Is a Legislative Purge Afoot?

State Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) was indicted today in federal court and accused of receiving $177,000 for work she did not perform. Schmitz, a former high-school government teacher, is accused of fraud in a nine-count indictment announced by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin in Birmingham.

What is going on here? Is this part of a noble federal effort to clean up Alabama's two-year college system? Is it part of a plan to help Republicans take over the state legislature by 2010? Is it a bit of both?

Given what we've learned about the highly partisan nature of U.S. Attorney offices in Alabama--remember it was Martin who first went after former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman--one must wonder about the motivations behind this investigation.

I particularly wonder because I have first-hand experience with Alice Martin's approach to handling allegations of wrongdoing by Republican public officials. I sent her reams of information about federal crimes (honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy) I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts.

Martin assured me that if I sent her detailed information, she would send it to the appropriate investigative agency. When I did just that, what did she do with the information? She sent it to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which does not even have jurisdiction to investigate the primary alleged crime--honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346.

In other words, Alice Martin sent my allegations of Republican wrongdoing off to an obscure place where they could quietly die. Doesn't sound like she took that approach to allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Schmitz. Wonder why.

And that makes me think all of this is another example of the Bush Justice Department playing politics with our courts.

I know very little about Rep. Schmitz and her work as an educator and a legislator. I have read this unflattering portrayal of her in The Birmingham News. But I also have first-hand experience with the News' partisan coverage of justice-related matters. I've notified more than a half dozen editors and reporters at the paper about the wrongdoing I've witnessed in Alabama courts, and they've all ignored it.

So excuse me if I don't take the News as the last word on Rep. Schmitz' integrity.

Based on what we know at this point, the two-year colleges story does not look good for Democrats in Alabama. It looked particularly bad last week when former Chancellor Roy Johnson pled guilty to various corruption charges and agreed to cooperate with the government's investigation.

Upon learning that, you knew more bad news was coming for Democrats. And it came today with the Schmitz story, one day after the high of James Fields' historic special-election victory for a legislative seat representing Cullman County.

As I try to digest the two-year colleges story, I can't help but balance it with what we've learned over the past six to eight months about the behavior of the Bush Justice Department in the Siegelman case.

And I can't help but ask this question: Is Sue Schmitz really a crook or is she just the latest victim of a politically motivated prosecution in Alabama?

I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know this: Alice Martin will definitely play politics with her office. When she ran for public office in 2000, her campaign manager was Dax Swatek, who later would serve as manager of Bob Riley's campaign for governor in 2006. Now Riley is leading a fundraising effort to help Republicans gain control of the state legislature in 2010. And having Sue Schmitz in federal prison would be a nice step toward achieving that goal.

Is Alice Martin playing politics with the Schmitz case? I don't know. But there is no doubt that she is suppressing an investigation of wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama state courts, and I've got the conclusive evidence to prove it.

We will be reporting that story in the weeks ahead. We also will be following the Schmitz case with great interest.

Fallout From ExxonMobil Ruling?

The Alabama Supreme Court actually made an intelligent, well-reasoned ruling the other day. But one might wonder if this positive development was an effort by the court's Republican majority to make nice after a wretched and extremely costly ruling the court issued a few weeks ago.

In the earlier case, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict in favor of the state against oil giant ExxonMobil. So what did that have to do with a ruling announced this week in a case involving exposure to toxic chemicals at work?

First, a few details about the latest case. In a 5-4 decision, the court overturned a 29-year precedent that said people have two years after their last exposure to a toxic chemical to seek money damages for resulting medical problems. In Griffin v. Unocal, the court held that now people will have two years to file suit after the medical problem becomes apparent, such as after a doctor's diagnosis.

Just one year ago, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Jack Cline over leukemia he developed after exposure to benzene at work in Bessemer. The court found the dismissal was proper because Cline had filed his suit six years after his first exposure but less than two years after he was diagnosed with cancer. Cline died nine days after the ruling.

The Griffin ruling applies only to new cases and will not be applied retroactively, so it comes too late for Cline's family.

But the question persists: What caused the court to change its mind?

For one, Sue Bell Cobb defeated Chief Justice Drayton Nabers to become the court's only Democrat. It's not a surprise that Cobb would side with the plaintiff in a toxic-exposure case. But the court's other new member, Republican Glenn Murdock, also sided with the plaintiff. In fact, it was Murdock's vote that truly tipped the scales of justice.

If my memory is correct, Murdock has consistently portrayed himself as a pro-business conservative. In fact, the Montgomery Advertiser has reported that Republican "consultant" Dax Swatek has raised money for Murdock. Swatek is a long-time associate of Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama and famed for his "my girls are going to take care of Don Siegelman" quote as reported by whistleblower Jill Simpson. And Swatek's father, William E. Swatek of Pelham, is the slimeball attorney who fired a bogus lawsuit against yours truly and led to this blog.

With that kind of background, and those kind of connections, it's hard to imagine that Murdock really wanted to side with the victim of exposure to toxic chemicals. So why would he side with a plaintiff against a large corporation?

Could his vote have come partly as an effort to soothe public feelings over the $3.6 billion screw job the court's Republicans administered in the ExxonMobil case?

Keep in mind that Dax Swatek also was campaign manager in 2006 for Alabama Governor Bob Riley. And we know that Riley is leading a major fundraising effort to help Republicans take over the Alabama Legislature by 2010. That effort took a blow earlier this week when black Democrat James Fields won a special election over white Republican Wayne Willingham to fill a house seat representing overwhelmingly white Cullman County.

But I'm guessing that part of Riley's plan for a total Republican takeover of Alabama includes an effort to make the corrupt GOPers on our high court look warm and fuzzy. And what better way to do it than by having them appear to support victims of exposure to toxic chemicals? And what better way to get the public to forget the $3.6 million shaft job those same Republicans pulled off in the ExxonMobil case?

Let's hope Alabamians have a much better memory than Riley & Co. give them credit for.

You've got to love Republican judges. Even when they actually make a just ruling, you still get the sense that they are using the courts for political purposes.

Folo the Law in the Deep South

I've become a fan of a blog called folo. If you are interested in legal and justice issues in the South, especially in Mississippi and Alabama, the blog is well worth a look.

Folo has a distinct Mississippi flavor to it, but it also touches on the Don Siegelman case and the broader Bush Department of Justice scandal, noting the starring role of U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL).

As we've noted many times here at Legal Schnauzer, the Republican mindset that led to the putrid Siegelman case in Alabama also seems to be present in Mississippi, as evidenced by the Paul Minor case. And one gets the distinct impression that underhanded GOPers in Alabama are quite cozy with their brethren in the Magnolia State.

Let's see, how many connections can we think of? We had Bob Riley evidently receiving Mississippi Choctaw gambling money (via Jack Abramoff) to fund his campaign for governor of Alabama. We had former Riley aide Michael Scanlon, a convicted felon along with Abramoff, working in Mississippi. Another former Riley aide, Dan Gans, has ties to Mississippi. Heck, even our old friend Dax Swatek--Riley's former campaign manager and son of Alabama attorney William E. Swatek (a central "bad guy" in our Legal Schnauzer story)--got his law degree at Mississippi College School of Law.

The folks at folo are serious about their legal issues. In fact, the site might have too much of an "inside baseball" feel for some tastes. The site appears to be written and read mostly by lawyers, or folks with strong legal backgrounds. But don't let that intimidate you. If you dig in, you will find some good stuff.

For example, a recent post examined the issue of flimsy prosecutions, citing the Siegelman case in Alabama.

In another post, the folo folks, shared our dismay over Artur Davis' recent weak comments about the Congressional investigation of the Bush Justice Department. The writer long has admired Davis' ability to get to the heart of matters through the use of crisp, solid questioning. So that made Davis' recent comments to Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News particularly baffling.

Regular readers of Legal Schnauzer know that I generally don't hold lawyers in high regard. But I get the feeling that the writers and readers at folo are legal types who genuinely want to see justice done. I think they know the justice system has serious problems, and they would like to see it improved.

Alabama Makes Some Positive Racial History

It is being called the most important special election in the history of the Alabama Legislature. And some are hoping that it signals a new day of enlightened thinking in our state.

James Fields, a black Democrat, handily defeated Wayne Willingham, a white Republican, in a special election yesterday to fill the District 12 seat in the Alabama House of Representatives.

District 12 is not just any district in Alabama. It encompasses Cullman County, an area filled with racial symbolism.

Cullman County is more than 96 percent white and 1 percent black, according to statistics from the Cullman Economic Development Agency. The city of Cullman long has been known as a "sundown town," meaning people of color are advised to be out of town once the sun goes down.

Willingham's family reportedly has ties to the Ku Klux Klan, but that did not keep Alabama Governor Bob Riley from campaigning for him. Riley's pleas, however, fell mostly on deaf, white ears.

Fields' victory seems to show that even in an overwhelmingly white county in the Deep South, a quality candidate with a strong, well-articulated message can overcome any divisions that might exist over race.

Doc's Political Parlor, a top resource for political news in Alabama, has an excellent analysis of the special election in Cullman County.

Does this truly signal the beginning of a more enlightened age in Alabama politics? I think it certainly says good things about the electorate. But as we noted in a recent post, the Republican Party hierarchy has launched a two-pronged plan for taking over the Alabama Legislature. The two prongs? Raising tons of money and using the U.S. Department of Justice to go after Democratic legislators who might have run afoul of the law in the state's two-year colleges scandal.

