 in north Shelby County, the one with an "S" on it. Swatek has plenty of acreage, about 18 acres I think, and you can't even see his house from the road. Guess he likes his privacy. I'm told by someone who has visited the house that there are so many firearms about that "you would think you were in an armed camp." What's Swatek afraid of? Are there some vicious squirrels on his property? Oh, and Swatek has a penchant for private schools, too. Son Chace is a Briarwood Christian grad. And Chace went to law school at Pepperdine University in California, that bastion of progressive thinking. Guess who's dean of the law school there? Yikes!
* And let's not forget Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of the behemoth Briarwood Presbyterian Church. As we've noted before, Briarwood and its powerhouse football program played a role in a strange real-estate deal that caused your humble blogger to wind up with an eight-time criminal for a neighbor and all sorts of legal and financial headaches.
So, do you see a thread here? We're talking about people who are walling themselves off from the public at large--through gated communities, private schools, mammoth doctrinaire churches. And yet what kind of people do those conditions turn out?
Well, Judge J. Michael Joiner and William Swatek are common criminals. And that's not just my opinion. They have repeatedly committed honest services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346) in my case. We will go into more detail on this later, but much of the language related to 1346 refers to "theft" of honest services. And that's what they are--thieves. And who do they steal from? They steal honest services from you, me, and all of the citizens of Alabama. And because they use the U.S. mails, it's a federal crime.
Joiner and Swatek might not look like the guy you envision using a crow bar to break into your home. But they are not one bit better. In fact, they are worse. The guy with the crow bar probably did not take an oath to uphold the law, and he probably isn't on the public payroll.
This brings us back around to one of my pet theories here at Legal Schnauzer. The idea is this: If we are to get to the root of the problem with our modern justice system, we must not look at it only as a legal problem. I submit that it is also a mental-health problem. Based on Eugene Robinson's column, I suspect a lot of sociopathy is being bred behind those gated walls and inside those private schools.
Show me a sociopath, and I will show you someone who--no matter how tough he might appear on the outside--is deeply insecure.
Consider just one example: the Alabama election of 2002. The evidence is overwhelming that numbers were manipulated to give Bob Riley the victory over Don Siegelman. If that's the case, what was at the heart of that act? Insecurity. And I submit insecurity is at the heart of almost everything we have, and will, discuss on this blog--the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.
And we mustn't forget the man who turned Alabama's state courts into a Republican playground and then turned the U.S. Justice Department into a criminal enterprise. That, of course, would be Karl Rove. Think he's got some insecurities?
Let's give Eugene Robinson the last word: "We're afraid of one another, we're afraid of the rest of the world, we're afraid of getting sick, we're afraid of dying. Maybe if we study our insecurities and confront them, we'll learn to keep them in check . . . maybe we'll learn that life isn't really any better behind the walls."
MSNBC Spotlights Siegelman Case Tonight
Legal Schnauzer readers will want to tune in tonight to MSNBC's Abrams Report.
The program will feature a major segment on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. This is part of host Dan Abrams' series entitled "Bush League Justice."
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) will be among the guests. Horton, of course, has brought the Siegelman case to the national forefront, and Davis is a key player in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation of the Bush Justice Department.
Abrams Report airs at 8 p.m., central time, 9 p.m., eastern.
The program will feature a major segment on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. This is part of host Dan Abrams' series entitled "Bush League Justice."
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) will be among the guests. Horton, of course, has brought the Siegelman case to the national forefront, and Davis is a key player in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation of the Bush Justice Department.
Abrams Report airs at 8 p.m., central time, 9 p.m., eastern.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The ExxonMobil Coverup
The Legal Schnauzer has been out of commission for a couple of days because of sinus problems. But we are back in the saddle just in time to make sure that none of our readers falls for the latest gambit from the office of Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Riley's office has announced that it will not ask the Alabama Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to throw out nearly all of the state's $3.6 billion judgment in a natural-gas royalties dispute with ExxonMobil.
Ken Wallis, Riley's legal advisor, said the governor had decided that seeking a rehearing "would be futile."
"With 8-1, we did not feel there was a likelihood of success," Wallis said.
So why bother trying? That's the spirit that made this country great isn't it?
There is an ulterior motive to Riley's decision to accept the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling, and it's one Mr. Wallis doesn't want you to know about. The 8-1 decision involved eight Republican justices voting to overturn the trial-court finding, with the lone Democrat (Sue Bell Cobb) casting a dissent. Riley, of course, is a Republican.
And here is why the governor is caving in: When a party seeks to have an appellate court rehear a case, it must file an application for rehearing. And along with the application, the party must file a brief, citing instances where the court ruled incorrectly or misunderstood the facts and the law involved.
Riley and Co. simply do not want to file a brief for reconsideration because such a brief, done honestly, would reveal the eight GOP justices for what they are--a bunch of rogues who are intentionally cheating the state of Alabama and ignoring their own well-settled law to do it. The brief would be a public document, and it's possible (though not likely) that a reporter from an Alabama newspaper might awaken from his or her slumber long enough to realize that, "Hey, there's a story here!"
We wouldn't want that. So Riley would rather let the case die and see his state get cheated out of billions of dollars. He simply does not want someone to write a brief that would show that the Supreme Court's ruling was unlawfully decided.
And it wouldn't take a legal scholar to write such a brief. Most anyone with three or four days of law school could probably show how the Supremes intentionally butchered the case in order to repay the corporate supporters who put them in office. (These same corporate supporters also put Riley in office.) Heck, I don't have the first day of law school, and I could write the brief--and I would do it for free.
Think I'll e-mail Wallis and offer to write the brief--for the good of our fine state. Wonder what his reply would be.
The Supremes so blatantly cheated the citizens of Alabama that Riley feels compelled to sweep the whole thing under the proverbial rug. That's the kind of leadership we have in Montgomery.
And did you notice that The Birmingham News buried the story on an inside page? Think that was an accident? Far and away the most important story in yesterday's newspaper, and it winds up on page 12 or 15 or some such.
With the help of Novationeering's Robby Scott Hill, we've already shown you one way the Supreme Court cheated Alabamians in its haste to kiss the collective fanny of ExxonMobil. We will show you more ways soon.
I'm not an expert on appellate law, but I believe the state still could file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And even if the state does file an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court is not likely to hear it. Did you know this? U.S. Supreme Court rules specifically state that the court is not in the business of hearing cases in order to correct state courts. If your state courts screwed you, that's tough.
You can see why it's kind of important to have honest state appellate courts. And that is something Alabama definnitely does not have.
And here is one other thought to keep in mind: This decision by Riley to forgo a rehearing shows a sort of collusion that goes on between our corrupt executive branch and our corrupt judicial branch--both dominated by Republicans.
I've seen evidence of this kind of collusion in my own case. William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, filed a bogus lawsuit against me that started a chain of events leading to this blog. By law, Bill Swatek should have been held accountable for filing a baseless claim in Alabama courts. Several mechanisms are available for doing just that. But since Bill Swatek has ties to the executive branch, he gets away with murder in our judicial branch. And the evidence is strong that this kind of footsie is not accidental.
What happens in Alabama is a smaller version of what happens on the national stage--we are the nation's canary in a coal mine. The Bush Administration turns the U.S. Justice Department into a politicized cesspool. The Riley Administration does much the same thing with the judicial branch of Alabama's state government.
Folks like Bob Riley assume that Alabamians will just sit back and take it. Sadly, he might be right about that.
Riley's office has announced that it will not ask the Alabama Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to throw out nearly all of the state's $3.6 billion judgment in a natural-gas royalties dispute with ExxonMobil.
Ken Wallis, Riley's legal advisor, said the governor had decided that seeking a rehearing "would be futile."
"With 8-1, we did not feel there was a likelihood of success," Wallis said.
So why bother trying? That's the spirit that made this country great isn't it?
There is an ulterior motive to Riley's decision to accept the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling, and it's one Mr. Wallis doesn't want you to know about. The 8-1 decision involved eight Republican justices voting to overturn the trial-court finding, with the lone Democrat (Sue Bell Cobb) casting a dissent. Riley, of course, is a Republican.
And here is why the governor is caving in: When a party seeks to have an appellate court rehear a case, it must file an application for rehearing. And along with the application, the party must file a brief, citing instances where the court ruled incorrectly or misunderstood the facts and the law involved.
Riley and Co. simply do not want to file a brief for reconsideration because such a brief, done honestly, would reveal the eight GOP justices for what they are--a bunch of rogues who are intentionally cheating the state of Alabama and ignoring their own well-settled law to do it. The brief would be a public document, and it's possible (though not likely) that a reporter from an Alabama newspaper might awaken from his or her slumber long enough to realize that, "Hey, there's a story here!"
We wouldn't want that. So Riley would rather let the case die and see his state get cheated out of billions of dollars. He simply does not want someone to write a brief that would show that the Supreme Court's ruling was unlawfully decided.
And it wouldn't take a legal scholar to write such a brief. Most anyone with three or four days of law school could probably show how the Supremes intentionally butchered the case in order to repay the corporate supporters who put them in office. (These same corporate supporters also put Riley in office.) Heck, I don't have the first day of law school, and I could write the brief--and I would do it for free.
Think I'll e-mail Wallis and offer to write the brief--for the good of our fine state. Wonder what his reply would be.
The Supremes so blatantly cheated the citizens of Alabama that Riley feels compelled to sweep the whole thing under the proverbial rug. That's the kind of leadership we have in Montgomery.
And did you notice that The Birmingham News buried the story on an inside page? Think that was an accident? Far and away the most important story in yesterday's newspaper, and it winds up on page 12 or 15 or some such.
With the help of Novationeering's Robby Scott Hill, we've already shown you one way the Supreme Court cheated Alabamians in its haste to kiss the collective fanny of ExxonMobil. We will show you more ways soon.
I'm not an expert on appellate law, but I believe the state still could file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And even if the state does file an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court is not likely to hear it. Did you know this? U.S. Supreme Court rules specifically state that the court is not in the business of hearing cases in order to correct state courts. If your state courts screwed you, that's tough.
You can see why it's kind of important to have honest state appellate courts. And that is something Alabama definnitely does not have.
And here is one other thought to keep in mind: This decision by Riley to forgo a rehearing shows a sort of collusion that goes on between our corrupt executive branch and our corrupt judicial branch--both dominated by Republicans.
I've seen evidence of this kind of collusion in my own case. William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, filed a bogus lawsuit against me that started a chain of events leading to this blog. By law, Bill Swatek should have been held accountable for filing a baseless claim in Alabama courts. Several mechanisms are available for doing just that. But since Bill Swatek has ties to the executive branch, he gets away with murder in our judicial branch. And the evidence is strong that this kind of footsie is not accidental.
What happens in Alabama is a smaller version of what happens on the national stage--we are the nation's canary in a coal mine. The Bush Administration turns the U.S. Justice Department into a politicized cesspool. The Riley Administration does much the same thing with the judicial branch of Alabama's state government.
Folks like Bob Riley assume that Alabamians will just sit back and take it. Sadly, he might be right about that.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Mississippi's King of Torts
Years of battles with other lawyers over fees might finally have caught up with Mississippi's Richard "Dickie" Scruggs.
Nelson D. Schwartz, of the The New York Times, reports that Scruggs has had fee disputes with other lawyers for years. And Scruggs' hard-nosed approach to such transactions might have led to his recent indictment for attempting to bribe a judge who was overseeing a lawsuit based on a fee dispute. These are tough times for the attorney known as "the King of Torts."
Charles M. Merkel Jr., a Clarksdale, MS, lawyer who has spent more than a decade battling Scruggs in two fee disputes, says he is not surprised by Scruggs' current problems.
"It's scorched earth with Dickie Scruggs," says Merkel, who represented Alwyn Luckey, an attorney who claimed Scruggs shortchanged him for work performed on asbestos cases. "As far as whether he's guilty, I can't say. But I'm not surprised because he's willing to use any means to an end. And it irks the hell out of me when Scruggs skates on the edge and makes the profession look bad."
Scruggs' current woes grew out of a disagreement with Jackson, MS, lawyer John Griffin Jones, who had worked with him against State Farm Insurance after Hurricane Katrina. Jones sued in state court, saying he was cheated out of his fair share of a $26.5 million settlement. The indictment for Scruggs and four other men came after they allegedly attempted to bribe Judge Henry L. Lackey, who was overseeing the Jones suit.
Scruggs is the brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) and has given to some Republican candidates. But the majority of his donations evidently have gone to Democrats. Some observers say his indictment could hurt Democrats and give Republicans ammunition to fire in the battle over tort reform.
Grady Tollison, who represents Jones in the lawsuit against Scruggs, says he sees a troubling pattern of behavior with Scruggs. "He's had a consistent pattern of violating his fiduciary duties to his partners in these legal ventures," Tollison says. "I know the lawyers in Oxford, Tupelo, and Clarksdale, and most everybody is very congenial. But Dickie's had difficulties with lawyers and fees in the past."