Roy Johnson, former chancellor of the two-year system, has pled guilty to multiple corruption-related charges. And as part of his plea, he has agreed to assist the Justice Department in pursuing state legislators and state school board members. The scandal has focused almost entirely on Democrats, and with Bush appointee Alice Martin at the investigative controls, look for a number of Democratic legislators to wind up with indictments.

News reports indicate that Republicans were counting on the Cullman County race to give their plans momentum. Instead, James Fields threw a serious wrench into those plans.

Don't look for the GOP to take that defeat with good cheer.

A Plan for Democrats to Take Back the South

Birmingham is to the Southeastern Conference what Mecca is to Islam.

SEC headquarters are in Birmingham, and while Alabama and Auburn are the top draws for area sports fans, other SEC schools are a source of considerable pride, too. The SEC is strong in pretty much all sports, but it is the league's achievements in football that make area chests swell with pride.

For the past two Januarys, local sports talk shows have been abuzz after SEC schools--first Florida and then LSU--won the college football national championship game. In both cases, the victim of the SEC schools was Ohio State, of the Big 10 Conference.

Birmingham sports fans love to crow about how the SEC is superior to the Big 10 and other college sports leagues. And I would say the locals are right--the SEC probably is the best conference in college sports, particularly football (which is all most Alabamians really care about anyway).

But I find some irony in the local pride over SEC football. And that's because I have to ask this question: Why is the SEC superior in football to leagues from other regions of the country? And I think the answer is obvious: Southern states have a higher percentage of black athletes than non-Southern states. And when it comes to sports that require speed, quickness, explosiveness, and jumping ability, blacks are superior to whites.

I know I'm walking on the same turf that caused Jimmy the Greek to crash and burn. But while the Greek was a bit crude in making his point, he was essentially correct. And I think most any college coach who recruits would say the same thing: Black athletes, in general, can run faster, move quicker, and jump higher than whites.

Thanks to the South's unfortunate history with slavery, we have a higher percentage of black residents than most states to the north. And that is very good indeed for college football in our region. If you follow the sport, you probably have heard college coaches talk about Florida as a particularly talent-rich state. They ain't talking about white boys. (Although Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow is a pretty talented white boy from Florida.)

Now that I've offended a fair number of people, let's turn this discussion to politics--and what I find to be rich irony. White Southerners love to brag about strong SEC football teams, which are strong mainly because of superior black athletes. But when it comes to election day, white Southerners tend to vote for the Republican Party, which since the 1964 presidential election, has been lukewarm at best on the issue of civil rights and efforts to level the playing field for blacks in America. That's why blacks have come to overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party--the party that has consistently stood for civil rights.

The SEC stretches from LSU in the west to South Carolina in the east, from Florida in the south to Kentucky in the north. And in recent years, all of those states have trended red--as in the Republican Party. In other words, white Southerners support blacks on Saturday afternoon. But the rest of the time, they support their own white interests.

Which leads me to this thought: If there is one thing that white Southerners love more than college football, it's college-football recruiting. We are in the midst of recruiting season right now, with national signing day on Feb. 6. (That, of course, is one day after the Super Tuesday primary elections, which this year includes Alabama; I guarantee you many white Southern guys--and gals, for that matter--will be far more interested in the outcome on Feb. 6 than the one on Feb. 5.)

Democrats need to take the Southern love for college-football recruiting and turn it to the party's advantage. And here's how they can do it:

Get a list of the top 1,000 college football recruits in the Deep South. Shouldn't he hard; there are lists all over the Internet. My guess is that about 75 percent of that list will be black. Take out the offensive linemen and the kickers, and the list is probably close to 90 percent black.

The majority of these young black males probably are Democrats. And the majority of their parents almost certainly are Democrats.

So here is what Democrats need to do: Contact these players and their families and try to form a coalition. And the platform of the coalition, in the voice of the players' parents, will say, "As long as Southern states tend to favor the Republican party, and oppose the interests of black Americans, our sons will sign college football scholarships with northern schools. When Southern states begin to vote Democratic, supporting the interest of black Americans, our sons will be happy to play for Southern schools. In the meantime, we hope you enjoy watching Ohio State, Michigan, Missouri (go Tigers!) and others whip your Southern butts."

I can think of nothing that would turn the South blue faster than that. Heck, Southerners would be naming their baby girls "Hillary" and their boys "Barack" one after another.

So there you have it, the Legal Schnauzer plan for turning the South blue--one football prospect at a time.

Bad Judges and Cockroaches, Part II

In a post the other day, I recounted my most recent encounter with what appears to be a bad judge. Now we return to that topic.

Let's say that I am wrong about my legal-malpractice lawsuit not being a "claim" under bankruptcy law. Let's say that Judge Allwin Horn is correct in his assessment that my lawsuit accrued prior to Richard Poff's bankruptcy petition, and therefore I should have to seek leave from bankruptcy court before proceeding.

I still think Horn is a bad judge, and here is why.

In his ruling, Horn gives me (nor Poff, for that matter) no clue as to what he based his decision on. And I have found this to be common practice among judges. A judge will simply rule that a motion is denied, or a party must do such and such, while giving absolutely no reason for the ruling.

If Horn had said his ruling was based on this case law, or that procedural rule, I could look up the law and be satisfied that I was being treated fairly and correctly under the law. But his written ruling gives no indication that it is based on anything.

And you know what? He and other Alabama judges get away with this all of the time. Why? Because Rule 52 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure allows them to. Without going into too much detail, the rule essentially says that it is not necessary for judges to explain most of their rulings on motions. This is one of many, many things wrong with our justice system, but that's a subject for another day.

There is nothing to keep Horn, or any other judge, from explaining what he based a ruling on. It just is not required.

Since Horn gave no clues in his written ruling, I asked him during a hearing what he based his ruling on. Know what the judge said? He said it was "his impression" that the law required me to seek leave from the bankruptcy court. It was "his impression" that my lawsuit was considered a claim for bankruptcy purposes.

Translation: He didn't know what the frick the law really is, and he wasn't going to bother to find out.

Then he threw out this little pearl: "If I'm wrong, you can appeal me."

I've heard that from two other judges, J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves in Shelby County, and they both have been bad--criminal, in fact. So you can see why I don't think much of Allwin Horn at this point.

And here's another reason. Even if the term "claim" applied to my lawsuit, it still is not barred under bankruptcy law. Under 11 U.S. Code 523, several exceptions are listed to discharge of debts in a bankruptcy case. The section states that an individual debtor will not be discharged from any debt for money that was obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud" or "for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity."

My lawsuit, filed before I ever was notified that Poff had filed for bankruptcy, alleges fraud and willful and malicious injury. Therefore, it is not barred.

Does Allwin Horn make any mention of this in his ruling. Nope.

I will keep you posted on the latest happenings in this installment of "As the Judges Turn . . . "

And by the way, upon conducting further research, I am even more convinced that I am correct about my professional-malpractice lawsuit not being a claim under bankruptcy law. In fact, I've uncovered real strong indicators that another Republican judge, in this case Allwin Horn, is blowing serious smoke up my fanny.

More on that coming up.

Before we go, let's look at a case that has some similarities to mine--except this one has been in the national news and involves a whole lot more money. It's the case of Mike Nifong, the "Duke lacrosse" prosecutor who recently filed for bankruptcy.

In his filing, Nifong listed assets of $243,898 and debt of $180.3 million, including $30 million to each of the six lacrosse players who have sued him. Legal experts said Nifong might have to pay damages despite his bankruptcy filing if the player's can prove "malicious and willful" injury.

It's interesting that Nifong listed the six $30 million lawsuits filed against him in his bankruptcy filing. Richard Poff never listed my lawsuit against him in his filing.

Henry Wingate: Portrait of a Corrupt Judge

Let's return for a moment to the subject of U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who ramrodded the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, recently completed a two-part series on the Minor case, focusing on former Mississippi state judge Wes Teel (one of three defendants in the Minor case). Horton's searing account reveals to a national audience what we have shown to our Legal Schnauzer audience--that Judge Wingate butchered the Minor case in a way that almost had to be intentional.

Horton called some of Wingate's rulings "breathtaking" and "unconscionable." Given that three innocent men are in federal prison because of Wingate's actions, I would say Horton was being charitable. Terms such as "malicious," "despicable," "corrupt," and "wicked" might be a better fit. Give me time, and I will think of a few more adjectives.

But here is the point: Henry Wingate, because of his unlawful rulings in the Paul Minor case, has become a truly historic figure.

I've been a professional journalist for almost 30 years, and before that, I was an inveterate newspaper reader. (OK, I admit my "pre-professional" newspaper-reading days consisted mostly of reading the sports section, the comics, and Ann Landers. But hey, that's a start, right?)

I certainly don't claim to have perfect knowledge when it comes to news coverage of justice matters. But I don't ever recall reading a story where a judge has so clearly been shown to be corrupt in his actions on the bench.

Oh sure, there have been cases where judges have been shown to be "on the take" in behind-the-scenes ways. The Operation Greylord case in Chicago comes to mind.

But I don't recall another case where a judge was so clearly, and almost certainly so intentionally, committing fraud right there in the broad daylight of open court. And in a high-profile case, no less.

How did Wingate do it? By making unlawful rulings that essentially prevented defendants Minor, Teel, and John Whitfield from putting on a defense. And by giving jury instructions on bribery and honest-services mail fraud that did not even come close to reflecting what the law actually is. The end result? Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield are political prisoners--in the good ole US of A.

Eventually, I think U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw/ramrodded the Don Siegelman case in Alabama, will be shown to be Wingate's equal when it comes to corruption. But so far, because no trial transcript exists, it's impossible to know just what hanky-panky Fuller might have pulled.