We will follow the Scruggs case closely here at Legal Schnauzer. At one time, Scruggs and Paul Minor probably were the two most successful trial lawyers in Mississippi. Both won major cases against the tobacco and asbestos industries, and Minor used his financial resources to support Democratic candidates exclusively.
Minor currently is in federal prison on a corruption conviction that appears to have been politically motivated. In fact, we have written a lengthy series of posts showing that Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were wrongly convicted, largely because of unlawful actions by Federal Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee.
Here is something to watch for: Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted even though no evidence was presented to show that their was any agreement, a quid pro quo, between them. We have shown that they were convicted because Wingate made unlawful rulings regarding expert defense witnesses and gave improper jury instructions on bribery and honest services mail fraud charges.
In the Scruggs case, early news reports indicate there is tape recorded evidence of an attempt to make a quid pro quo with Judge Lackey. If so, that is a true bribery case, and things won't look good for Scruggs.
But this question remains: How in the world did Minor and Co. get convicted without any evidence of a quid pro quo? The answer rests with Federal Judge Henry Wingate. And somebody in law enforcement needs to take a close look at his activities in the Minor case.
Nelson D. Schwartz, of the The New York Times, reports that Scruggs has had fee disputes with other lawyers for years. And Scruggs' hard-nosed approach to such transactions might have led to his recent indictment for attempting to bribe a judge who was overseeing a lawsuit based on a fee dispute. These are tough times for the attorney known as "the King of Torts."
Charles M. Merkel Jr., a Clarksdale, MS, lawyer who has spent more than a decade battling Scruggs in two fee disputes, says he is not surprised by Scruggs' current problems.
"It's scorched earth with Dickie Scruggs," says Merkel, who represented Alwyn Luckey, an attorney who claimed Scruggs shortchanged him for work performed on asbestos cases. "As far as whether he's guilty, I can't say. But I'm not surprised because he's willing to use any means to an end. And it irks the hell out of me when Scruggs skates on the edge and makes the profession look bad."
Scruggs' current woes grew out of a disagreement with Jackson, MS, lawyer John Griffin Jones, who had worked with him against State Farm Insurance after Hurricane Katrina. Jones sued in state court, saying he was cheated out of his fair share of a $26.5 million settlement. The indictment for Scruggs and four other men came after they allegedly attempted to bribe Judge Henry L. Lackey, who was overseeing the Jones suit.
Scruggs is the brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) and has given to some Republican candidates. But the majority of his donations evidently have gone to Democrats. Some observers say his indictment could hurt Democrats and give Republicans ammunition to fire in the battle over tort reform.
Grady Tollison, who represents Jones in the lawsuit against Scruggs, says he sees a troubling pattern of behavior with Scruggs. "He's had a consistent pattern of violating his fiduciary duties to his partners in these legal ventures," Tollison says. "I know the lawyers in Oxford, Tupelo, and Clarksdale, and most everybody is very congenial. But Dickie's had difficulties with lawyers and fees in the past."
We will follow the Scruggs case closely here at Legal Schnauzer. At one time, Scruggs and Paul Minor probably were the two most successful trial lawyers in Mississippi. Both won major cases against the tobacco and asbestos industries, and Minor used his financial resources to support Democratic candidates exclusively.
Minor currently is in federal prison on a corruption conviction that appears to have been politically motivated. In fact, we have written a lengthy series of posts showing that Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were wrongly convicted, largely because of unlawful actions by Federal Judge Henry Wingate, a Republican appointee.
Here is something to watch for: Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted even though no evidence was presented to show that their was any agreement, a quid pro quo, between them. We have shown that they were convicted because Wingate made unlawful rulings regarding expert defense witnesses and gave improper jury instructions on bribery and honest services mail fraud charges.
In the Scruggs case, early news reports indicate there is tape recorded evidence of an attempt to make a quid pro quo with Judge Lackey. If so, that is a true bribery case, and things won't look good for Scruggs.
But this question remains: How in the world did Minor and Co. get convicted without any evidence of a quid pro quo? The answer rests with Federal Judge Henry Wingate. And somebody in law enforcement needs to take a close look at his activities in the Minor case.
Tears for Briarwood
There was a moment of "heartbreak" in the Schnauzer household the other night when we learned that Briarwood Christian had lost to St. Paul's in the Class 5A championship game of the Alabama high school football playoffs.
And what a heartbreaker for Briarwood. The Lions blocked a punt in the closing seconds and took it in for a touchdown that appeared to tie the game. But St. Paul broke through to block the extra-point kick and held on for a 14-13 victory.
It would have been Briarwood's fourth state championship, its third since Coach Fred Yancey, my former neighbor, got involved in a strange, rushed, poorly handled real-estate transaction that led to all kinds of legal and financial woes for your humble blogger. In fact this blog never would have happened if Briarwood had not tried to come up with a sweetheart housing deal for its coach, leaving me with a criminal for a new neighbor.
To put it bluntly, evidence strongly suggests that Briarwood's negligence has pretty much ruined my life and my wife's life. And the no one associated with the school has shown the slightest inclination toward taking responsibility for it. And these people call themselves Christians.
So excuse me if I failed to suppress a smile, and perhaps a whoop of joy or two, upon learning that Briarwood had lost.
I know the Good Book says we are not supposed to take joy in our enemy's travails. But I'm sorry, I've got flaws, and one of them is I enjoy seeing my enemies suffer. I also know the Good Book says we are supposed to forgive those who have harmed us. But you can't forgive someone who has not sought forgiveness, who has not acknowledged they have done wrong. And the good folks at Briarwood have clearly shown that they are more interested in winning football games, and raking in the cash that comes with winning football games, than they are in doing what's right.
Is it an accident that the school has made a major addition to, and renovation of, its facilities since I got left holding the bag on their little real-estate deal? I don't think so.
So consider the hypocrisy that was dripping from this story in last Thursday's Birmingham News. It's about the Briarwood coaching staff and concludes with this quote from Yancey, the head coach:
"This is a complete staff. They have a big picture view of why they're coaching. To them, it's way bigger than football. They're molding kids for a lifetime."
How are the adults at Briarwood going to "mold kids for a lifetime" when they themselves don't know how to do the right thing? Here's the message Briarwood adults are sending: "If you take hurried and negligent action that causes someone else great harm, don't worry about it. That's tough luck for the other guy. You just grab what you think belongs to you; do what's best for you; look out for No. 1. And don't be afraid to use the power of public officials to your advantage. It always helps to have a few judges in your back pockets."
Think I'm exaggerating? Well, I've got evidence that strongly suggests Briarwood officials not only know that Shelby County judges cheat people on their behalf, but that Briarwood folks encourage it.
Molding kids for a lifetime? Don't make me puke.
And what a heartbreaker for Briarwood. The Lions blocked a punt in the closing seconds and took it in for a touchdown that appeared to tie the game. But St. Paul broke through to block the extra-point kick and held on for a 14-13 victory.
It would have been Briarwood's fourth state championship, its third since Coach Fred Yancey, my former neighbor, got involved in a strange, rushed, poorly handled real-estate transaction that led to all kinds of legal and financial woes for your humble blogger. In fact this blog never would have happened if Briarwood had not tried to come up with a sweetheart housing deal for its coach, leaving me with a criminal for a new neighbor.
To put it bluntly, evidence strongly suggests that Briarwood's negligence has pretty much ruined my life and my wife's life. And the no one associated with the school has shown the slightest inclination toward taking responsibility for it. And these people call themselves Christians.
So excuse me if I failed to suppress a smile, and perhaps a whoop of joy or two, upon learning that Briarwood had lost.
I know the Good Book says we are not supposed to take joy in our enemy's travails. But I'm sorry, I've got flaws, and one of them is I enjoy seeing my enemies suffer. I also know the Good Book says we are supposed to forgive those who have harmed us. But you can't forgive someone who has not sought forgiveness, who has not acknowledged they have done wrong. And the good folks at Briarwood have clearly shown that they are more interested in winning football games, and raking in the cash that comes with winning football games, than they are in doing what's right.
Is it an accident that the school has made a major addition to, and renovation of, its facilities since I got left holding the bag on their little real-estate deal? I don't think so.
So consider the hypocrisy that was dripping from this story in last Thursday's Birmingham News. It's about the Briarwood coaching staff and concludes with this quote from Yancey, the head coach:
"This is a complete staff. They have a big picture view of why they're coaching. To them, it's way bigger than football. They're molding kids for a lifetime."
How are the adults at Briarwood going to "mold kids for a lifetime" when they themselves don't know how to do the right thing? Here's the message Briarwood adults are sending: "If you take hurried and negligent action that causes someone else great harm, don't worry about it. That's tough luck for the other guy. You just grab what you think belongs to you; do what's best for you; look out for No. 1. And don't be afraid to use the power of public officials to your advantage. It always helps to have a few judges in your back pockets."
Think I'm exaggerating? Well, I've got evidence that strongly suggests Briarwood officials not only know that Shelby County judges cheat people on their behalf, but that Briarwood folks encourage it.
Molding kids for a lifetime? Don't make me puke.
A Voice for Siegelman
Federal officials evidently have successfully muzzled former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman while he is in prison, not allowing him to be interviewed by reporters. But Dana Siegelman is providing a voice for her father. And it is increasingly being heard.
Dana Siegelman, 22, has sent a letter to more than 1,000 people asking them to join her in urging members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to push forward with the difficult task of unearthing all of the sleaze associated with the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
About two weeks ago, Ms. Siegelman was spotlighted in a fascinating interview with Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story.
Ms. Siegelman seems to be growing justifiably impatient with the glacial pace of activities with the house committee. Since the committee held a hearing on selective prosecution on October 23, it has been awfully quiet.
The October hearing barely touched the tip of the iceberg of the selective-prosecution issue. One begins to wonder if a Democratic-led Congress truly has the stomach to get to the bottom of the DOJ sewer. One also wonders if Congressional Democrats have the determination required to overcome the gross stonewalling on the part of Bushies.
As days, weeks, and months pass by, people like Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor are political prisoners. Former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield will become political prisoners at the end of this month, wrongly convicted along with Minor on "corruption" charges.
Dana Siegelman reports that her dad is living in miserable conditions. He works as a janitor from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. every day and has no privacy. He must wear sweat suits in order to sleep in his drafty quarters.
"The people of Alabama need to know that the man who provided to much good for them is being treated so badly," Ms. Siegelman wrote.
Ms. Siegelman is the governor's daughter, so she might not be the most objective person on such matters. But she has a point.
Siegelman's prosecution focused on a gift from HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to help pay off a debt from an education-lottery campaign. But we've noted here at Legal Schnauzer that Siegelman had a history of taking on the tobacco and oil industries on behalf of the State of Alabama.
The Scrushy gift amounted to nothing more than standard political behavior and almost certainly did not rise to the level of criminal conduct. So one must wonder about ulterior motives behind the prosecution.
Putting a stop to the power Siegelman had shown at the ballot box was almost certainly one motive. But paying him back for taking on the corporate interests might have been motive number one.
Dana Siegelman, 22, has sent a letter to more than 1,000 people asking them to join her in urging members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to push forward with the difficult task of unearthing all of the sleaze associated with the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
About two weeks ago, Ms. Siegelman was spotlighted in a fascinating interview with Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story.
Ms. Siegelman seems to be growing justifiably impatient with the glacial pace of activities with the house committee. Since the committee held a hearing on selective prosecution on October 23, it has been awfully quiet.
The October hearing barely touched the tip of the iceberg of the selective-prosecution issue. One begins to wonder if a Democratic-led Congress truly has the stomach to get to the bottom of the DOJ sewer. One also wonders if Congressional Democrats have the determination required to overcome the gross stonewalling on the part of Bushies.
As days, weeks, and months pass by, people like Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor are political prisoners. Former Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield will become political prisoners at the end of this month, wrongly convicted along with Minor on "corruption" charges.
Dana Siegelman reports that her dad is living in miserable conditions. He works as a janitor from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. every day and has no privacy. He must wear sweat suits in order to sleep in his drafty quarters.
"The people of Alabama need to know that the man who provided to much good for them is being treated so badly," Ms. Siegelman wrote.
Ms. Siegelman is the governor's daughter, so she might not be the most objective person on such matters. But she has a point.
Siegelman's prosecution focused on a gift from HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to help pay off a debt from an education-lottery campaign. But we've noted here at Legal Schnauzer that Siegelman had a history of taking on the tobacco and oil industries on behalf of the State of Alabama.
The Scrushy gift amounted to nothing more than standard political behavior and almost certainly did not rise to the level of criminal conduct. So one must wonder about ulterior motives behind the prosecution.