Most of the criticism of Fuller has come because of his many apparent conflicts in the Siegelman case--and because the case had what appears to be an unlawful result. But I'm not aware of anyone showing that Fuller repeatedly made unlawful rulings throughout the trial. (Although I expect that will be shown.)

Wingate, though, is another matter. It's clear as day that he made mucho unlawful rulings. And we have a transcript to prove it. So just how profound is this? What does it mean that a federal judge would do this, under the supposedly bright lights of open court? I have a few thoughts:

* It shows that Henry Wingate thinks the press, and the public in general, are a bunch of saps. In regards to the mainstream press, he might be right about that. Not that mainstream reporters are saps, actually. But the folks who run mainstream news outfits can be controlled these days. I think folks like Wingate and Fuller understand this all too well. A few pesky bloggers have not been so easily controlled. Just how much trouble those bloggers will wind up causing Wingate and Fuller remains to be seen.

* Judges like Henry Wingate have utter disregard for our constitution, our form of government, our very way of life. What exactly is our form of government? Well, that has been a matter for debate for many years. Some call it a representative democracy. Others prefer the term constitutional republic. Whatever you call it, our system does not involve "king judges," judges who can do whatever they want. Our judges take an oath to uphold the law--law that is written by our elected representatives and interpreted by appellate courts. Trial-court judges such as Henry Wingate have a duty to follow the law that is passed down by those above them. They do not have endless discretion. In fact, in this country, we have a place for those who see themselves as "king judges." It's called federal prison.

* Henry Wingate holds a place in history, and he also holds a key place here at Legal Schnauzer. For he is the first judge that we have clearly shown to be corrupt. And he is the first instance where we have shown exactly how a corrupt judge operates. But he will not be the last. Numerous Alabama state judges will be unmasked in the same way.

* Finally, here is a truly disturbing thought about Henry Wingate. He duped the members of the jury in the Paul Minor case. The dictionary defines "dupe" as someone who is easily deceived or cheated. And that's exactly how Henry Wingate saw the Minor jurors. Wonder what those jurors would think if they knew that. In fact, you might try asking yourself this question: What if you had served on a jury and voted to convict, only to find out you did so based on unlawful instructions from the judge? Would you be horrified to learn that you had unlawfully put an innocent person in prison? I know I would be horrified to learn that. Wonder how the jurors in the Minor case would feel about it.

Focusing on Family Favors

A two-pronged Republican plan seems to be under way to take over the Alabama Legislature. Sadly, Democrats appear to be providing plenty of assistance on one part of the plan.

Prong No. 1 comes with news that Governor Bob Riley is chair of a campaign that is designed to raise $7 million for the 2010 elections. Riley and Republican Party chair Mike Hubbard say 68 people have pledged to contribute $10,000 each over four years. Democratic Party chair Joe Turnham wonders what these donors might expect from a sitting governor in exchange for their pledge. Regardless of the answer to that question, it's clear that the GOP is making a big financial push to take over the legislature.

Prong No. 2 of the GOP push is more complex, more familiar, and perhaps more disturbing (in several ways) than prong No. 1. It involves the ongoing two-year colleges scandal in Alabama, which has produced big news in recent days. Roy Johnson, former chancellor of the two-year system, has pled guilty to 15 federal counts of bribery, conspiracy, money laundering, obstruction and witness tampering.

As part of his plea deal, Johnson has agreed to assist prosecutors who apparently are targeting members of the state legislature and the Alabama Board of Education.

From the outset, the two-year colleges scandal has appeared to focus on Democrats. And it appears that future targets will be mostly Democrats. The central issue is this: A number of officials appear to have used the two-year system as a place to provide jobs for family members and friends.

The Schnauzer's take? Democrats who have been involved in such wrongdoing should be held accountable. And it looks like Johnson is going to be used to take a number of folks down with him. If this leads to a Republican takeover of the legislature, well Democrats have only themselves to blame.

But another side of this story is familiar and disturbing. We seem to have the state Republican hierarchy, the federal justice department, and Alabama's largest newspaper (The Birmingham News) joining forces to effect a takeover of a branch of state government. That already appears to have occurred with the executive branch, resulting in the federal prosecution of Democrat Don Siegelman and the elevation of Republican Bob Riley to the governor's office.

Is something similar happening with the legislative branch? Well, we seem to have some significant differences. Evidence is overwhelming that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated and he was not actually guilty of criminal behavior. In the two-year colleges story, we appear to have legitimate wrongdoing by Democrats. If a long string of Democrats wind up being convicted of true federal crimes, I would recommend that the party not bother trying to stand up for them. Democrats should stand for honest government, and if that means purging corrupt folks in the party, so be it.

But here is what I find disturbing: When evidence surfaces that Republicans are providing favors to family, friends, and constituents, where are the prosecutors and The Birmingham News then?

Where are the prosecutors and the News when:

* We have evidence that Bob Riley's children, Rob and Minda, have benefited from state contracts under their father's administration;

* We have evidence that Bob Riley forced a second law firm, one with ties to his son, to be used in the state's lawsuit against ExxonMobil;

* We have evidence, presented in detail on this blog, that the father of Riley campaign chair Dax Swatek has repeatedly received unlawfully favorable treatment by Republican judges in Alabama state court. In fact, William E. Swatek has been repeatedly protected from facing the consequences of filing a fraudulent lawsuit, and this is apparently due to his family connections to the Riley administration.

And speaking of the ExxonMobil decision, I couldn't help but think about that when I read the editorial in today's News by editor Tom Scarritt. The News' head honcho focuses on the financial cost of corruption, noting that prosecutors have identified $18.3 million in the corruption scheme involving Roy Johnson.

Where was Scarritt when Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court unlawfully overturned a judgment against ExxonMobil, costing the state $3.6 billion? We will show in future posts that the Supreme Court's actions were every bit as corrupt as anything Roy Johnson did. And the damage to the state? Harm done by the ExxonMobil ruling far overshadows anything that might come from the two-year colleges investigation.

So while we all should say "good riddance" to any corrupt Democrats who might surface in the legislature--or elsewhere in state government--we should be deeply alarmed that a double standard remains firmly in place when it comes to justice in Alabama.

Deep Schnauzer Thoughts

Siegelman and the Servile Press
Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of culture and communications at New York University, says the press is doing a dismal job of informing the public about important governmental issues. Miller, the author of None Dare Call it Stolen: Ohio, the Election, and America's Servile Press, is particularly alarmed that the press continues to ignore signs that recent national elections have involved fraud. And he says the press intentionally ignores wrongdoing in the name of reportorial "balance."

"A friend of mine at ABC has told me that the newsfolk there are strongly disinclined" to look into possible wrongdoing by politicians," Miller says in an interview with Scott Horton, of Harper's.org. "Doing so, they fear, would open them to charges of a party bias (which no doubt means 'liberal bias'). If that's the case, it means that our Free Press has failed disastrously to do its constitutional duty as a watchdog on the actions of the government, which evidently can jail anyone it wants, and as improperly or groundlessly as it sees fit, and the reporters will just sit there.

"Whatever they may tell themselves at ABC or any other network, what we have here is a corporate press that kowtows to the right, and does it mainly by adhering to the noxious paradigm of 'balance,' which requires going blind to any crime or wrong that can't be said to have been perpetrated on both sides."

Miller cites the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman as an example. "The fact that Siegelman clearly has been the victim of a punitive Republican cabal is not a fact that our reporters will report, as there is nothing on the Democratic side remotely comparable to the machine that has been persecuting him (and several other Democrats); nor is there any case of a Republican being treated by the opposition in that way. Thus unable to deplore bipartisan malfeasance, the journalists simply look the other way."

A Little Balance from The Birmingham News?
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, presents a detailed analysis of The Birmingham News' most recent coverage of the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case.

Wilson concludes that the News is unusually balanced in its reporting on the case. In fact, he wonders why the story ran in Saturday's edition instead of being held for a prime spot on the Sunday front page.

But that's not to say the story is without serious flaws. Wilson notes that the News continues to pretty much ignore the issue of alleged juror misconduct. And perhaps most importantly, the paper has done no serious reporting on the improper "dynamite charge" from U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller when the jury appeared to be hopelessly deadlocked.

Both of these issues indicate that Fuller was determined there would be no mistrial in the case, justice be damned.

Should Democrats Be More Aggressive on Impeachment?
The answer is a resounding yes, according to David Swanson, writing at afterdowningstreet.org.

Swanson is referring to possible impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney. He supports his argument with some compelling history-based reasoning. "For 230 years, the party that brings impeachment wins, and the party that fails to do so when it's called for loses. (John) Conyers was there when the Democrats moved to impeach Nixon and then won big. He was there when they refused to impeach Reagan and then lost. And most of the current committee was there when the Republicans impeached Clinton against the will of the public for a non-impeachable offense and still won both houses of Congress and the White House. . . .

"Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their positions--as evidenced by the Democrats in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of the last century."

Why is the GOP Pro Life?
Have you ever wondered why the Republican Party goes to such great pains to proclaim itself "pro life" and "pro family?"

I think I've figured it out. The more children people have, and the bigger families they have, the more likely they are to be too distracted to notice that Republican leaders are lying to them--and probably robbing them blind, in the process.

This thought came to mind upon reading about a recent study showing the Bush Administration made more than 900 false statements regarding national security in the two years leading up the war in Iraq.