Putting a stop to the power Siegelman had shown at the ballot box was almost certainly one motive. But paying him back for taking on the corporate interests might have been motive number one.
Friday, December 7, 2007
The Trent Lott Mystery
The political world still is trying to figure out what caused U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) to announce that he will retire later this month--a full five years before his term runs out.
Timothy Noah, of Slate, notes the numerous theories that have been floated in both the mainstream and the alternative media. Those theories range from: (1) Lott is retiring because it's no fun to serve in Congress when you aren't in the majority; (2) Lott is planning to rake in big bucks as a lobbyist and wants to dodge new lobbying restrictions that take effect Jan. 1; (3) Lott is about to be exposed as having a relationship with a gay male escort.
But Noah cuts to what might be the most plausible reason for Lott's sudden desire to leave the Senate: Extortion. Someone is trying to extort the good senator? Nope, it might be the other way around.
Seems conservative Trent turned positively liberal when his beachfront home in Pascagoula, MS, was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and State Farm sought to deny coverage. The mega insurer determined that Lott's home was damaged not by high winds, which were covered by his homeowner's policy, but by flooding, which was not.
Lott, who has joined in the Republican chorus to trash trial lawyers, suddenly decided trial lawyers weren't so bad--not when a corporation was trying to screw him. (What if a corporation is trying to screw you or me? Lott seems to have no problem with that. You and I are to suck it up and be "rugged individualists.")
Lott turned to his brother-in-law, mega trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs, who filed suit on Lott's behalf.
But the Trentster didn't stop there. He essentially used Congress to declare war on State Farm and the insurance industry, introducing or cosponsoring a number of bills that would have tightened the screws on insurers. Chuck Chamness, CEO of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said Lott phoned him and threatened "bringing down State Farm and the industry." A Wall Street Journal editorial writer compared Lott's campaign to "extortion."
Noah notes that the WSJ columnist probably used the term figuratively. But he indicates that knowledgeable people in the legal community wonder if Lott might have applied improper pressure on State Farm in the course of negotiating his claim. And such pressure could rise to the level of a criminal act.
A source of mine in the legal community, one who is familiar with the process of negotiating insurance claims, says it doesn't look good for Lott. "I really think that Lott is probably in huge trouble here," my source says. "This strongly appears to be extortion by a U.S. Senator, using his ability to initiate all kinds of federal legislative pressure on State Farm in an attempt to get his way in a civil claim. "
This is serious stuff, but former Mississippi Judge Wes Teel, who blogs at Gulf Coast Realist, has a very funny take on Lott and related matters. Teel was wrongly convicted in the Paul Minor case and is to report to federal prison later this month. Remarkably, his sense of humor is still intact, and his take on the Lott situation should draw more than a few chuckles.
Timothy Noah, of Slate, notes the numerous theories that have been floated in both the mainstream and the alternative media. Those theories range from: (1) Lott is retiring because it's no fun to serve in Congress when you aren't in the majority; (2) Lott is planning to rake in big bucks as a lobbyist and wants to dodge new lobbying restrictions that take effect Jan. 1; (3) Lott is about to be exposed as having a relationship with a gay male escort.
But Noah cuts to what might be the most plausible reason for Lott's sudden desire to leave the Senate: Extortion. Someone is trying to extort the good senator? Nope, it might be the other way around.
Seems conservative Trent turned positively liberal when his beachfront home in Pascagoula, MS, was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and State Farm sought to deny coverage. The mega insurer determined that Lott's home was damaged not by high winds, which were covered by his homeowner's policy, but by flooding, which was not.
Lott, who has joined in the Republican chorus to trash trial lawyers, suddenly decided trial lawyers weren't so bad--not when a corporation was trying to screw him. (What if a corporation is trying to screw you or me? Lott seems to have no problem with that. You and I are to suck it up and be "rugged individualists.")
Lott turned to his brother-in-law, mega trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs, who filed suit on Lott's behalf.
But the Trentster didn't stop there. He essentially used Congress to declare war on State Farm and the insurance industry, introducing or cosponsoring a number of bills that would have tightened the screws on insurers. Chuck Chamness, CEO of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said Lott phoned him and threatened "bringing down State Farm and the industry." A Wall Street Journal editorial writer compared Lott's campaign to "extortion."
Noah notes that the WSJ columnist probably used the term figuratively. But he indicates that knowledgeable people in the legal community wonder if Lott might have applied improper pressure on State Farm in the course of negotiating his claim. And such pressure could rise to the level of a criminal act.
A source of mine in the legal community, one who is familiar with the process of negotiating insurance claims, says it doesn't look good for Lott. "I really think that Lott is probably in huge trouble here," my source says. "This strongly appears to be extortion by a U.S. Senator, using his ability to initiate all kinds of federal legislative pressure on State Farm in an attempt to get his way in a civil claim. "
This is serious stuff, but former Mississippi Judge Wes Teel, who blogs at Gulf Coast Realist, has a very funny take on Lott and related matters. Teel was wrongly convicted in the Paul Minor case and is to report to federal prison later this month. Remarkably, his sense of humor is still intact, and his take on the Lott situation should draw more than a few chuckles.
The Assault/Trespassing Combo
Your humble blogger has been the victim of both criminal trespassing and assault in Shelby County, Alabama. And I've seen what a miserable job judges and DAs do in handling such matters.
Now we have both of those charges involved in a single case. And since it involves a local politician, it's in the news.
It seems that Calera Mayor George Roy was burning leaves when a woman who owns a nearby fitness center became unhappy about his smokey activities. Kimberly Waldrop poured water on the leaves, which sparked an argument.
Waldrop says the 79-year-old mayor grabbed her and injured her arm. She also claims he was trespassing on property she leases from KMG Real Estate.
Roy says he never touched Waldrop and that he had permission from both the Calera Police Department and the property owners to burn the leaves. (Why Roy was burning leaves on someone else's property is beyond me. But lots of things that happen in Shelby County are beyond me.)
Waldrop filed a complaint against Roy for assault and trespassing. Because the case involves a city official, the investigation is being handled by the Shelby County Sheriff's Department.
That should be interesting. Based on the newspaper account, Roy would face at most a misdemeanor assault charge. And criminal trespass is not even a misdemeanor; it's a violation under Alabama law.
(Remember: My charming neighbor claimed I maliciously prosecuted him for criminal trespass. That's a fancy way of saying I made up the trespassing charge in order to get back at him. Never mind that he inadvertently confessed to trespassing during the criminal trial and still was found not guilty. You might think that couldn't possibly happen in America--somebody confesses to a crime and still is found not guilty. But folks, anything can happen in Shelby County, Alabama. Here's my point: If you really want to "get" somebody, are you going to do it by filing a complaint for criminal trespass, the lowest level of crime there is? If I wanted to "get" somebody, I think I would come up with something more substantial than criminal trespass.)
Will be interesting to see if the sheriff's department actually investigates this matter. I've been the victim of criminal trespassing, assault, criminal mischief (vandalism), reckless endangerment, and behavior that comes real close to stalking. And Shelby County's finest never investigated a thing.
Here's something I've learned about most law-enforcement officers, at least the ones in my area: They are glorified stenographers. Most deputies come and take a report, and they don't investigate much of anything. And the report they take means pretty much nothing. During the criminal-trespass trial where I was the victim, the incident report never was entered as evidence. In fact, I'm not sure the assistant DA who handled the case even looked at it.
If Roy gets off on the criminal charge, he might have other problems. Both trespass and assault are torts, so he could be sued.
But the facts and the law won't matter in Shelby County. If Roy is buds with the judges in Columbiana, and I imagine he is, he doesn't have a thing to worry about.
Moral of the story? Mayor, try bagging your leaves next time. And Ms. Waldrop, try to find out how close the mayor is to the judges in Shelby County. If he's their bud, you are wasting your time pursuing this case, either criminally or civilly.
Now we have both of those charges involved in a single case. And since it involves a local politician, it's in the news.
It seems that Calera Mayor George Roy was burning leaves when a woman who owns a nearby fitness center became unhappy about his smokey activities. Kimberly Waldrop poured water on the leaves, which sparked an argument.
Waldrop says the 79-year-old mayor grabbed her and injured her arm. She also claims he was trespassing on property she leases from KMG Real Estate.
Roy says he never touched Waldrop and that he had permission from both the Calera Police Department and the property owners to burn the leaves. (Why Roy was burning leaves on someone else's property is beyond me. But lots of things that happen in Shelby County are beyond me.)
Waldrop filed a complaint against Roy for assault and trespassing. Because the case involves a city official, the investigation is being handled by the Shelby County Sheriff's Department.
That should be interesting. Based on the newspaper account, Roy would face at most a misdemeanor assault charge. And criminal trespass is not even a misdemeanor; it's a violation under Alabama law.
(Remember: My charming neighbor claimed I maliciously prosecuted him for criminal trespass. That's a fancy way of saying I made up the trespassing charge in order to get back at him. Never mind that he inadvertently confessed to trespassing during the criminal trial and still was found not guilty. You might think that couldn't possibly happen in America--somebody confesses to a crime and still is found not guilty. But folks, anything can happen in Shelby County, Alabama. Here's my point: If you really want to "get" somebody, are you going to do it by filing a complaint for criminal trespass, the lowest level of crime there is? If I wanted to "get" somebody, I think I would come up with something more substantial than criminal trespass.)
Will be interesting to see if the sheriff's department actually investigates this matter. I've been the victim of criminal trespassing, assault, criminal mischief (vandalism), reckless endangerment, and behavior that comes real close to stalking. And Shelby County's finest never investigated a thing.
Here's something I've learned about most law-enforcement officers, at least the ones in my area: They are glorified stenographers. Most deputies come and take a report, and they don't investigate much of anything. And the report they take means pretty much nothing. During the criminal-trespass trial where I was the victim, the incident report never was entered as evidence. In fact, I'm not sure the assistant DA who handled the case even looked at it.
If Roy gets off on the criminal charge, he might have other problems. Both trespass and assault are torts, so he could be sued.
But the facts and the law won't matter in Shelby County. If Roy is buds with the judges in Columbiana, and I imagine he is, he doesn't have a thing to worry about.
Moral of the story? Mayor, try bagging your leaves next time. And Ms. Waldrop, try to find out how close the mayor is to the judges in Shelby County. If he's their bud, you are wasting your time pursuing this case, either criminally or civilly.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Muzzling the Legal Schnauzer?
We recently posted about John W. Goff, a Montgomery insurance executive who faces a possible federal indictment, apparently as retaliation for a lawsuit he brought against Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
In his lawsuit, Goff alleges that Riley and others took actions that helped ruin one of Goff's insurance companies. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported that Riley was highly agitated at the idea of having to answer questions under oath in the Goff case and was looking to the U.S. Attorney's Office to make it "go away."
I noted that it appeared someone was trying to misuse the justice process in order to shut up Mr. Goff. And I said I could identify with that because I'd recently had a similar experience.
Here's what happened: My wife and I came home one evening in late September to find a note on our door from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. It said they had legal papers that needed to be delivered to me.
Such a notice is rarely good news for anyone. But based on my experience in Shelby County, it almost always means something fraudulent, stupid, threatening, or incompetent is afoot. In many cases, it's all of the above.
Turns out the deputy needed to deliver a document called a writ of execution, which was dated September 21, 2007. That's a document that is issued when a judgment has been found against you in court and you allegedly owe a certain amount of money.
I will go into much more detail later, but here are the basics for now: In the bogus lawsuit filed against me by my neighbor, Mike McGarity, there ultimately was a judgment against me for $1,525.
Keep in mind that, by law, McGarity's lawsuit had to be dismissed (summary judgment) three different times. Why? Because three times I filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment (MSJ), citing distinct facts and appropriate case law each time. (The case had to be dismissed on about a dozen different grounds. That's partly why multiple MSJs were filed.)
On the first MSJ, McGarity did not file any evidence in the time frame required by law. (In fact, he filed no admissible evidence at all.) And on the second and third MSJs, he filed no response or evidence of any kind. Clear Alabama law says summary judgment must be granted, forthwith, under such circumstances.
But corrupt Shelby County judges, J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, caused the case to go to trial--when by law, it could not go to trial. This cost me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars. Next time you hear a Republican talk about being "conservative" with money, think about this example of your tax dollars at work.
Now get this: The trial and the judgment against me came in June 2004. I filed postjudgment motions, which Reeves never ruled on. I filed an appeal with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, packed completely with Republicans, and it upheld the unlawful trial-court judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals abused Alabama's "no-opinion affirmance" rule to do this, giving no explanation for their affirmance because one does not exist under the law. My legal sources in Montgomery tell me this is a common occurrence with our current corporate court when it wants to favor one party and cheat another party.
I sought a writ of certiorari for review by the Alabama Supreme Court, but it was denied. This is pretty much the same Supreme Court (except for Democrat Sue Bell Cobb) who recently cheated Alabama out of $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a case involving ExxonMobil. You will learn here at Legal Schnauzer that cheating regular folks is nothing new for this bunch.
For example, Alabama appellate procedure requires the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a case where a lower-court ruling contradicts a previous finding of the Supreme Court of Court of Civil Appeals. But why should this august body be concerned about the rules of appellate procedure. I wasn't one of their corporate cronies, so I didn't deserve justice.
From June 2004 to mid-September 2007, I never heard a word from Mike McGarity or his esteemed attorney, William E. Swatek, about the judgment I "owed." Why is that? Don't know for sure. But public records indicate McGarity took out a second mortgage on his home in fall 2004, not long after the "trial." It appears he had an expense in an amount he was not anticipating. I'm guessing it was a sizable legal bill. And I'm guessing he couldn't afford to pay even more money to go after $1,525.
Of course, even an attorney as sleazy as Swatek knows the "judgment" was based on fraud. Maybe he just didn't want to fool with it anymore.
So fast forward to summer 2007, and yours truly has started a blog about my experiences with Alabama's corrupt courts. The blog is about three months old when, presto, this writ of execution appears.
Hmmm. I wonder if somebody in the state's Republican hierarchy wants to put a muzzle on a certain schnauzer, sort of like the one they are evidently trying to put on John W. Goff?
Well, let's consider what topics I was writing about in September that might have struck a nerve:
* I was writing about the felony assault Mike McGarity had committed against me, one that Shelby County officials were insisting was a misdemeanor. In fact, just a few days before the writ of execution arrived, I had an e-mail exchange with Circuit Clerk/Magistrate Mary Harris, telling her that the case was wrongly being classified as a misdemeanor. Ms. Harris said she was getting ready to be away for a few days, but she referred me to Assistant Magistrate Lou McLeroy. Ms. McLeroy said she would not change the misdemeanor designation and suggested I speak with the district attorney's office. I've left voice messages that have never been returned and sent an e-mail to DA Robby Owens. It's never been returned. Is this how a crime victim gets treated in Shelby County? You complain about our unlawful rulings and we'll send you a writ of execution--one that was based on fraud. That's how it looks from here.
* I was starting to write about Briarwood Christian School and the peculiar real-estate deal that resulted in football coach Fred Yancey (my former neighbor) moving to a house on school property and gave me a new neighbor--Mike McGarity and his impressive criminal record. Seeing as how Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner has a daughter, Christy, who did go to Briarwood School (and I believe still does)--and Swatek's son, Chace, is a Briarwood graduate--it's possible that was a squeaky wheel that needed to be quieted.
* And perhaps most interesting of all, three days before the date on the writ of execution, I began to write extensively about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Why would Republicans care if I wrote about that? Well, I don't know for sure. But we've heard about many connections between Alabama and Mississippi Republicans. These connections involve luminaries such as Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, Dan Gans, Dax Swatek (son of William E.), and Bob Riley. Is it possible that Mississippi GOPers put out that word to Alabama GOPers to muzzle that nutcase blogger who keeps writing about the Paul Minor case? If so, I didn't know I had that kind of pull. But I'm pleased to say that since I started writing about the Minor case, it has gone from being off the radar screen to being part of a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. Clearly, Scott Horton, of Harper's, and Adam Cohen, of The New York Times, are the folks who brought the Minor case into the national spotlight. But if the GOPers think I had something to do with it . . . well, then I am deeply touched--and honored.
So what will happen with the writ of execution? I have no idea. As is typical for Shelby County, it isn't even close to being executed according to the law. But the law never is a factor in anything that happens involving Shelby County courts, at least from what I've seen.
The writ says that any lawful officer of the State of Alabama is ordered to seize the property described below. It then lists our house and our two cars.
So they are going to take our house and our cars to satisfy a $1,525 debt? (By the way, they've tacked on $30 in court costs and $674.64 in interest, for a total of $2,229.64.) Not sure how interest can accrue on an amount that no one ever has tried to collect.
Anyway, will state troopers be storming our house and making off with our worldly goods?
Stay tuned. But we're talking about Alabama here, so I wouldn't bet against it.
In his lawsuit, Goff alleges that Riley and others took actions that helped ruin one of Goff's insurance companies. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported that Riley was highly agitated at the idea of having to answer questions under oath in the Goff case and was looking to the U.S. Attorney's Office to make it "go away."
I noted that it appeared someone was trying to misuse the justice process in order to shut up Mr. Goff. And I said I could identify with that because I'd recently had a similar experience.
Here's what happened: My wife and I came home one evening in late September to find a note on our door from the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. It said they had legal papers that needed to be delivered to me.
Such a notice is rarely good news for anyone. But based on my experience in Shelby County, it almost always means something fraudulent, stupid, threatening, or incompetent is afoot. In many cases, it's all of the above.
Turns out the deputy needed to deliver a document called a writ of execution, which was dated September 21, 2007. That's a document that is issued when a judgment has been found against you in court and you allegedly owe a certain amount of money.
I will go into much more detail later, but here are the basics for now: In the bogus lawsuit filed against me by my neighbor, Mike McGarity, there ultimately was a judgment against me for $1,525.
Keep in mind that, by law, McGarity's lawsuit had to be dismissed (summary judgment) three different times. Why? Because three times I filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment (MSJ), citing distinct facts and appropriate case law each time. (The case had to be dismissed on about a dozen different grounds. That's partly why multiple MSJs were filed.)
On the first MSJ, McGarity did not file any evidence in the time frame required by law. (In fact, he filed no admissible evidence at all.) And on the second and third MSJs, he filed no response or evidence of any kind. Clear Alabama law says summary judgment must be granted, forthwith, under such circumstances.
But corrupt Shelby County judges, J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, caused the case to go to trial--when by law, it could not go to trial. This cost me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars. Next time you hear a Republican talk about being "conservative" with money, think about this example of your tax dollars at work.
Now get this: The trial and the judgment against me came in June 2004. I filed postjudgment motions, which Reeves never ruled on. I filed an appeal with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, packed completely with Republicans, and it upheld the unlawful trial-court judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals abused Alabama's "no-opinion affirmance" rule to do this, giving no explanation for their affirmance because one does not exist under the law. My legal sources in Montgomery tell me this is a common occurrence with our current corporate court when it wants to favor one party and cheat another party.
I sought a writ of certiorari for review by the Alabama Supreme Court, but it was denied. This is pretty much the same Supreme Court (except for Democrat Sue Bell Cobb) who recently cheated Alabama out of $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a case involving ExxonMobil. You will learn here at Legal Schnauzer that cheating regular folks is nothing new for this bunch.
For example, Alabama appellate procedure requires the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a case where a lower-court ruling contradicts a previous finding of the Supreme Court of Court of Civil Appeals. But why should this august body be concerned about the rules of appellate procedure. I wasn't one of their corporate cronies, so I didn't deserve justice.
From June 2004 to mid-September 2007, I never heard a word from Mike McGarity or his esteemed attorney, William E. Swatek, about the judgment I "owed." Why is that? Don't know for sure. But public records indicate McGarity took out a second mortgage on his home in fall 2004, not long after the "trial." It appears he had an expense in an amount he was not anticipating. I'm guessing it was a sizable legal bill. And I'm guessing he couldn't afford to pay even more money to go after $1,525.
Of course, even an attorney as sleazy as Swatek knows the "judgment" was based on fraud. Maybe he just didn't want to fool with it anymore.
So fast forward to summer 2007, and yours truly has started a blog about my experiences with Alabama's corrupt courts. The blog is about three months old when, presto, this writ of execution appears.
Hmmm. I wonder if somebody in the state's Republican hierarchy wants to put a muzzle on a certain schnauzer, sort of like the one they are evidently trying to put on John W. Goff?
Well, let's consider what topics I was writing about in September that might have struck a nerve:
* I was writing about the felony assault Mike McGarity had committed against me, one that Shelby County officials were insisting was a misdemeanor. In fact, just a few days before the writ of execution arrived, I had an e-mail exchange with Circuit Clerk/Magistrate Mary Harris, telling her that the case was wrongly being classified as a misdemeanor. Ms. Harris said she was getting ready to be away for a few days, but she referred me to Assistant Magistrate Lou McLeroy. Ms. McLeroy said she would not change the misdemeanor designation and suggested I speak with the district attorney's office. I've left voice messages that have never been returned and sent an e-mail to DA Robby Owens. It's never been returned. Is this how a crime victim gets treated in Shelby County? You complain about our unlawful rulings and we'll send you a writ of execution--one that was based on fraud. That's how it looks from here.
* I was starting to write about Briarwood Christian School and the peculiar real-estate deal that resulted in football coach Fred Yancey (my former neighbor) moving to a house on school property and gave me a new neighbor--Mike McGarity and his impressive criminal record. Seeing as how Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner has a daughter, Christy, who did go to Briarwood School (and I believe still does)--and Swatek's son, Chace, is a Briarwood graduate--it's possible that was a squeaky wheel that needed to be quieted.
* And perhaps most interesting of all, three days before the date on the writ of execution, I began to write extensively about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Why would Republicans care if I wrote about that? Well, I don't know for sure. But we've heard about many connections between Alabama and Mississippi Republicans. These connections involve luminaries such as Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, Dan Gans, Dax Swatek (son of William E.), and Bob Riley. Is it possible that Mississippi GOPers put out that word to Alabama GOPers to muzzle that nutcase blogger who keeps writing about the Paul Minor case? If so, I didn't know I had that kind of pull. But I'm pleased to say that since I started writing about the Minor case, it has gone from being off the radar screen to being part of a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. Clearly, Scott Horton, of Harper's, and Adam Cohen, of The New York Times, are the folks who brought the Minor case into the national spotlight. But if the GOPers think I had something to do with it . . . well, then I am deeply touched--and honored.
So what will happen with the writ of execution? I have no idea. As is typical for Shelby County, it isn't even close to being executed according to the law. But the law never is a factor in anything that happens involving Shelby County courts, at least from what I've seen.
The writ says that any lawful officer of the State of Alabama is ordered to seize the property described below. It then lists our house and our two cars.
So they are going to take our house and our cars to satisfy a $1,525 debt? (By the way, they've tacked on $30 in court costs and $674.64 in interest, for a total of $2,229.64.) Not sure how interest can accrue on an amount that no one ever has tried to collect.
Anyway, will state troopers be storming our house and making off with our worldly goods?
Stay tuned. But we're talking about Alabama here, so I wouldn't bet against it.
Doing the Huntsville Shuffle
A few weeks back we posted about a strange column, titled "Siegelman's Guilty, Relatively Speaking," by Huntsville Times editorial-page editor David Prather.
The column was absurd, even by Alabama standards. But the strangest part came when Prather stated that some unnamed individual (Jill Simpson?) had made charges about a local official, which didn't check out upon investigation by a Times reporter.
The column was absurd, even by Alabama standards. But the strangest part came when Prather stated that some unnamed individual (Jill Simpson?) had made charges about a local official, which didn't check out upon investigation by a Times reporter.
In an effort to be helpful, I let Mr. Prather know via e-mail that I had some charges regarding state judges that most certainly would check out. I invited him to contact me so that I could outline the wrongdoing form him, or a reporter. I felt sure that Mr. Prather would be deeply interested in a dead-solid cinch story about Republican wrongdoing in our state.
Below is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Mr. Prather. You probably will not be surprised to hear that I've received no response. I wonder why.
Mr. Prather:
I read with great interest your recent editorial "Siegelman's Guilty, Relatively Speaking."
I disagree with your conclusions, but that' s not why I'm writing. In the body of the column, you mention a source who had alleged unlawful or improper conduct on the part of a public official. You noted that when a reporter checked out the tip, no evidence was found to support it.
I can provide lots of evidence that will check out regarding wrongdoing in Alabama's state courts--and our justice system in general. I've been the victim of judicial corruption, starting in trial courts in Shelby County and going up to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. This is pretty much the same Supreme Court that recently threw out $3.5 billion in punitive damages in a case involving ExxonMobil. That's a big story in our state right now, and I can show you that our appellate courts have a history of not correctly applying the law.
When I say judicial corruption, I'm talking about judges who repeatedly make rulings that are contrary to clear, settled law. And at the appellate level, it involves justices improperly using Alabama's "no opinion affirmance" rule to uphold incorrect trial--court rulings--essentially "sweeping them under the rug." And in my case, I can show this activity has benefited a party who has close ties to very well known figures at the top of Alabama government.
I have started a blog about my experiences--and other justice-related issues. The blog, Legal Schnauzer, recently was cited in documents filed as part of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution.