E-Mail Woes Plague the GOP
If distracting the public doesn't work, you can always try deleting e-mails. The latest Republican to develop an e-mail problem is Missouri Governor Matt Blunt, who stunned observers by saying he would quit his re-election campaign. No specific event prompted him to make this announcement, Blunt said, with a straight face. Right, right. And a recent lawsuit alleging destruction of state e-mails had nothing to do with it.

Are Teens the Only Bad Drivers?
Alabama is considering a number of bills that are designed to enhance the safety of teen drivers. One proposal would ban the use of cell phones by drivers younger than 18.

Does anyone seriously think that teens are the only ones who shouldn't be talking on cell phones while they drive? I can't count the number of times I've almost been run off the road by adults who are too busy blabbing on cell phones to pay attention while they drive. Why don't we address that problem while we're at it? Oh, the cell-phone lobby doesn't want us to address that problem, does it?

Ever wonder why we can't come to grips with difficult problems like national health-care insurance and global warming? It's because we can't even get the easy problems solved. Research has conclusively shown that driving while talking on a cell phone is the equivalent of driving while drunk. And yet we still allow it to go on.

Are Hispanics the Only Bad Drivers?
Alabama formed a commission last year to study immigration, and a recent public hearing in Hoover drew a boisterous crowd that supported a crackdown on illegal immigration.

One participant said an illegal immigrant from Honduras crashed into his car last year, causing back injuries that forced him to miss months of work.

I'm sympathetic to anyone who has been injured in a car crash. But I think we need to address bad driving across the board and not focus only on illegal immigrants.

The biggest threats I see on the road are white suburban men and women driving SUVs while talking on cell phones, weaving in and out of lanes, violating speed limits, and tailgating--all, quite often, while sporting a "pro life" bumper sticker.

The GOP Myth Machine

You've got to hand it to conservatives. With almost eight years of George W. Bush behind us, we now can conclusively say that conservatives can't govern. Yet numerous myths persist, indicating that good government and conservatism can go hand in hand--and an alarming number of Americans still buy these myths.

Here are three of my favorite myths about conservatives:

* We are strong on foreign affairs. (After Dubya's Debacle in Iraq, does anyone still take this seriously?)

* Our judges are "strict constructionists" who treat the written law with reverence. (Guffaw, guffaw.)

* We are careful, indeed conservative, with your tax dollars.

Let's ponder this last one for a moment because two recent news item bring it to mind.

First, we learned that Alabama Governor Bob Riley's efforts to appoint George Bowman to a seat on the Jefferson County Commission were unlawful. A three-judge federal panel ruled that Riley should have obtained federal approval before filling the seat, and now it looks like Bowman's short-lived appointment will end February 5, the date set for a special election. No one, least of all Riley, should be surprised by this outcome. The case is almost identical to a 2005 case in which Riley made an appointment to the Mobile County Commission, and a panel of federal judges ruled that he had violated the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Riley already is appealing the Mobile case to the U.S. Supreme Court and might also appeal the Jefferson County case. How much money is Riley spending on this effort to prove that his appointment power transcends the rights of the public to elect county commissioners? Is that really a good use of taxpayer funds?

Second, we learn that Sue Bell Cobb, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, says our court system will need an extra $9.2 million next year to avoid layoffs. Now, I'm a Sue Bell Cobb fan. She's the only Democrat on the high court and also probably the only honest justice. But our court system is awash in waste, and now Cobb is forced to claim taxpayers should feed the beast with even more money. My own Legal Schnauzer case is a classic example of waste in our courts. The case started with a fraudulent lawsuit that, by law, had to be dismissed in a few months time. Instead it dragged on for five years and even went to a bogus trial. My sources in Montgomery tell me that such cases of butchery by trial-court judges are common. My guess is that this costs the state millions of dollars a year, and the problem doesn't end with trial courts. The Alabama Supreme Court proved it is corrupt with its ruling to overturn almost all of a $3.6 billion award for the state and against oil giant ExxonMobil. Cobb issued a stinging dissent in that case, all but calling her colleagues on the court a bunch of crooks. But now she wants us to send them more money.

Sue Bell Cobb is only one person, and it is unfair to think that she alone can clean up the sewage that emanates from our court system. But Alabamians should write their state legislators and demand that action be taken to clean up our courts before another dime is spent.

Let's hope citizens will remember these stories the next time they hear a conservative crowing about being careful with tax dollars.

Bad Judges and Cockroaches

It might be an urban legend, but I've always heard a disturbing tale about cockroaches. If you see one, the story goes, you can rest assured that others are nearby.

Do cockroaches like to travel in armies? Do they reproduce at a rate that would make rabbits jealous? Whatever the thought is behind this little "truism," I've always had a hair-raising thought upon seeing a single cockroach: "Oh my God, there's an army of 'em about to come from behind that wall! Call Orkin, stat!"

This thought came to me recently as I was thinking about bad judges. (If you don't think of cockroaches and bad judges in the same sentence, then you probably haven't spent much time around bad judges.)

Bad judges seem to share a trait (actually several traits) with cockroaches. If you see one bad judge, you are almost sure to see several others.

Sure has happened with me. Started with Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson, who "oversaw" a case where I was victim of a minor crime. That led to circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, and then the "high and mighty" (and corrupt) GOPers on Alabama's appellate courts.

My latest encounter with a judge comes courtesy of Allwin Horn, a Republican (natch) from Jefferson County. Horn is hearing a pending legal-malpractice claim I have against my second attorney, a solo practitioner named Richard Poff.

(My first attorney was Jesse P. Evans III, who at the time was with the large Birmingham firm Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson. Evans was a partner in the firm and his associate, Michael Odom, did most of the work on my case. Evans and Odom have since bolted for another Birmingham firm, Haskell Slaughter. You will be hearing much more about Evans, Odom, and Poff--and their actions and inactions on my case--in the near future.)

Is Horn another bad judge? I'm seeing overwhelming signs that the answer to that question is yes.

And why do I say that? Well, my legal-malpractice claim has been complicated by the fact that Richard Poff, subsequent to "representing" me and being fired by me, filed for bankruptcy. (He also went through what appears to have been a rather nasty divorce. Much more about Poff's bankruptcy and divorce coming down the road. Oh and by the way, Jesse Evans was sued for divorce while he was representing me. That was dismissed, but he was sued again a year or two later--and that one went through. Much more on that coming up, too. I seem to have a "positive" effect on my lawyers' marriages--and their financial status. Only fair since they certainly have had a "positive" impact on my financial status.)

Now, here is where I have a problem with Horn. Poff filed a motion to dismiss my lawsuit, stating that it should be discharged along with his other debts in bankruptcy court. Poff claims this even though my lawsuit was filed after his bankruptcy petition, and he did not list me as a creditor on the petition.

Poff, however, claims that my lawsuit against him "accrued" prior to his May 19, 2005, bankruptcy filing. Horn seems to be going along with this and has ruled that my lawsuit is a "contingency claim." Therefore, he states, I must seek leave in bankruptcy court in order to proceed with my litigation in state court. Horn says this even though Poff's bankruptcy case was completed some two years ago, and his debts were discharged (prior to the change in federal law making it more difficult to file for bankruptcy; pretty slick on Poff's part.)

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on bankruptcy law. It's a complex area of the law, and many lawyers specialize only in that. But I do have some gray matter between my ears, and I fail to see the point in me going off on a glorified "snipe hunt" at the bankruptcy court. (To which, I'm sure the bankruptcy folks will say, "What the hell are you doing here?)

You see, Poff is saying that I am a "creditor" and my lawsuit against him is a "claim" for bankruptcy purposes. Horn seems to be buying that.

But I fail to see how that is correct. The definition of a "claim" under bankruptcy law is pretty simple and can be found in Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78 (1991). That case states that a claim in a bankruptcy case is a "right to payment." And the case goes on: "a right to payment [means] nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation."

Well, I have no right to payment from Richard Poff. I have no enforceable obligation. He doesn't owe me a dime. (Actually, he should owe me quite a few dimes. But under the law, at this moment, he doesn't owe me a dime.) So how is my unresolved lawsuit for professional malpractice, which hasn't even gotten off the ground, considered a "claim?"

I don't think it is, and I think Judge Allwin Horn is wrong for apparently stating that it is. But that's not what makes me lean toward putting Horn in the pantheon with other bad judges I've encountered. That judgment is based on something else. Details on that are coming.

Oh, and by the way, Richard Poff has a most interesting history in the Birmingham legal community. You will want to stay tuned for details on that.

Still Trying to Muzzle the Schnauzer?

My wife and I received holiday greetings from an unexpected source on December 20. His name is Bubba Caldwell, a deputy with the Shelby County Sheriff's Department. (Actually, his last name might be Caldell. Had trouble understanding his voice message.)

Anyway, our guy Bubba (I'm not making this name up, folks; this is Alabama after all) left the message on my wife's cell phone. Why Bubba and his buddy, Eddie Moore, keep leaving messages on my wife's cell phone is beyond me. They are calling about a lawsuit to which my wife was not a party; it involved only me.

I noted in an earlier post the efforts of Shelby County's finest to harass us over a document called a writ of execution. We've received at least six phone messages about it, and it all seems part of a concerted effort to get me to quit blogging.

There is no evidence to suggest anyone is serious about the writ because it is improperly executed and thus invalid under the law. I've got an old Three Dog Night album at home (vinyl--ah, the good old days) that has more legal potency than Bubba's worthless piece of paper.

But Bubba's out for blood. Here is the contents of his voice message of December 20:

"Officer Eddie Moore has made contact with your wife pertaining to a debt that we have a writ of execution for, from Mike McGarity (my neighbor with the criminal record). I think you're familiar with it. They've listed your automobile to be picked up, and we've not had any return calls on it. We're getting ready to pick up this automobile from yo house. So you need to call me--Officer Bubba Caldwell (?) at 670-6039."

I might need to translate those words "yo house" for those of you who do not speak Redneck as a first language. In English, I believe that means "your house." In this case, I believe Bubba is saying he is going to pick up my car at my house.

This all raises a number of questions:

* How is Bubba planning to get our cars, which we keep in our garage? Is he planning to break in?

* If Bubba breaks into our home based on a document that is worthless as a cup of warm spit, could he be charged with a criminal offense?

* If I happened to be home, and noticed someone unlawfully breaking into my home and attempting to take my property, would I be justified in clubbing Bubba over the head with the nearest weapon--say, my tennis racket?

* Which is harder, Bubba's head or my tennis racket?

* Could Bubba's phone call, based on a worthless document, constitute harassing communications under Alabama's criminal code?

* It's been more than a month since Bubba left his message saying he was about to come and pick up our car. No sign of Bubba. What's keeping him? Is Bubba lost? I'm deeply concerned.

* Is this a sign of Alabama's taxpayer dollars at work? Is this a sign of how corrupt judges and lawyers use taxpayer resources in a pathetic effort to perpetuate fraud and cover their criminal asses? What about this: Shelby County, probably at the very moment Bubba placed his call, had someone cooking crystal meth, someone abusing a child, someone abusing a spouse, someone stealing something, someone violating traffic laws, and on and on. But what was Bubba doing? Wasting our tax dollars trying to "execute" a fraudulent document.

I would suggest that readers contact Bubba at (205) 670-6039 and ask him what in the hell he is doing.

Or better yet, contact Shelby County Circuit Clerk Mary Harris at (205) 669-3760 or mary.harris@alacourt.gov. She issued the bogus writ of execution. You might ask her why she issued a writ of execution that is invalid under the law. Does she just do anything my neighbor's attorney Bill Swatek wants, even though Swatek has a 30-year record of unethical activity in the legal profession.

I should note this: These phone calls from deputies started after I complained to Harris that her office was unlawfully classifying a felony assault against me as a misdemeanor. You might ask Harris this: Is this how you treat a citizen who complains about your office's conduct? You hit them with a fraudulent writ of execution?

And here are some of Bubba's superiors. Maybe they would like to explain why Bubba is wasting your tax dollars on an invalid document.

Would Clintons Give Bush a Free Pass?

I am a Bill Clinton fan. And I'm married to an even bigger Bill Clinton fan.

I was born in 1956, and my wife was born in 1960, and we both consider Bill Clinton--in terms of governance--to be the best president of our lifetimes. In fact, we don't think it's a particularly close call.

With that in mind, we are open to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

But I also have some beefs with Bill. And one of those beefs makes me wonder if it's best for our country right now to have a Clinton II presidency.

My first beef with Bill is this: How could you come within a million miles of Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky? If you hadn't, Al Gore would be winding down a successful second term as president, and our nation and world would be infinitely better off than we have been under George W. Bush. (By the way, Bill, if you just have to have affairs, learn from George H.W. "Poppy" Bush. He chose to have an affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald, a career diplomat who had a lot to lose if word got out about her extracurricular activities. But Monica Lewinsky? She couldn't wait to flap her gums about your trysts with her. Dumb, Bill, very dumb.)

My second beef with Bill is this: Why do you persist on being all palsy with Poppy Bush? I realize that former presidents form an exclusive club, and it's natural to be cordial to Bush 41. But now we have your wife saying that, if elected, she wants to send the two of you off on a "worldwide fence-mending tour" in an effort to clear up the mess left by Bush II. (First, did it ever occur to you and the missus that Bush I might not like the sound of that?)

But here is the bigger concern, as expertly laid out recently by Mark Crispin Miller at News From the Underground. Miller is among a growing number of folks, including your humble blogger, who strongly suspect Bush II has been the most corrupt administration in the nation's history. And he worries that the Clintons' overtures to Bush I indicate that Dubya and his cronies will get a free pass if Hillary becomes president. Miller also is concerned that Barack Obama's repeated talk of bipartisanship indicates he, too, would be soft on Dubya.

"Now, I'm as keen on civilized relations as the next man," Miller writes. "But if the next man is a fascist, it would be foolish to expect him to reciprocate. And if that fascist and his goons have broken laws, they should be prosecuted, not embraced."

And here's a key point from Miller: "One reason why there's such intense 'anger at Washington' is that the Democrats have passively colluded with the Bush Republicans, and let the latter get away with murder (among other things)."

Miller draws heavily on an interview with investigative journalist Robert Parry at Democracy Now. Parry, the editor of consortiumnews.com, notes that when Bill Clinton first took office, he had an opportunity to lead the effort to get to the bottom of several GOP scandals--Iran-Contra, Iraqgate, the October Surprise, and Passportgate.

Investigations already were under way, but Clinton chose not to support them. Other Democrats went along. "Essentially, they swept much of this very important history and these very serious issues of wrongdoing by the Reagan-Bush administrations under the rug," Parry says.

And that led to the disastrous second Bush administration. "The result was to essentially establish Reagan's legacy in a very positive light, to establish George H.W. Bush's legacy quite well, and that opened the door for the restoration of the Bush dynasty in 2000," Parry says.

Alabama's primary is coming soon, on February 5, and this is one Democrat who is not sure who he will vote for. I've yet to receive any indication that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are serious about getting to the bottom of corruption in the Bush II administration, especially its sewer-like justice department.

I agree with the great singer-songwriter John Fogerty--I think we need a Gunslinger. I want to know who is going to take that kind of attitude into the White House.

Based on what I've seen so far, I'm starting to think John Edwards might be the most likely Gunslinger. My theory is that, within the GOP, corporate greed and political corruption go hand in hand. Edwards has vowed to take on corporate fat cats, and my hope is that would lead him to go after political corruption, as well.

Edwards certainly should be interested in getting to the bottom of corruption in the Bush Justice Department. One of Edwards' strongest supporters in the Deep South, Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, currently is in federal prison for crimes we have shown he did not commit. Mississippi judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield also are political prisoners from the Minor case.

Thanks to the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton we know that not long after George W. Bush took office in 2001, his political team started thinking about the 2004 election. And the person they considered most likely to be Dubya's opponent was John Edwards. It wasn't long before government officials conducted raids on the offices of several attorneys who supported Edwards. Was this a blatant effort to cut off funds to Edwards? Was that why Paul Minor was targeted?

Clinton and Obama have been strangely quiet about the issue of corruption in the Bush Justice Department. Many observers are saying that Edwards won the Democratic debate on Monday night, strengthening his prospects in the South Carolina primary. I would suggest that Edwards could make his case even stronger by raising the issue of corruption in the Bush DOJ.

Americans understand the concepts of cheats and crooks. It's time that one of the Democratic presidential candidates clearly lays out the case for going after the people who have turned our Justice Department into a cesspool.

It's also time that a Democratic candidate makes it clear to the American people that we have at least four true political prisoners in federal custody--the three Minor defendants and former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Most Americans think of a political prisoners as someone who suffered in the history books, under someone like Josef Stalin.

But it's happening right now, under someone named George W. Bush.

Who will make the case to the American people that something must be done about it? Is John Edwards the candidate to do it?

Good Dirt is Coming--Someday

Robby Scott Hill, at Novationeering, is one of my favorite Alabama bloggers, and I wish him a long, healthy life. But one of his recent posts almost has me wishing he would hurry up and croak. (Just kidding, Rob.)

Hill says he is writing a lengthy series of blog posts about corrupt lawyers and public officials in Alabama. But there is only one problem. Due to the attorney-client privilege, the goodies will be published by the executor of Hill's estate only upon Hill's death.

Hill says he hopes the Alabama State Bar and Alabama Ethics Commission will use the information to make our fair state a less corrupt place.

And what about the crooks who are the subject of said posts? "I will be posting about their misdeeds from the grave, so to speak," Hill writes.

Perhaps Hill will start a trend. "I encourage any lawyer or law enforcement officer who has similar knowledge of public corruption to do the same," he writes.

Abortion Battle Still Hot After 35 Years

As a white male who can't get pregnant, I've always felt I should remain a sideline observer in the heated debate over abortion rights in this country.

I certainly have opinions on the subject. But my main observation is this: If you believe in a Creator God, as most Americans apparently do, it seems clear that said God took pregnancy and gave it exclusively to females. To me, that means pregnancy, and issues related to it, should remain in the hands of females--not government officials, not protesters, not televangelists, and certainly not politicians.

So call me pro choice. But even if I had "pro life" leanings, I don't think I could stomach the tactics of the pro-life movement. And I've been too close for comfort to the tactics used by some who oppose abortion rights.

All of this comes to mind as the nation marks the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that struck down state laws restricting abortion. Birmingham has been a hot spot in the abortion-rights debate for some time, and demonstrators/protesters on both sides of the issue held events yesterday in the city.

Reading about those activities took me back to the morning of January 29, 1998. I was sitting in my car reading the newspaper before going into work when I heard an explosion that seemed to come several blocks to the southeast. I thought perhaps there had been an accident at a construction site, and I remember thinking, "I hope no one got hurt."

I had been at work only a few minutes when word quickly spread that a bomb had gone off at the New Woman, All Women health clinic, which is three blocks south and two blocks east of where I had been sitting in my car. The clinic is probably less than 100 yards from Purple Onion, one of my favorite Southside lunch spots.