Interestingly, I have clear evidence of selective prosecution on the part of Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama (which includes Huntsville). The state judges in my case have committed federal crimes, specifically honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346). Ms. Martin has taken affirmative steps to ensure the case doesn't see the light of day.
I would welcome an inquiry from you or one of your reporters.
Best regards,
Roger Shuler
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Taylor Hicks and the Football Coach
We have written a good bit recently about Hoover High School and its ongoing football/academic controversy. And we've focused on two colorful personalities--Taylor Hicks and Rush Propst.
We've noted that Hicks, the 2006 American Idol, is almost certainly the most famous graduate of Hoover High. And he was a pretty fair athlete in his day, playing on the Bucs basketball team.
The second most famous person connected to Hoover High might be Propst, the controversial football coach. Thanks to his team's No. 1 national ranking and its central role in MTV's Two A Days, Propst became maybe the most high-profile high school coach in history.
Propst found remarkable success on the field, but problems off the field led to the recent announcement that he would step down as coach at the end of this season. Hicks meanwhile produced his debut major-label CD and a nationwide tour. His rabid fan base, the "Soul Patrol," awaits his followup efforts.
But here's an interesting thought: Have Taylor Hicks and Rush Propst ever met? To my knowledge, they haven't. Hicks graduated from Hoover in 1995. Propst was hired as football coach in early 1999.
The mid 1990s were a rough patch for the proud Hoover football program. One problem, according to news reports, was that a number of the school's better athletes had lost interest in football. Upon becoming coach, one of Propst's first goals reportedly was to scout the hallways for athletes and get them to come out for the football team.
So what if Taylor Hicks had been about four years younger and was still on the Hoover campus when Rush Propst arrived? What if Propst had spotted Hicks in the hallway and saw a future wide receiver, not a singer? Let's imagine that conversation . . .
Rush Propst: Hey son, I need you on my team.
Taylor Hicks: Woo-hoo!
RP: You ever play before?
TH: I play all the time, man.
RP: Where do you play?
TH: Small clubs mostly.
RP: Well, get ready for the big time, son; we're going to pack stadiums.
TH: Woo-hoo! Just like the Stones!
RP: You ready to go places?
TH: Sure. Nashville, LA, you name it.
RP: Well, first we're going to go to Vestavia Hills and kick their butts. We might hit those other places later.
TH: You travel in a bus?
RP: Sure. We go first class all the way.
TH: Woo-hoo!
RP: Son, I need guys with big dreams. What are your dreams?
TH: I want to make the Top 40.
RP: Top 40? Hell, son, we're going straight to No. 1.
TH: Woo-hoo! I like the way you think, man. You must have one heckuva promotions department at your label.
RP: It's not about promotion, son. It's all about hard work. With lots of hard work, we'll rule the Super Six.
TH: Super Six? Are they anything like the Fab Four?
RP: Not sure. I just know I need guys who have positive role models. Who's your hero, son.
TH: Ray Charles.
RP: What position does he play?
TH: Upright, mostly.
RP: Must have been a low draft choice. Never heard of him. Who's another hero?
TH: Otis Redding.
RP: Didn't he play for the Raiders?
TH: Paul Revere and the Raiders? You must be kidding, man. Otis had soul!
RP: Too much soul on my team will get you a 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.
TH: Hey, I can't play without soul.
RP: OK, but just do it when the refs aren't watching.
TH: I hear you, dude.
RP: I need guys who are tough. Can you get physical?
TH: I don't know. But something tells me I might want to cold-cock a smart-aleck British guy someday.
RP: British guy, huh? That's weird. But it's a start. Ever make a touchdown?
TH: Well, I hear lead singers score quite a bit--more than bass players, anyway.
RP: This Bass Player fellow, can he block?
TH: Don't know, but he's got rhythm.
RP: Hmmm, might make a running back. Bring him along.
TH: Woo-hoo! What about the sax?
RP: Shhh, be quiet. You can get in trouble for that around here.
TH: No, I mean "sax," my sax player.
RP: Let me guess, he's got soul, right?
TH: Sure does. And he's great on solos.
RP: Hmmm, could be good on isolation plays. Bring him along. But remember: There's no "I" in team.
TH: Got it. Sounds like you're going to have a pretty big group.
RP: Gotta have numbers. That's why I've been up and down these halls. Hell of a day.
TH: Hell of a Day? That sounds like a good name for a song!
RP: Say, you mentioned scoring. Sounds like you do pretty well with the ladies. That's my second favorite sport. What's your secret?
TH: Two things.
RP: I'm listening.
TH: Gray hair . . .
RP: Got that.
TH: And the harmonica.
RP: Harmonica?
TH: Sure, learn to play that, and it leaves 'em defenseless.
RP: Defenseless? That's what we're going to do to Vestavia Hills.
TH: Whatever you say, man.
RP: Tell you what, you teach me harmonica and I'll let you play anywhere you want. Deal?
TH: Deal? The Deal? Man, you're full of good song titles!
RP: Anybody ever tell you you're strange, son?
TH: Soul Patrol!
RP: Ooooooh-kaaaay. You're a bit of a free spirit, but I could use a few of those. From now on you are one of the Bucs.
TH: The Bucs? That's the name of your group?
RP: Sure, and we're going to be known nationwide. I even see us making it on MTV.
TH: Wow, you're the kind of guy I want to play for. Think we'll even do videos?
RP: Sure, I watch tape all the time.
TH: Man, you are with it! When's our first gig?
RP: Well, we've got to practice first. And that's every day after school. See you at the stadium.
TH: The same one we're going to pack?
RP: The very one.
TH: Woo-hoo!
We've noted that Hicks, the 2006 American Idol, is almost certainly the most famous graduate of Hoover High. And he was a pretty fair athlete in his day, playing on the Bucs basketball team.
The second most famous person connected to Hoover High might be Propst, the controversial football coach. Thanks to his team's No. 1 national ranking and its central role in MTV's Two A Days, Propst became maybe the most high-profile high school coach in history.
Propst found remarkable success on the field, but problems off the field led to the recent announcement that he would step down as coach at the end of this season. Hicks meanwhile produced his debut major-label CD and a nationwide tour. His rabid fan base, the "Soul Patrol," awaits his followup efforts.
But here's an interesting thought: Have Taylor Hicks and Rush Propst ever met? To my knowledge, they haven't. Hicks graduated from Hoover in 1995. Propst was hired as football coach in early 1999.
The mid 1990s were a rough patch for the proud Hoover football program. One problem, according to news reports, was that a number of the school's better athletes had lost interest in football. Upon becoming coach, one of Propst's first goals reportedly was to scout the hallways for athletes and get them to come out for the football team.
So what if Taylor Hicks had been about four years younger and was still on the Hoover campus when Rush Propst arrived? What if Propst had spotted Hicks in the hallway and saw a future wide receiver, not a singer? Let's imagine that conversation . . .
Rush Propst: Hey son, I need you on my team.
Taylor Hicks: Woo-hoo!
RP: You ever play before?
TH: I play all the time, man.
RP: Where do you play?
TH: Small clubs mostly.
RP: Well, get ready for the big time, son; we're going to pack stadiums.
TH: Woo-hoo! Just like the Stones!
RP: You ready to go places?
TH: Sure. Nashville, LA, you name it.
RP: Well, first we're going to go to Vestavia Hills and kick their butts. We might hit those other places later.
TH: You travel in a bus?
RP: Sure. We go first class all the way.
TH: Woo-hoo!
RP: Son, I need guys with big dreams. What are your dreams?
TH: I want to make the Top 40.
RP: Top 40? Hell, son, we're going straight to No. 1.
TH: Woo-hoo! I like the way you think, man. You must have one heckuva promotions department at your label.
RP: It's not about promotion, son. It's all about hard work. With lots of hard work, we'll rule the Super Six.
TH: Super Six? Are they anything like the Fab Four?
RP: Not sure. I just know I need guys who have positive role models. Who's your hero, son.
TH: Ray Charles.
RP: What position does he play?
TH: Upright, mostly.
RP: Must have been a low draft choice. Never heard of him. Who's another hero?
TH: Otis Redding.
RP: Didn't he play for the Raiders?
TH: Paul Revere and the Raiders? You must be kidding, man. Otis had soul!
RP: Too much soul on my team will get you a 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.
TH: Hey, I can't play without soul.
RP: OK, but just do it when the refs aren't watching.
TH: I hear you, dude.
RP: I need guys who are tough. Can you get physical?
TH: I don't know. But something tells me I might want to cold-cock a smart-aleck British guy someday.
RP: British guy, huh? That's weird. But it's a start. Ever make a touchdown?
TH: Well, I hear lead singers score quite a bit--more than bass players, anyway.
RP: This Bass Player fellow, can he block?
TH: Don't know, but he's got rhythm.
RP: Hmmm, might make a running back. Bring him along.
TH: Woo-hoo! What about the sax?
RP: Shhh, be quiet. You can get in trouble for that around here.
TH: No, I mean "sax," my sax player.
RP: Let me guess, he's got soul, right?
TH: Sure does. And he's great on solos.
RP: Hmmm, could be good on isolation plays. Bring him along. But remember: There's no "I" in team.
TH: Got it. Sounds like you're going to have a pretty big group.
RP: Gotta have numbers. That's why I've been up and down these halls. Hell of a day.
TH: Hell of a Day? That sounds like a good name for a song!
RP: Say, you mentioned scoring. Sounds like you do pretty well with the ladies. That's my second favorite sport. What's your secret?
TH: Two things.
RP: I'm listening.
TH: Gray hair . . .
RP: Got that.
TH: And the harmonica.
RP: Harmonica?
TH: Sure, learn to play that, and it leaves 'em defenseless.
RP: Defenseless? That's what we're going to do to Vestavia Hills.
TH: Whatever you say, man.
RP: Tell you what, you teach me harmonica and I'll let you play anywhere you want. Deal?
TH: Deal? The Deal? Man, you're full of good song titles!
RP: Anybody ever tell you you're strange, son?
TH: Soul Patrol!
RP: Ooooooh-kaaaay. You're a bit of a free spirit, but I could use a few of those. From now on you are one of the Bucs.
TH: The Bucs? That's the name of your group?
RP: Sure, and we're going to be known nationwide. I even see us making it on MTV.
TH: Wow, you're the kind of guy I want to play for. Think we'll even do videos?
RP: Sure, I watch tape all the time.
TH: Man, you are with it! When's our first gig?
RP: Well, we've got to practice first. And that's every day after school. See you at the stadium.
TH: The same one we're going to pack?
RP: The very one.
TH: Woo-hoo!
Spotlight on Animal Cruelty
The case of Anne, the beagle who had to be euthanized after some "human" skinned her alive, continues to attract major attention.
Officials in Cullman County, Alabama, say reward money now tops $35,000 in the case. An individual donor from Birmingham sent a check for $20,000.
The couple who owned Anne said they have received numerous cards from well wishers. And Huntsville family that raises beagles gave them two puppies. They have been named Hannah and Lucy.
Officials in Cullman County, Alabama, say reward money now tops $35,000 in the case. An individual donor from Birmingham sent a check for $20,000.
The couple who owned Anne said they have received numerous cards from well wishers. And Huntsville family that raises beagles gave them two puppies. They have been named Hannah and Lucy.
Siegelman Case on National Agenda?
Here's a story that leaves a good news/bad news taste in your mouth.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that a pardon for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman could be on the presidential agenda if Democrats take back the White House in 2008. That word comes from Pam Miles, a member of the Alabama Democratic Party executive committee who was in Washington, D.C., last weekend for the Democratic National Committee's fall meeting.
Miles spoke with a number of presidential candidates, party chair Howard Dean, and members of Congress. "The investigation and the possibility of a pardon would be on the agenda," Miles says. "It came up in every conversation."
Kudos to Miles for her efforts on behalf of justice in the case. But the story raises this question: Are we going to have to wait until a Democrat is in the White House before major steps toward justice can be taken? Seems we would be looking at spring of 2009, at the earliest, before positive steps are taken.
That's an awfully long time for Siegelman to remain in federal prison for a crime that he almost certainly did not commit. Haven't heard much lately from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the issue of selective prosecution. Let's hope that group can move forward quickly and start dispensing justice long before spring 2009.
A few points I hope Democratic leaders keep in mind:
* While a pardon for Siegelman is an admirable goal, it doesn't address punishment for those who have poisoned our justice department. We need Siegelman heading out of federal prison and a significant number of Republicans heading into federal prison.
* Siegelman is not the only Democrat being held political prisoner. Attorney Paul Minor of Mississippi, a major Democratic donor, is in federal prison in Florida, the victim of a corrupt federal prosecutor (Dunn Lampton) and a corrupt federal judge (Henry Wingate). Former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield will join Minor in federal prison later this month. Their crimes? They ruled as they were required to rule according to the facts and the law in cases involving clients of Paul Minor. That's at least three other political prisoners that Dems need to keep in mind.