The blast killed police officer Robert Sanderson and critically injured nurse Emily Lyons. Thanks mainly to the remarkably alert actions of Jermaine J. Hughes, a student at nearby UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham), authorities were able to track down Eric Robert Rudolph.

Rudolph wound up confessing to the Birmingham bombing, the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing, and a bombing at a gay night club in Atlanta. None of those crimes probably would have been solved without the actions of Hughes, who in the shocking moments after the Birmingham bomb saw a man walking away from the area and followed him, leading to detection of the license-plate number on Rudolph's truck.

Where are we in the abortion-rights debate? The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the number of abortions in the United States has dropped to 1.2 million a year, down 25 percent from 1990. Experts attribute part of the drop in surgical abortions to an increase in medical abortions, in which two pills are taken under a doctor's supervision to induce miscarriage.

Abortion-rights advocates say women are more likely now to avoid unwanted pregnancies, thanks in part to emergency contraception, known as the morning-after pill, which is sold without a prescription to women 18 and older.

Another study reported last week found that about half of the women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens, and about 60 percent have given birth to at least one child prior to getting an abortion. A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic, and regardless of race, high abortion rates are linked to financial difficulties.

We now know that abortion rates are falling, and the typical abortion patient is different from what many of us might have thought.

The tone of the abortion-rights debate remains disturbing. Consider conservative columnist Cal Thomas, who takes a "pro life" stance. Like many conservatives, Thomas blames abortion for all sorts of societal ills--from divorce to illegal immigration to the heartbreak of psoriasis. Of course, one is hard pressed to find any reputable social-science studies that show abortion contributes to any of these problems. One prominent social scientist has shown that legalized abortion has actually helped reduce crime rates.

Some social indicators seem to have gotten worse since Roe was decided in 1973. But the same problems have gotten worse since the rise of the Religious Right and the dominance of the Republican Party. Did those trends cause social breakdown? And what about the decline of blue laws, a trend that has caused Sunday to become just another shopping day? That, I would argue, is more likely to cause social decay than Roe v. Wade.

Like many "pro lifers," Thomas plays fast and loose with the language. "One does not begin to kill babies until other dominoes have fallen," he writes. And here's another line: "After 35 years of slaughtering our young, isn't it time to stop."

This is the kind of language, I suspect, that helps produce nut jobs like Eric Rudolph. And Cal Thomas should know better. Most of us can agree, I think, that an abortion is not a desirable outcome. But an abortion is an abortion--nothing more or less. It is not "killing," it is not "murder," and a fetus is not a "baby."

Pro lifers have so mangled the language over the past 35 years that many people no longer even blink at nonsensical statements like "abortion is murder."

It's interesting that conservatives who oppose gay marriage say we must not mess with the traditional "man-woman" meaning of marriage. (I would agree that the definition of marriage should not be changed; but I support the rights of gays to have the exact equivalent of marriage, under whatever term would be appropriate.) When it comes to abortion rights, conservatives have been changing the definition of "baby" and "child" and "murder" and other terms for years.

My hope is that Americans will quit wasting so much energy on the abortion-rights debate. In my view, abortion is not even an issue; it's a symptom of an issue. The real issue is unwanted pregnancy. If we deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancy, the abortion rate will shrink to almost nothing.

You cannot deal with the issue of unwanted pregnancy without examining the sometimes irresponsible sexual behavior of males/men/guys/dudes. Pro lifers, interestingly, seem comfortable giving guys a free pass in the abortion-rights debate.

Here's a suggestion for pro lifers: Next time you are at a clinic, politely ask the women going in (assuming they actually are pregnant and seeking an abortion) for the name, phone number, and address of the guy who is responsible for their pregnancy. Then, go to his home or place of business and protest there. Wonder if that would change the nature of the debate.

And here's another thought: How much damage is done by the constant portrayal in movies and television shows of sexual activity without consequences? When's the last time you saw a fictional character have sex and then have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy? Or when have you seen a character have sex and then go to the doctor with a strange rash on his or her privates only to be told that he/she has a sexually transmitted disease that cannot be cured?

I wonder how many young people soak up our sex-obsessed culture and come away thinking they can have all kinds of carnal romps without having it come back to bite them on the butt.

If we really want to reduce abortion rates, these are some of the issues we need to address.

What in the Heck is Artur Davis Up To?

Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, reports that the 60 Minutes story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is completed and will air when the network's coverage of the National Football League playoffs is over. But the bigger news in Stevenson's report is his bizarre interview with U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL).

Up till now, Davis has appeared to be a leader in investigating blatant corruption in the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). But in his interview with Stevenson, Davis seems to be saying he and his Congressional colleagues are pretty much packing it in on the DOJ scandal. The tone is this: Bushies don't want to cooperate by testifying and turning over documents, and that's fine with us. We see no reason to push any harder in our "fact finding."

I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I interpret Davis' interview. And if I'm right, you have to wonder what is behind Davis' change in tone.

Davis said he was interviewed by 60 Minutes and was critical of the Birmingham media's coverage of the Siegelman case. But then he turns around and sounds just as weak-willed and lazy as The Birmingham News.

"The point we tried to make," Davis said, "is the court of public opinion is ultimately going to decide, is going to evaluate what they think happened to Don Siegelman."

This is just one of several comments Davis makes in the Stevenson interview that I find troubling.

The court of public opinion is going to decide? What in the heck does public opinion have to do with anything? This is a totally different tone from the one Davis took last fall when the Bush (DOJ) first began to stonewall the House Judiciary Committee's attempts to investigate the Siegelman case and others that appeared to have been politically motivated.

In a press release last fall, Davis cited Congress' constitutionally derived authority of oversight, noting that the DOJ is funded by Congress and is bound to enforce laws that are passed by Congress. On that occasion, Davis spoke with toughness and determination. Now, in the Stevenson interview, he sounds wishy-washy and weak.

Another example: "I think all of us are waiting to see what the 11th Circuit does," Davis says. "Gov. Siegelman has filed an appeal, and an appeal is not something that Congress can influence."
What? Congress' role is not about influencing Siegelman's appeal. It is about investigating possible wrongdoing by members of the Bush DOJ--and there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing--and to take steps to hold people accountable. The Siegelman appeal will only determine whether Siegelman was unlawfully convicted or not; it will only look at issues that are in the official trial record. It will not examine what went on behind the scenes, what led up to the Siegelman prosecution. It will not examine the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and selective prosecution, the whole point of a Congressional hearing last fall. For the life of me, I can't understand why Davis and his fellow members of the Judiciary Committee are waiting on the 11th Circuit.

And then, get a load of this quote: "I think Congress rightly believed that we needed to try to do some fact-finding around the question of whether there was some pervasive politicization of the process. I think it's good that Congress had a hearing, I think it's good that Congress did fact-finding."

And that's it? By his repeated use of the past tense, Davis seems to be saying there will be no more fact-finding, there will be no more hearings. Sounds to me like Artur Davis is issuing a "get out of jail free" card to Karl Rove, Leura and Bill Canary, Alabama prosecutors Louis Franklin and Steve Feaga, Mississippi prosecutor Dunn Lampton (of the Paul Minor case), and God knows who else.

What about the blatant corruption of Judge Mark Fuller in the Siegelman case and Judge Henry Wingate in the Paul Minor case? And what about GOP stonewalling? Are Davis and Co. just going to shrug their shoulders and let that go?

Alabama Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson put her life and career at risk for this? Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, has presented an extraordinary series of investigative posts for this? Larissa Alexandrovna and Raw Story are in the midst of a five-part series on the Siegelman case only to have Congress walk away?

I've conducted enough interviews in my time to know it is an imperfect process. Perhaps Davis did not express himself in the way that he intended. Perhaps Stevenson misunderstood some of what Davis said.

But if this interview is complete and on target, I think Davis is saying that he and his Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee are going to tuck tail and let perhaps the worst scandal in American history pass. No search for truth, no accountability, no punishment for wrongdoers, nothing.

Evidence strongly suggests the DOJ scandal far surpasses Watergate. As a result of this scandal, we actually have at least four political prisoners in America right now. I'm talking about Siegelman from Alabama and Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield from Mississippi.

I believe Davis needs to issue an immediate statement to clarify his intentions, and those of the House Judiciary Committee. And if that group truly plans to play softball as Davis' comments indicate, Democrats, moderates, and anyone else who cares about justice should be outraged.

Bob Riley Plays Naked Politics

Those of us who live in Alabama should never be terribly surprised at any political stunt Republican Governor Bob Riley might pull.

But Riley pulls one today that took even your humble blogger aback.

Riley is proposing a series of tax cuts that supposedly would help lower-income and middle-income families and stimulate a sagging economy. "Tax relief for working families" is what Riley calls it.

But here's a little problem with Riley's plan. We already know that a looming recession is expected to cause a drop of at least $500 million in Alabama's Education Trust Fund for the 2008-09 fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1.

And where would Riley's tax cuts reduce revenue? In the Education Trust Fund. Riley's own spokeswoman admits that. She also lets the ball drop that the tax proposal includes reductions in corporate income taxes. Wow, big surprise there.

Who is Riley thinking about more here, his corporate buddies or "working families?" If you really have to think about the answer to that one, well, I'm afraid I can't help you.

If Riley really was interested in "working families," perhaps he would try to get the Alabama Supreme Court's unlawful ExxonMobil decision overturned. That of course is the ruling that will cost the state about $3.6 billion (that's billion with a "b"). Maybe that money would help "working families." But Riley has said he won't even try to go after it.