* Democrats also need to remember that wrongdoing does not stop with our federal justice system. We are showing here at Legal Schnauzer that Alabama's state courts are awash with corruption. It happened in my personal case. It happened in the recent ExxonMobil ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court. And I suspect it happened in an even more recent ruling that ousted a Democratic judge in Talladega County.
There is a federal/national component to all of this. When a state judge uses the U.S. mails or wires in furtherance of a fraudulent act, it's a federal crime. Democratic leaders need to push this point early and often in the next campaign season--and before.
And remember this: The trail that led to rampant corruption of our justice department started with Karl Rove and Bill Canary and the state courts of Alabama. They hijacked Alabama's state courts in the 1990s, and they have been using similar sleazy tactics to corrupt justice on a national scale. Their playbook was written in Alabama, in state courts. That's where it all began. And our state courts still bear an unmistakable stench.
Our goal here at Legal Schnauzer is to shine an everlasting light on that stench, in hopes that someday some serious air freshener will be applied.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that a pardon for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman could be on the presidential agenda if Democrats take back the White House in 2008. That word comes from Pam Miles, a member of the Alabama Democratic Party executive committee who was in Washington, D.C., last weekend for the Democratic National Committee's fall meeting.
Miles spoke with a number of presidential candidates, party chair Howard Dean, and members of Congress. "The investigation and the possibility of a pardon would be on the agenda," Miles says. "It came up in every conversation."
Kudos to Miles for her efforts on behalf of justice in the case. But the story raises this question: Are we going to have to wait until a Democrat is in the White House before major steps toward justice can be taken? Seems we would be looking at spring of 2009, at the earliest, before positive steps are taken.
That's an awfully long time for Siegelman to remain in federal prison for a crime that he almost certainly did not commit. Haven't heard much lately from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the issue of selective prosecution. Let's hope that group can move forward quickly and start dispensing justice long before spring 2009.
A few points I hope Democratic leaders keep in mind:
* While a pardon for Siegelman is an admirable goal, it doesn't address punishment for those who have poisoned our justice department. We need Siegelman heading out of federal prison and a significant number of Republicans heading into federal prison.
* Siegelman is not the only Democrat being held political prisoner. Attorney Paul Minor of Mississippi, a major Democratic donor, is in federal prison in Florida, the victim of a corrupt federal prosecutor (Dunn Lampton) and a corrupt federal judge (Henry Wingate). Former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield will join Minor in federal prison later this month. Their crimes? They ruled as they were required to rule according to the facts and the law in cases involving clients of Paul Minor. That's at least three other political prisoners that Dems need to keep in mind.
* Democrats also need to remember that wrongdoing does not stop with our federal justice system. We are showing here at Legal Schnauzer that Alabama's state courts are awash with corruption. It happened in my personal case. It happened in the recent ExxonMobil ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court. And I suspect it happened in an even more recent ruling that ousted a Democratic judge in Talladega County.
There is a federal/national component to all of this. When a state judge uses the U.S. mails or wires in furtherance of a fraudulent act, it's a federal crime. Democratic leaders need to push this point early and often in the next campaign season--and before.
And remember this: The trail that led to rampant corruption of our justice department started with Karl Rove and Bill Canary and the state courts of Alabama. They hijacked Alabama's state courts in the 1990s, and they have been using similar sleazy tactics to corrupt justice on a national scale. Their playbook was written in Alabama, in state courts. That's where it all began. And our state courts still bear an unmistakable stench.
Our goal here at Legal Schnauzer is to shine an everlasting light on that stench, in hopes that someday some serious air freshener will be applied.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The ExxonMobil Charade
Anyone interested in an "inside baseball" account of the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ExxonMobil decision should check out Novationeering, by Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill.
Hill is uniquely positioned to provide insight on the ExxonMobil case, where the Alabama Supreme Court threw out $3.6 billion in punitive damages against the oil giant. Hill has a law degree and he is a former state employee. In fact, he worked for the State Lands Division, where one of his duties was to administer the natural-gas leases at the heart of the ExxonMobil case.
Hill's analysis confirms what our research has been indicating--that the Alabama Supreme Court administered a colossal screw job to the people of the state.
Here is the key point in Hill's analysis: The Supreme Court violated one of the most basic foundations of appellate law, which is know as the "ore tenus presumption." Ore tenus refers to a trial based on oral testimony. "As every Alabama law student knows, a judgement based on ore tenus evidence is presumed correct and not to be disturbed on appeal 'unless a consideration of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom reveals that the judgment is plainly and palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust," Hill writes.
The ore tenus rule is based on the notion that the jury or trial judge was present at the trial and could evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Appellate judges are not in that position, and therefore are to defer to the trial-court findings unless they were palpably wrong.
There was nothing palpably erroneous about the trial court's ruling, and we will show that in our analysis here at Legal Schnauzer. But the Supreme Court overturned a valid jury verdict anyway.
Hill cuts to the chase: "The Alabama Supreme Court did what Republicans have been complaining about for years. It engaged in judicial activism by finding its own set of facts and legislating from the bench, but nobody on the Republican side of the aisle is crying foul this time." That, of course, is because the GOP depends on funding from corporate giants like ExxonMobil, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other front groups leading the way.
And then Hill offers this classic assessment, which applies not only to ExxonMobil, but also my Legal Schnauzer case, plus the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor prosecutions: "Once again, the GOP crowd has proven that it will not live by its own rules when the interests of themselves and their benefactors are being threatened."
Hill predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court, if it grants certiorari, will overturn the ExxonMobil ruling. And he has this extremely important word of advice for Democrats: "Whatever the outcome of the State of Alabama's litigation, Democratic hopefuls for the Alabama Supreme Court should smell the blood in the water and start campaigning early for the 2008 and 2010 races because we are probably going to see quite a few new faces on our highest court."
In fact, there is evidence that GOPers already are trying to back away from the ExxonMobil ruling, which indicates the public is putting up a serious stink about it.
In a recent ruling regarding a Talladega County judgeship, there were two dissents in a ruling that favored GOP interests. Not surprisingly, one dissent was from the court's lone Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb (the lone dissenting voice on ExxonMobil). And who joined Cobb in dissent? Tom Parker, the author of the ExxonMobil decision, who offered no written explanation for his dissent.
My guess? Parker is feeling serious heat over the ExxonMobil ruling, and he's probably surprised that the public even noticed--or cared. Now, I suspect, he's looking for political cover by casting a dissent in the Talladega County case.
We will examine that Talladega County ruling here at Legal Schnauzer. I suspect it will be another example of just how corrupt our state's highest court truly is.
Hill is uniquely positioned to provide insight on the ExxonMobil case, where the Alabama Supreme Court threw out $3.6 billion in punitive damages against the oil giant. Hill has a law degree and he is a former state employee. In fact, he worked for the State Lands Division, where one of his duties was to administer the natural-gas leases at the heart of the ExxonMobil case.
Hill's analysis confirms what our research has been indicating--that the Alabama Supreme Court administered a colossal screw job to the people of the state.
Here is the key point in Hill's analysis: The Supreme Court violated one of the most basic foundations of appellate law, which is know as the "ore tenus presumption." Ore tenus refers to a trial based on oral testimony. "As every Alabama law student knows, a judgement based on ore tenus evidence is presumed correct and not to be disturbed on appeal 'unless a consideration of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom reveals that the judgment is plainly and palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust," Hill writes.
The ore tenus rule is based on the notion that the jury or trial judge was present at the trial and could evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Appellate judges are not in that position, and therefore are to defer to the trial-court findings unless they were palpably wrong.
There was nothing palpably erroneous about the trial court's ruling, and we will show that in our analysis here at Legal Schnauzer. But the Supreme Court overturned a valid jury verdict anyway.
Hill cuts to the chase: "The Alabama Supreme Court did what Republicans have been complaining about for years. It engaged in judicial activism by finding its own set of facts and legislating from the bench, but nobody on the Republican side of the aisle is crying foul this time." That, of course, is because the GOP depends on funding from corporate giants like ExxonMobil, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other front groups leading the way.
And then Hill offers this classic assessment, which applies not only to ExxonMobil, but also my Legal Schnauzer case, plus the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor prosecutions: "Once again, the GOP crowd has proven that it will not live by its own rules when the interests of themselves and their benefactors are being threatened."
Hill predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court, if it grants certiorari, will overturn the ExxonMobil ruling. And he has this extremely important word of advice for Democrats: "Whatever the outcome of the State of Alabama's litigation, Democratic hopefuls for the Alabama Supreme Court should smell the blood in the water and start campaigning early for the 2008 and 2010 races because we are probably going to see quite a few new faces on our highest court."
In fact, there is evidence that GOPers already are trying to back away from the ExxonMobil ruling, which indicates the public is putting up a serious stink about it.
In a recent ruling regarding a Talladega County judgeship, there were two dissents in a ruling that favored GOP interests. Not surprisingly, one dissent was from the court's lone Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb (the lone dissenting voice on ExxonMobil). And who joined Cobb in dissent? Tom Parker, the author of the ExxonMobil decision, who offered no written explanation for his dissent.
My guess? Parker is feeling serious heat over the ExxonMobil ruling, and he's probably surprised that the public even noticed--or cared. Now, I suspect, he's looking for political cover by casting a dissent in the Talladega County case.
We will examine that Talladega County ruling here at Legal Schnauzer. I suspect it will be another example of just how corrupt our state's highest court truly is.
GOP's Gay Problems Mount
U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) might be wishing he had gone ahead with plans to resign following his arrest in a Minnesota men's room.
Now at least five other men have come forward to say they had encounters with Craig, that they had sex with Craig, that he made a sexual advance, or that he paid them unusual attention. The story comes from the Idaho Statesman in Boise.
The Statesman notes that its report offers no definitive evidence--no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. The paper calls them "he-said, he-said" allegations. But the paper's investigation included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, and it found nothing to disprove the five new accounts.
Four of the men came forward by name, and one asked to remain anonymous from fear of retaliation. One of the men is Mike Jones, a former prostitute who told the world last year he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard.
Meanwhile, Huffington Post reports that the gay male escort linked to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) is denying reports of a relationship. But the blogosphere, and even some mainstream media outlets, are abuzz with stories about the senator who surprisingly announced his plans to resign last week.
Now at least five other men have come forward to say they had encounters with Craig, that they had sex with Craig, that he made a sexual advance, or that he paid them unusual attention. The story comes from the Idaho Statesman in Boise.
The Statesman notes that its report offers no definitive evidence--no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. The paper calls them "he-said, he-said" allegations. But the paper's investigation included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, and it found nothing to disprove the five new accounts.
Four of the men came forward by name, and one asked to remain anonymous from fear of retaliation. One of the men is Mike Jones, a former prostitute who told the world last year he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard.
Meanwhile, Huffington Post reports that the gay male escort linked to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) is denying reports of a relationship. But the blogosphere, and even some mainstream media outlets, are abuzz with stories about the senator who surprisingly announced his plans to resign last week.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Judicial Ethics vs. Sports Ethics
Who is held to higher ethical standards, judges or people connected to sports?
Based on a recent issue of The Birmingham News, the answer clearly appears to be people connected to sports.
Sports reporter Jon Solomon did an excellent piece on football officials in the Southeastern Conference, following a crew throughout a game and providing a behind-the-scenes look at a part of football most fans never see.
As part of the report, Solomon gave an idea of the ethical standards that apply to SEC officials. He noted that an official cannot work a game involving his alma mater or a school where he has a close relationship with the coach. For example, official Mike Washington cannot work games involving the University of Alabama (his alma mater) or Mississippi State (where Coach Sylvester Croom is a good friend).
Based on a recent issue of The Birmingham News, the answer clearly appears to be people connected to sports.
Sports reporter Jon Solomon did an excellent piece on football officials in the Southeastern Conference, following a crew throughout a game and providing a behind-the-scenes look at a part of football most fans never see.
As part of the report, Solomon gave an idea of the ethical standards that apply to SEC officials. He noted that an official cannot work a game involving his alma mater or a school where he has a close relationship with the coach. For example, official Mike Washington cannot work games involving the University of Alabama (his alma mater) or Mississippi State (where Coach Sylvester Croom is a good friend).
Judges are held to no such standards. In the lawsuit filed against me, I've noted that Judge J. Michael Joiner was a regular golf bud of opposing counsel William E. Swatek, and the two had been longtime neighbors. Joiner clearly should have been disqualified from hearing the case. But the decision was left up to him, and he decided to stay on the case and cheat me blind, committing federal crimes in the process.
Joiner only recused himself after I became aware of his cozy relationship with Swatek and filed a motion asking for recusal. And even then, the decision was left to him. No one held him to any ethical standards at all.
And the new judge, G. Dan Reeves, proved just as corrupt as Joiner was. After all, they work under the same roof. That's like having Louis Franklin take over when Leura Canary "recused" herself in the Don Siegelman case.
In the same Birmingham News sports section, reporter Doug Segrest wrote about a lawsuit involving the NCAA and University of Alabama booster Ray Keller. Testimony during the trial revealed that Keller had co-signed a loan or loans in 2000 for longtime Tuscaloosa News sports editor Cecil Hurt. The NCAA attempted to show that Keller had served as a source for Hurt.
Doug Ray, executive editor of the News, said co-signing the note with Keller was "a mistake from the outset" because a reporter should not have such dealings with a source or potential source.
And judges? Accepting financial favors from lawyers who come before them is perfectly legal. In fact, such favors are a critical source of funding for most judicial campaigns. And the co-signing of loans for judges was at the heart of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, a major subject here at Legal Schnauzer.
I have shown that, based on the law, attorney Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were wrongly convicted of corruption-related charges in the case. But it's interesting that we freely allow close financial and personal relationships between judges and those who come before them, but such relationships are forbidden or strongly discouraged in other professions.
Does that mean that we care more about justice on the football field or in the newsroom than we do in the courtroom? It looks that way.
Message From a Political Prisoner
How would you feel if you knew you were going to federal prison in less than a month for a crime you did not commit? What if you were about to become a political prison in a country that is supposed to be the "greatest democracy on earth?"
If you are like me, you cannot imagine it. But that's a reality for former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel. He was convicted on corruption-related charges, along with attorney Paul Minor and fellow judge John Whitfield. Minor already is in federal prison, and the two former judges are to report at the end of this month.
Over the course of 20-plus posts here at Legal Schnauzer, we have shown that all three of these men are innocent. In fact, both Teel and Whitfield acted as they were required to act under the facts and the law before them in two lawsuits involving Paul Minor's clients. The irony? Had Teel and Whitfield intentionally not ruled in favor of Minor's clients, they would have, technically, committed a federal crime. But that would have been fine with the Bush Justice Department, and Teel and Whitfield would be looking forward to spending the holidays at home.
As for Minor, I suspect the feds were determined to get him one way or another. How dare he give money to Democratic candidates? Teel and Whitfield just got caught in the crossfire.
Teel's Gulf Coast Realist blog is a must read for anyone who cares about the human toll taken by our corrupt justice system. His most recent post is particularly compelling. It's hard not to read it and weep.
If you are like me, you cannot imagine it. But that's a reality for former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel. He was convicted on corruption-related charges, along with attorney Paul Minor and fellow judge John Whitfield. Minor already is in federal prison, and the two former judges are to report at the end of this month.
Over the course of 20-plus posts here at Legal Schnauzer, we have shown that all three of these men are innocent. In fact, both Teel and Whitfield acted as they were required to act under the facts and the law before them in two lawsuits involving Paul Minor's clients. The irony? Had Teel and Whitfield intentionally not ruled in favor of Minor's clients, they would have, technically, committed a federal crime. But that would have been fine with the Bush Justice Department, and Teel and Whitfield would be looking forward to spending the holidays at home.
As for Minor, I suspect the feds were determined to get him one way or another. How dare he give money to Democratic candidates? Teel and Whitfield just got caught in the crossfire.
Teel's Gulf Coast Realist blog is a must read for anyone who cares about the human toll taken by our corrupt justice system. His most recent post is particularly compelling. It's hard not to read it and weep.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Natalee Holloway and the Grandstander
The Natalee Holloway case is back in the news, which calls to mind Alabama Governor Bob Riley's shameless grandstanding in a tragic matter. It also calls to mind Riley's hypocritical, two-faced stand on justice-related issues.
Three suspects were arrested November 21 on suspicion of involvement in Holloway's disappearance. The recent arrests appeared to be based on new evidence uncovered by investigators, but two of the suspects were released on Friday.
As for Riley, we've posted before about his willingness to use a tragedy in order to score political points. Alabama's governor was among the first to call for a travel boycott of Aruba because of that nation's handling of the Holloway matter.
Just how absurd was Riley's call for a boycott? Consider this case about residents of New York and Texas being brutally murdered at Birmingham's Airport Inn in 2005. That crime was solved, thanks largely to a hotel security camera. But should the governors of New York and Texas call for boycotts of Alabama because two of their constituents lost their lives in our state?
In fact, given Alabama's overall ghastly crime rate, should Bob Riley be pointing a finger at anybody on crime-related issues?
As we noted earlier, Riley went on Fox's O'Reilly Factor to tout his boycott idea. Even Bill O'Reilly sensed the possible hypocrisy at work and asked Riley about Alabama's justice system. The governor replied that anyone who had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system should contact him.
I, the victim of grotesque judicial corruption in Alabama courts (led at the time by a Riley appointee) contacted the governor and received a form letter as a reply. Riley said he had forwarded the matter to his chief legal advisor, who was bound by law to report the wrongdoing to an appropriate tribunal. I never head anything more about it.
Well, I recently went to the governor's official Web site and sent him another missive about my case. This time, I kept a copy of my message. Here is the message, which has received zero reply from the governor's office since it was sent September 26. And the lack of a response raises this question: Is Bob Riley really interested in justice or did he just take advantage of the Holloway case to do some grandstanding on national TV?
Governor Riley:
I sent you an e-mail in November 2005, telling you about my concerns over judicial corruption I have experienced in Alabama courts. This came after your appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, encouraging a boycott of Aruba over that nation's handling of the Natalee Holloway disappearance. You also stated that, if anyone had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system, you wanted to know about it.
Assuming you were serious about this, I sent you an e-mail that provided details about wrongdoing by state judges, and attorneys, in Alabama. In a letter dated Dec. 7, 2005, you stated that you had referred the matter to Ken Wallis, your chief legal advisor. I've heard nothing from Mr. Wallis, and to my knowledge, no one in your administration has done anything to address the corruption I witnessed.
I'm writing now to ask this question: Are you serious about ethics or not?
A few details about my experience you should know:
* The corruption involved repeated unlawful rulings, starting in district court and going up to the Alabama Supreme Court. Every unlawful ruling was made by a judge who is a Republican. At the time, our court system was overseen by one of your appointees, Drayton Nabers.
* The opposing counsel, the attorney who filed the bogus lawsuit against me (on behalf of a client with at least eight criminal convictions in his background), is William E. Swatek, of Pelham.
* You might know Mr. Swatek better as the father of Dax Swatek, your campaign manager.
* To say that William E. Swatek has a sleazy history in the legal field would be putting it mildly. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar (one of those involved five complaints rolled into one). He has had his license suspended for acts that involved dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, etc. He even has been tried for perjury in criminal court.
* Despite Mr. Swatek's unsavory background, he has repeatedly been the beneficiary of unlawful rulings by Alabama judges. Why is that? From where I sit, it looks like Mr. Swatek is being protected because his son works for you.
* You have repeatedly been quoted as saying you strongly support ethical government, and you condemn cronyism, such as that in Alabama's two-year college system. Well, are you serious about that or not? Does that apply when the wrongdoing is committed by a family member of someone who has worked for you?
* I thought Republicans are against frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuit Bill Swatek filed against me would have to improve a whole lot to reach the level of frivolous; fraudulent would be a better term.
* I thought Republicans supported the rule of law. The judges I've seen firsthand treat the law like a plaything.
One final thought: When members of the Alabama State Bar possess knowledge of wrongdoing by another lawyer or a judge, they are required to report said wrongdoing to an appropriate body or tribunal. According to your letter of Dec. 7, 2005, Mr. Wallis has possessed wrongdoing by lawyers and judges for almost two years, and he has done nothing about it. Will you see to it that Mr. Wallis does as he is required to do under the law?
Governor, if you and Mr. Wallis did not understand the seriousness of this matter the first time around, let me make it clear now: This matter is about as serious as it can get for my wife and me, and we expect our leaders to take it seriously too. We have suffered almost overwhelming financial, emotional, and physical hardship because of the corruption in this case.
My life even may be in danger; I was the victim of a felony assault by Mr. Swatek's client. Interestingly, Shelby County DA Robby Owens (another Republican) insists it was a misdemeanor, no matter how much statutory and case law clearly say it was a felony. While we're at it, would you care to do something about that assault case? Do Republicans really believe in being tough on crime or is that just a cute campaign slogan? Do I have to wind up dead from a gunshot wound before someone in authority takes this problem seriously?
Would you please explain to me, in writing, what you intend to do about my situation? Would you please explain to me how two law-abiding people can be made financially whole from the harm done by "officers" of Alabama courts? Would you give me some assurance that my personal safety matters at least a little bit?
Finally, would you hold up your end of the bargain you made on national television two years ago--to take problems in our justice system seriously and do something to help those who have suffered from them?
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
Three suspects were arrested November 21 on suspicion of involvement in Holloway's disappearance. The recent arrests appeared to be based on new evidence uncovered by investigators, but two of the suspects were released on Friday.
As for Riley, we've posted before about his willingness to use a tragedy in order to score political points. Alabama's governor was among the first to call for a travel boycott of Aruba because of that nation's handling of the Holloway matter.
Just how absurd was Riley's call for a boycott? Consider this case about residents of New York and Texas being brutally murdered at Birmingham's Airport Inn in 2005. That crime was solved, thanks largely to a hotel security camera. But should the governors of New York and Texas call for boycotts of Alabama because two of their constituents lost their lives in our state?
In fact, given Alabama's overall ghastly crime rate, should Bob Riley be pointing a finger at anybody on crime-related issues?
As we noted earlier, Riley went on Fox's O'Reilly Factor to tout his boycott idea. Even Bill O'Reilly sensed the possible hypocrisy at work and asked Riley about Alabama's justice system. The governor replied that anyone who had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system should contact him.
I, the victim of grotesque judicial corruption in Alabama courts (led at the time by a Riley appointee) contacted the governor and received a form letter as a reply. Riley said he had forwarded the matter to his chief legal advisor, who was bound by law to report the wrongdoing to an appropriate tribunal. I never head anything more about it.
Well, I recently went to the governor's official Web site and sent him another missive about my case. This time, I kept a copy of my message. Here is the message, which has received zero reply from the governor's office since it was sent September 26. And the lack of a response raises this question: Is Bob Riley really interested in justice or did he just take advantage of the Holloway case to do some grandstanding on national TV?
Governor Riley:
I sent you an e-mail in November 2005, telling you about my concerns over judicial corruption I have experienced in Alabama courts. This came after your appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, encouraging a boycott of Aruba over that nation's handling of the Natalee Holloway disappearance. You also stated that, if anyone had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system, you wanted to know about it.
Assuming you were serious about this, I sent you an e-mail that provided details about wrongdoing by state judges, and attorneys, in Alabama. In a letter dated Dec. 7, 2005, you stated that you had referred the matter to Ken Wallis, your chief legal advisor. I've heard nothing from Mr. Wallis, and to my knowledge, no one in your administration has done anything to address the corruption I witnessed.
I'm writing now to ask this question: Are you serious about ethics or not?
A few details about my experience you should know:
* The corruption involved repeated unlawful rulings, starting in district court and going up to the Alabama Supreme Court. Every unlawful ruling was made by a judge who is a Republican. At the time, our court system was overseen by one of your appointees, Drayton Nabers.
* The opposing counsel, the attorney who filed the bogus lawsuit against me (on behalf of a client with at least eight criminal convictions in his background), is William E. Swatek, of Pelham.
* You might know Mr. Swatek better as the father of Dax Swatek, your campaign manager.
* To say that William E. Swatek has a sleazy history in the legal field would be putting it mildly. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar (one of those involved five complaints rolled into one). He has had his license suspended for acts that involved dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, etc. He even has been tried for perjury in criminal court.
* Despite Mr. Swatek's unsavory background, he has repeatedly been the beneficiary of unlawful rulings by Alabama judges. Why is that? From where I sit, it looks like Mr. Swatek is being protected because his son works for you.
* You have repeatedly been quoted as saying you strongly support ethical government, and you condemn cronyism, such as that in Alabama's two-year college system. Well, are you serious about that or not? Does that apply when the wrongdoing is committed by a family member of someone who has worked for you?
* I thought Republicans are against frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuit Bill Swatek filed against me would have to improve a whole lot to reach the level of frivolous; fraudulent would be a better term.
* I thought Republicans supported the rule of law. The judges I've seen firsthand treat the law like a plaything.
One final thought: When members of the Alabama State Bar possess knowledge of wrongdoing by another lawyer or a judge, they are required to report said wrongdoing to an appropriate body or tribunal. According to your letter of Dec. 7, 2005, Mr. Wallis has possessed wrongdoing by lawyers and judges for almost two years, and he has done nothing about it. Will you see to it that Mr. Wallis does as he is required to do under the law?