Riley also has been remarkably quiet about Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom Jr.'s proposal to revise the state's tax law governing payments by oil giants such as Exxon. Folsom, of course, is a Democrat, and his plan actually might do something for "working families." It would require corporations to pay a fair price for making themselves rich off Alabama's natural resources. Wonder why Goober Riley is so quiet about that idea.

So here is Riley's plan: We've got an Education Trust Fund that we already know is facing a major shortage next fiscal year, and the Guv is proposing that we take even more money from that fund--a fund by the way that is used to educate the children of, you guessed it, "hard working families."

And here's something else to consider about Goober Riley: Remember when Don Siegelman was governor and the dot.com crash caused economic hard times in the second half of his term. In the 2002 governor's race, Riley crowed about how he would create jobs and handle the economy much better than Siegelman did. Well, now we have another recession on its way--this one caused by the policies of a GOP administration--and Riley is proposing that we take money from the fund that is supposed to educate our children. You know, the children Republicans refer to when they go all "pro life" and "pro family" on us.

By comparison, what was Don Siegelman's approach? He tried to start an education lottery that would have actually improved education in Alabama. And what did Siegelman get for his troubles? A nice federal prison sentence on bogus charges trumped up by the corrupt Bush Justice Department.

How long will Alabamians, mostly white ones, continue to mindlessly pull the lever for corrupt Republicans like Riley? How many more years of that kind of mindless voting can we afford?

Firing Back at ExxonMobil

The fraudsters at ExxonMobil must have some tightness in their jockey shorts today, thanks to Alabama Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom Jr.

Folsom, a Democrat, has proposed changes in the state's tax on oil and gas production in the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ruling that cost the state almost all of a $3.6 billion court judgment against Exxon.

The Supreme Court ruling split along party lines, with eight Republicans voting to overturn the jury verdict and the lone Democrat offering a stinging dissent.

Alabama's tax on natural gas is currently a percentage of the value of the gas after it has been processed. Folsom said the Legislature should look at changing it in the upcoming session to a volume-based tax levied when the natural gas comes out of the ground.

"If something is not done, the recent decision by the Alabama Supreme Court siding with Exxon and reversing an Alabama's jury's multibillion-dollar verdict will have devastating consequences on the people of Alabama," Folsom said.

A volume-based system would erase issues that came up in the court case about what costs of production the company could write off, Folsom said. "That way Exxon will have to pay the same way you do--based on what you pump."

Had the judgment stood, Folsom said, it could have helped fund Medicaid, state troopers, prisons, and many other state agencies--at a time when the state is looking at a serious budget shortfall for the 2008-09 fiscal year.

An Exxon spokesman admitted a number of states use a volume-based tax like the one Folsom recommended. But he still was not high on the idea.

"Clear thinking has prevailed in severance taxation since production began," Dean Peeler said. "Changing the metrics of the relationship would create disincentives for producers considering making risk-reward investment decisions."

Can't figure out what Peeler is saying? Allow me to translate for you: "We like the way the current system works because it allows us to cheat the state and commit fraud, and the Alabama Supreme Court let's us get away with it. Of course, we have given tons of money to the campaigns of the GOP justices, and that investment certainly paid off for us. We look forward to it paying off more in the future."

Those are the "metrics" Peeler does not want to see changed.

What about the "metrics" of the actual Exxon ruling? Folsom did not go into that. But here's the truth: The Alabama Supreme Court acted unlawfully and corruptly in making its decision. We've already touched on one way the court acted unlawfully. And we soon will be shining light on other fast moves by the state high court, moves that cost Alabama citizens dearly.

And where was Alabama's Republican Governor, Bob Riley, in all of this? Oh, he says it's not worth even trying to have the unlawful ruling overturned. Interesting isn't it that the lieutenant governor, a Democrat, is the one who has to do the heavy lifting for the people of Alabama?

Think We Need a Gunslinger

You might say we have adopted 2006 American Idol Taylor Hicks as the official musician of Legal Schnauzer. As a Birmingham-based blog, we think it makes sense to honor a "local boy done good."

But our appreciation for Hicks goes beyond the fact that he's from these parts. We like his rootsy music, his "up-by-the-bootstraps" back story, and his appreciation for those who came before him. Perhaps more than any other contestant on Idol, Hicks seemed to understand that modern music is built on the greats of yesteryear. When he sang "Levon" by Elton John or "Living for the City" by Stevie Wonder, you got the impression he wasn't just covering a song. You got the feeling he really "knew" those songs, that he had listened to them perhaps hundreds of times.

Hicks has not sold as many albums, or had as many hit singles, as some Idol products. But I think time will show that Hicks is not only an engaging performer but also a songwriter of signficant talent.

With that in mind, I believe Taylor Hicks would approve of starting off 2008 with a tribute to one of the greatest songwriters of this, or any other, era. And I'm talking about an artist I suspect Taylor Hicks greatly admires.

After all, this artist grew up in California, but his music has its roots in the blues, gospel, and soul of the Deep South. He was inspired to create his "swamp rock" sound from listening to blues legends such as Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, and Howlin' Wolf. In fact, one could make a strong argument that this artist is the most distinctive vocalist of the rock-and-roll era. And he developed his vocal style from listening to Howlin' Wolf.

What caused me to think of this artist? Well, it's hard not to think of this artist almost every day. He's been writing and recording great music for more than 40 years, and hardly a day goes by that you don't hear his classics on the radio.

But I have special reasons for thinking about this artist right now. The main theme of this blog is justice, and as we head into 2008, I think those of us who care about justice in America need a theme song.

I have just the ticket. It's a song called "Gunslinger," from the new CD Revival by John Fogerty, an American treasure.

Fogerty first came to attention as the driving force behind the '60s super group Creedence Clearwater Revival. The band broke up in the early 1970s, but Fogerty has gone on to produce a number of acclaimed solo albums.

Revival is one of his best. It has been nominated for a Grammy and has made many of the "Best of 2007" lists.

"Gunslinger" is the second song on the CD, and you can read the lyrics here. It's a terrific tune, and Fogerty has said in interviews that he sees it as an anthem about the need to restore justice in our country.

The song easily could be misinterpreted, much as Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" was misused by the Reagan crowd in the 1980s.

Fogerty is not saying that guns literally are the answer to issues of justice. He is saying that those who care about justice will need the toughness of a gunslinger in order to wrest control from those who have perverted our justice system. You can check out a video of the song here.




By the way, Fogerty is an outspoken liberal, which irritates many of his fans on the right side of things. Revival includes "Long Dark Night" and "I Can't Take it No More," two blistering condemnations of the Bush administration. These are in the spirit of the CCR classics "Fortunate Son" and "Who'll Stop the Rain," two of the great protest songs ever written.

Fogerty recently did a medley of the two new songs on the Letterman show.






While we're at it, let's include a video of "Don't You Wish It Was True," the first single from Revival. It's a song of hope, and that's something we all could use in 2008.

For good measure, I want to include a song from Fogerty's superb Blue Moon Swamp CD, which was released about 10 years ago. The song is called "Rambunctious Boy." It's not well known, but for my wife and me, it is one of our all-time favorites. And it would make a good theme song for 2008, too. It's a bit on the country side, but I bet Taylor Hicks would have a lot of fun with it. Here is a video with Fogerty and Keith Urban singing "Rambunctious Boy" live. Enjoy.

Citizen Journalism in Alabama and Beyond

David Hazinski, an associate professor of telecommunications at the University of Georgia, recently wrote that the news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate the growing trend of citizen journalism (of which this blog is a prime example).

"While 'citizen journalism' has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse."

Hazinski's piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution drew a quick and fiery response from Dan Gillmor, director of the Center for Citizen Media and a longtime supporter of the role regular folks can play in the dissemination of news.

"The regulator of speech should be all of us, collectively voting with our eyes, ears, and dollars in the fabled marketplace of ideas," Gillmor writes. "New tools coming along will give us better ways to do that in a Digital Age than we've had in the analog one . . . "

Gillmor is quick to acknowledge that accuracy and reliability are areas that need improvement in citizen journalism. And he says traditional media outlets should insist that citizen reports that go out under their banner be done in honorable and journalistically sound ways.

But he says Hazinski is wrong to imply that the notion of a citizen journalist is as nutty as the notion of a "citizen surgeon" or a "citizen lawyer." (Although I would argue that some citizen lawyers, if they are at least honest, are better than the real deal.) Journalism, Gillmor says, has never had the kind of rigorous standards for entry that exist in professions such as medicine or law.

We need more education, not more regulation, Gillmor says. "For journalists, citizen or otherwise, it is very much about principles, and ultimately honor. For the audiences, we need to instill deep, critical thinking and a solid grasp of media techniques.

"Let's regulate ourselves to end up with a diverse, vibrant journalism ecosystem that serves and informs us."

I'm definitely with Gillmor on this one. And I would like to see him, Hazinski, and perhaps others address a related question: How important are citizen journalists in reporting stories that traditional media--through fear, laziness, partisan thinking, or all of the above--simply refuse to touch.

We are in the midst of such a story here at Legal Schnauzer. Our tale of judicial corruption among state judges in Alabama--with its close connections to our current Republican governor and the larger story of selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ)--has been ignored by the mainstream press. So can a blogger, a citizen journalist such as yours truly, contribute? Well, our reporting on justice-related matters in the Deep South has been cited by Scott Horton, of Harper's, at his No Comment blog. And thanks to Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), our reporting has been cited in documents filed at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's hearing last fall on selective prosecution.