Governor, if you and Mr. Wallis did not understand the seriousness of this matter the first time around, let me make it clear now: This matter is about as serious as it can get for my wife and me, and we expect our leaders to take it seriously too. We have suffered almost overwhelming financial, emotional, and physical hardship because of the corruption in this case.
My life even may be in danger; I was the victim of a felony assault by Mr. Swatek's client. Interestingly, Shelby County DA Robby Owens (another Republican) insists it was a misdemeanor, no matter how much statutory and case law clearly say it was a felony. While we're at it, would you care to do something about that assault case? Do Republicans really believe in being tough on crime or is that just a cute campaign slogan? Do I have to wind up dead from a gunshot wound before someone in authority takes this problem seriously?
Would you please explain to me, in writing, what you intend to do about my situation? Would you please explain to me how two law-abiding people can be made financially whole from the harm done by "officers" of Alabama courts? Would you give me some assurance that my personal safety matters at least a little bit?
Finally, would you hold up your end of the bargain you made on national television two years ago--to take problems in our justice system seriously and do something to help those who have suffered from them?
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
Secrecy and Abramoff
The charade to hide documents related to the Department of Justice scandal continues unabated.
Pete Yost of Associated Press reports that the Bush Administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about White-House visits by now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This comes after the administration had agreed last year to produce all records on the visits without redactions of claims of exemptions.
Guess the Bushies have changed their minds. And Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides insight into what might be behind their thinking. The administration seeks to use the "state secret" privilege as a "get out of jail free" card, Horton writes.
The critical documents would be communications between Abramoff and former White House strategist Karl Rove. And that e-mail trail, Horton writes, would almost certainly lead to Alabama and the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Abramoff sidekick Michael Scanlon was a former Washington aide to current Governor Bob Riley. Abramoff and Scanlon funneled money from their gambling interests to support Riley's campaign against Siegelman, who wanted to start an education lottery in Alabama.
I wouldn't be surprised if this e-mail trail included references to another Riley crony, former campaign manager Dax Swatek. Horton already has reported about Swatek's ties to Abramoff. And Swatek once worked for Bill Canary, who was at the heart of Jill Simpson's affidavit about the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution.
The name Swatek is an important one here at Legal Schnauzer. William E. Swatek, who is Dax Swatek's father, is the ethically-challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against your humble blogger. That legal document set off a trail of judicial chicanery that led to the blog you are now reading.
I have overwhelming evidence that William E. Swatek and numerous Republican judges in Alabama--J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves in Shelby County, GOP members of appellate courts--were involved in a conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This was the charge that made up two-thirds of the case against Siegelman.
These charges, of course, led to a prosecution and conviction of Siegelman, a Democrat. And the evidence is overwhelming that the charges never should have been brought against him.
But Bill Swatek, Mike Joiner, Dan Reeves, and company? There is no question that they used the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, depriving Alabama citizens of the judges' honest services. That's textbook mail fraud. But these folks are Republicans, and Bill Swatek's son (our guy, Dax) is close buds with Bob Riley and Bill Canary. So Birmingham-based U.S. Attorney Alice Martin ignores that wrongdoing.
We've recently discovered new information about Dax Swatek that shines light on why Alice Martin is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the Legal Schnauzer case. That will be coming your way soon.
Pete Yost of Associated Press reports that the Bush Administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about White-House visits by now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This comes after the administration had agreed last year to produce all records on the visits without redactions of claims of exemptions.
Guess the Bushies have changed their minds. And Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides insight into what might be behind their thinking. The administration seeks to use the "state secret" privilege as a "get out of jail free" card, Horton writes.
The critical documents would be communications between Abramoff and former White House strategist Karl Rove. And that e-mail trail, Horton writes, would almost certainly lead to Alabama and the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Abramoff sidekick Michael Scanlon was a former Washington aide to current Governor Bob Riley. Abramoff and Scanlon funneled money from their gambling interests to support Riley's campaign against Siegelman, who wanted to start an education lottery in Alabama.
I wouldn't be surprised if this e-mail trail included references to another Riley crony, former campaign manager Dax Swatek. Horton already has reported about Swatek's ties to Abramoff. And Swatek once worked for Bill Canary, who was at the heart of Jill Simpson's affidavit about the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution.
The name Swatek is an important one here at Legal Schnauzer. William E. Swatek, who is Dax Swatek's father, is the ethically-challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against your humble blogger. That legal document set off a trail of judicial chicanery that led to the blog you are now reading.
I have overwhelming evidence that William E. Swatek and numerous Republican judges in Alabama--J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves in Shelby County, GOP members of appellate courts--were involved in a conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This was the charge that made up two-thirds of the case against Siegelman.
These charges, of course, led to a prosecution and conviction of Siegelman, a Democrat. And the evidence is overwhelming that the charges never should have been brought against him.
But Bill Swatek, Mike Joiner, Dan Reeves, and company? There is no question that they used the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, depriving Alabama citizens of the judges' honest services. That's textbook mail fraud. But these folks are Republicans, and Bill Swatek's son (our guy, Dax) is close buds with Bob Riley and Bill Canary. So Birmingham-based U.S. Attorney Alice Martin ignores that wrongdoing.
We've recently discovered new information about Dax Swatek that shines light on why Alice Martin is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the Legal Schnauzer case. That will be coming your way soon.
Wesley Clark Pulls No Punches
General Wesley Clark pulled no punches in a speech Friday evening at the annual Jefferson-Jackson fund-raising dinner in Birmingham.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that Clark said former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was the victim of a political prosecution. Clark called Siegelman "a great American" and an "honest man" who was "unjustly confined" by a rogue Justice Department.
"It's the wholesale politicization of the Department of Justice," Clark said. "It's a stench of corruption that has run from the White House, through Jack Abramoff . . . "
Clark lamented lost opportunities over the past seven years in numerous areas, including health care, education, civil rights, energy, and the environment. "We didn't have to fight that war in Iraq," Clark said.
The general added that George W. Bush is "the worst" president in the nation's history.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that Clark said former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was the victim of a political prosecution. Clark called Siegelman "a great American" and an "honest man" who was "unjustly confined" by a rogue Justice Department.
"It's the wholesale politicization of the Department of Justice," Clark said. "It's a stench of corruption that has run from the White House, through Jack Abramoff . . . "
Clark lamented lost opportunities over the past seven years in numerous areas, including health care, education, civil rights, energy, and the environment. "We didn't have to fight that war in Iraq," Clark said.
The general added that George W. Bush is "the worst" president in the nation's history.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex
Mark Fuller is Back!
Judge Mark Fuller--yes that Mark Fuller, the one who ramrodded the Don Siegelman case--is back in the news.
Fuller is part of a three-judge panel appointed to hear the federal lawsuit of a Fairfield, Alabama, man who is challenging Governor Bob Riley's appointment to the Jefferson County Commission. Riley filled the seat vacated by Larry Langford, who was elected mayor of Birmingham. Fred Plump contends that Riley does not have the authority to fill the seat and interfere with a February 5 election that has been set to choose Langford's successor.
Joining Fuller on the panel are W. Harold Allbritton III, also from Montgomery's U.S. District Court, and Rosemary Barkett, from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A previous federal-court decision, when Riley attempted to fill a similar seat in Mobile, found the governor was in the wrong and an election must be held. But Riley seems to be ignoring that precedent, and with Fuller involved, I wouldn't be surprised if this panel ignores precedent, too. Don't know much about Allbritton and Barkett, but I suspect it will be up to them to make sure the law is followed and voters are allowed to pick Langford's successor.
What kind of judge is Fuller? For a reminder, check out the affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
The Partisan Supremes
More evidence that Alabama's Supreme Court is a blatantly partisan body. In a 7-2 decision, the court voided the election of a Democratic circuit judge in Talladega County.
The majority said Talladega County should not have had an election in 2006. The election was won by Democrat Chad Woodruff, who took office in February. Troy King, Alabama's Republican attorney general, had asked the state's highest court to review the court. And surprise, surprise, the court's GOP majority sided with King.
Here's another surprise. One of the dissenting votes came from Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's lone Democrat. Cobb wrote that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the attorney general did not file a timely appeal of a judge's order placing Woodruff on the 2006 ballot. The other dissent came from Republican Tom Parker. I haven't had a chance to review the opinion, so not sure what Parker's dissent was based on.
I'm looking forward to studying this case. Cobb's dissent, based on a lack of timeliness standard, should be clearly shown by the record. If it is, then we have another example of the GOP supremes blatantly ignoring settled law to benefit their political interests. Other examples? The recent ExxonMobil ruling and the Legal Schnauzer case, which is at the heart of this blog. We will cover both rulings in detail in the days ahead.
Justice for a Beagle?
Investigators in Cullman County investigators have received a number of tips in the case of Anne, a three-year-old pet beagle who had to be euthanized after being skinned alive.
The case has received national media attention, and more than $14,000 in reward money has been collected. About 30 people have called with possible information about the case, and veterinarians at Auburn University are conducting an examination of Anne's body, partly to determine if she was restrained during the Nov. 18 attack.
The Social Gospel
Birmingham historian Marvin Whiting has completed a book on the Reverend Henry Edmonds, a local minister who tackled social-justice issues at a time, and in a place, where it was not popular to do so.
The book is called An Enduring Ministry. Edmonds founded Independent Presbyterian Church, on Birmingham's Southside, in 1915 and remained pastor there until 1942. He died in 1960.
Edmonds led an outreach to prostitutes and the homeless, led integrated revivals during segregation, and in the early 1930s campaigned to ensure adequate legal counsel for the Scottsboro Boys, a case that involved several black youths accused of raping a white woman.
Judge Mark Fuller--yes that Mark Fuller, the one who ramrodded the Don Siegelman case--is back in the news.
Fuller is part of a three-judge panel appointed to hear the federal lawsuit of a Fairfield, Alabama, man who is challenging Governor Bob Riley's appointment to the Jefferson County Commission. Riley filled the seat vacated by Larry Langford, who was elected mayor of Birmingham. Fred Plump contends that Riley does not have the authority to fill the seat and interfere with a February 5 election that has been set to choose Langford's successor.
Joining Fuller on the panel are W. Harold Allbritton III, also from Montgomery's U.S. District Court, and Rosemary Barkett, from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A previous federal-court decision, when Riley attempted to fill a similar seat in Mobile, found the governor was in the wrong and an election must be held. But Riley seems to be ignoring that precedent, and with Fuller involved, I wouldn't be surprised if this panel ignores precedent, too. Don't know much about Allbritton and Barkett, but I suspect it will be up to them to make sure the law is followed and voters are allowed to pick Langford's successor.
What kind of judge is Fuller? For a reminder, check out the affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
The Partisan Supremes
More evidence that Alabama's Supreme Court is a blatantly partisan body. In a 7-2 decision, the court voided the election of a Democratic circuit judge in Talladega County.
The majority said Talladega County should not have had an election in 2006. The election was won by Democrat Chad Woodruff, who took office in February. Troy King, Alabama's Republican attorney general, had asked the state's highest court to review the court. And surprise, surprise, the court's GOP majority sided with King.
Here's another surprise. One of the dissenting votes came from Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's lone Democrat. Cobb wrote that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the attorney general did not file a timely appeal of a judge's order placing Woodruff on the 2006 ballot. The other dissent came from Republican Tom Parker. I haven't had a chance to review the opinion, so not sure what Parker's dissent was based on.
I'm looking forward to studying this case. Cobb's dissent, based on a lack of timeliness standard, should be clearly shown by the record. If it is, then we have another example of the GOP supremes blatantly ignoring settled law to benefit their political interests. Other examples? The recent ExxonMobil ruling and the Legal Schnauzer case, which is at the heart of this blog. We will cover both rulings in detail in the days ahead.
Justice for a Beagle?
Investigators in Cullman County investigators have received a number of tips in the case of Anne, a three-year-old pet beagle who had to be euthanized after being skinned alive.
The case has received national media attention, and more than $14,000 in reward money has been collected. About 30 people have called with possible information about the case, and veterinarians at Auburn University are conducting an examination of Anne's body, partly to determine if she was restrained during the Nov. 18 attack.
The Social Gospel
Birmingham historian Marvin Whiting has completed a book on the Reverend Henry Edmonds, a local minister who tackled social-justice issues at a time, and in a place, where it was not popular to do so.
The book is called An Enduring Ministry. Edmonds founded Independent Presbyterian Church, on Birmingham's Southside, in 1915 and remained pastor there until 1942. He died in 1960.
Edmonds led an outreach to prostitutes and the homeless, led integrated revivals during segregation, and in the early 1930s campaigned to ensure adequate legal counsel for the Scottsboro Boys, a case that involved several black youths accused of raping a white woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)