So we have shown that citizens certainly can contribute to the understanding of important stories. And we are hardly alone. In fact, corruption in the Bush DOJ might be the single most important domestic issue in our country--and it has its roots in Alabama, thanks to the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. But the state's major newspapers--the Newhouse-owned Birmingham News, Huntsville Times, and Mobile Press-Register--have done their best to pretend it doesn't exist.

Inside the borders of Alabama, the story has been driven by blogs and Web sites such as Locust Fork World News, Left in Alabama, and Novationeering. And while Scott Horton's credentials place him well beyond the realm of a citizen journalist, he has used a nontraditional method--the blog--to lead reporting of the DOJ story at the national level. Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork News, would fit into the category of a professional who uses nontraditional media to shine light in places the mainstreamers don't want to go.

Two other critical stories are taking place in Alabama right now--both with strong ties to citizen or alternative journalism.

One story involves Governor Bob Riley's apparent violation of state campaign-finance law in both 2002 and 2006. The weekly Montgomery Independent and reporter Bob Gambacurta broke the story. But bloggers have played a key role in providing context and analysis and spreading the story beyond the state capital.

The second story involves the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to throw out most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict in favor of the state and against oil giant ExxonMobil. The mainstream media has taken an "aw, shucks" approach to the story, in essence saying it's too bad the state will lose all that money, but gosh, the Supreme Court must be right about this. Bloggers have said, "Not so fast." They have raised questions about the correctness of the ruling, given the facts and the law in the case. (Kudos to Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering in this area.) And they have noted the huge amount of campaign contributions that went from oil interests to the eight justices who voted to overturn the Exxon verdict.

Let's hope that Dan Gillmor and others who care about citizen journalism will keep an eye on our state. Important things are happening here.

Taking Another Look at the Fuller Shuffle

We have shown in a series of posts that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller presents an extremely weak argument in his memorandum opinion that is designed to show that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should remain imprisoned pending appeal.

Scott Horton, a Columbia University law professor who writes at Harper's.org, calls Fuller's opinion "farcical" and says it "reflects a third-rate legal mind."

One of the many weaknesses in Fuller's opinion is that he does not make it clear that 11th Circuit precedent, in fact law in pretty much all federal circuits, requires the showing of a quid pro quo in order to produce a conviction on bribery.

Fuller is guilty of poor legal research, poor legal reasoning, and poor legal writing--quite a trifecta--in his opinion. I don't have the first day of law school, and I could quickly find multiple cases showing that the 11th Circuit requires proof of a "something-for-something" arrangement--also known as a quid pro quo.

A federal judge should be able to find such information. And it isn't complicated stuff, so he should be able to make the law clear in a memorandum opinion. Fuller is unable to do that, either because he is lazy and disinterested or because he knows the Siegelman prosecution is grounded on shaky legal footing and he's trying to cover that fact up.

All Fuller had to do in his opinion is cite the exact language in the relevant law. But he evidently didn't want to do that because it doesn't support his desired result--which would be to see Don Siegelman behind bars for years.

So Fuller tries to pull the equivalent of a cute card trick by mixing up the language found in the case law. He borrows language from the evidence requirements for a bribery conviction and mixes it with language from the fundamental definition of the crime itself. The result is this: The judge finds that Siegelman has not shown that the law requires an "explicit quid pro quo."

The phrase "explicit quid pro quo" appears to be a Fuller concoction, one that I suspect is designed to confuse readers and muddy the legal waters. It's a phrase that I have not found anywhere in the actual law.

The truth of the matter is this: The law does require, in a specific way, a quid pro quo. But it does not require the government to show "direct evidence" of a verbal or written agreement.

Two cases, one of which we already have explored, illustrate the requirements for a bribery conviction.

As we have seen in U.S. v. McCarter, 219 Fed. Appx. 921 (2007), the law clearly requires a quid pro quo, "a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act."

But what kind of evidence must the government present to prove the quid pro quo? That is addressed in another 11th Circuit case, U.S. v. Massey, 89 F. 3d 1433 (1996):

"Direct evidence of a verbal or written agreement to support a bribery conviction is unnecessary. Proof of such an agreement may rest upon inferences drawn from relevant and competent circumstantial evidence. To hold otherwise, would allow defendants to escape liability with winks and nods, even when the evidence as a whole proves that there is a meeting of the minds to exchange official action for money."

That last sentence is key. The law does not allow defendants to get off by saying, "Hey, the government has presented no written agreement between us or no tape recording of a verbal agreement between us. Therefore, we're not guilty." It's not that easy for defendants.

But the government still has a strict burden. The "evidence as a whole" must prove that there was a "meeting of the minds" to exchange something of value for official action. That "meeting of the minds" is a quid pro quo. And it must be present.

It's important to keep this mind: At this point, we're not talking about overturning Siegelman's conviction--although the evidence strongly suggests to me that it should be overturned. We are talking about whether Siegelman has presented a substantial question of law or fact that would merit his release pending appeal.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals twice asked Fuller to explain his decision to immediately send Siegelman to prison, and that makes me think Siegelman's attorneys have done a pretty good job of showing substantial questions of law or fact exist. That's why Fuller essentially is being forced to defend his actions, something he seems to have a hard time doing.

If Siegelman's prosecution were based on solid legal footing, Fuller's memorandum should not have been necessary. And if the appellate courts asked for one just for the heck of it, Fuller should have easily and clearly been able to state why he took the action he did.

The fact Fuller was unable to do that indicates that Siegelman should be released pending appeal. And I suspect it means that the entire prosecution was built on revenge and raw, ugly politics--that it had little, if anything, to do with the law.

Preserving a Piece of Nation's History?

New Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford has proposed demolishing Boutwell Auditorium and using the space for an expansion of the adjacent Birmingham Museum of Art.

The plan generally has met with approval in the community. The art museum needs the space, and Boutwell is an old facility that long has been surpassed by the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex.

But Glenn T. Eskew, a Birmingham native and an associate professor of history at Georgia State University, says "not so fast."

In a highly informative piece in Sunday's Birmingham News, Eskew calls Boutwell "the most important building in the history of the South in the 20th century."

And that's not all. "For years called Boutwell, Birmingham's Municipal Auditorium saw more key events determining the South's relationship to the country at large in the previous century than any other structure in the United States."

Those are big words. But Eskew provides facts to back them up. He mentions the 1956 attack on singer Nat King Cole by a small group of white vigilantes, perhaps the most famous event ever to take place at Boutwell.

But Eskew cites two other events that took place at the auditorium--and he says they are important enough that the structure should be preserved.

The first was the Southern Conference for Human Welfare in 1938. Black and white progressives from across the South met to discuss ways industrial democracy could create a more equitable and just society. More than 3,000 delegates gathered at Birmingham's Municipal Auditorium to discuss ways out of the Great Depression, with a goal of making a better life for all people, regardless of race. Among the delegates was First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.

A biracial crowd of 5,000 packed the auditorium and about 2,000 more people spilled out onto Eighth Avenue and Woodrow Wilson Park, now known as Linn Park.

The hope built up that evening would not last. Ten years later, Municipal Auditorium played host to another event. Numerous Southern politicians and industrialists opposed New Deal reforms that had been endorsed by the Southern Conference. They saw a civil-rights plank adopted by delegates to the 1948 Democratic Party Convention as the last straw.

They gathered in Birmingham to form the States' Rights Party (also known as Dixiecrats) in defense of white supremacy, nominating South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for president and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright for vice president. Journalists dubbed the event the Dixiecrat Revolt.

"Although the third party lost in the national election, it set the stage for the massive resistance movement against desegregation that followed the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision."

Fallout from the Dixiecrat Revolt continues today. Many Dixiecrats, no longer feeling welcome in the Democratic Party, found a home in the Republican party. Republicans began to make inroads in the South with Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign. And that picked up major steam when Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign with a speech in Philadelphia, MS, highlighting the theme of "states' rights."

In fact, that speech was the subject of a recent intramural debate among columnists at The New York Times. Paul Krugman has argued that Republicans continue to use racially tinged language to their electoral advantage today.

Eskew says Boutwell Auditorium should be renovated for ongoing public use. If it is given to the art museum, he suggests that the auditorium be adapted into exhibit space, following the example of the Tate Museum in England.

I've lived in Birmingham for almost 30 years, and Eskew certainly educated me on Boutwell's history. I've been to the auditorium for many events (Jackson Browne, 1986, two thumbs up!), but had no idea about the building's role in shaping events in the South--and the nation--over the past 70-plus years.

A Schnauzer Spy Story, Part IV

Let's return to our "Schnauzer Spy Story." In our previous installments, we have shown how strange events in your life could be connected to abuse of our telecommunications system by people in positions of public trust. As I noted earlier, I don't have all of the facts on this subject nailed down yet, so I have written about it in a somewhat theoretical sense--asking the reader to put himself in my shoes. Events very similar to the ones described here actually took place with my wife and me. This will be the final installment, for now, and it shows just how strange things can get when you think someone might be prying into your personal business.

----------------------------------------

Now that you know a judge has the power to easily track your telephone communications, you decide to take some special precautions regarding your wife's job search. You learn about communications methods that are very difficult to track, and your wife begins to use them.

In less than three weeks, she has a job offer from a reputable organization. Until you altered your communications methods, she had searched fruitlessly for a job for almost three years. This makes you grow even more suspicious about possible traces of some sort on your phones.

Even though your wife finally has a job, you quickly discover the cloud of possible surveillance has not passed.

Perhaps you relax a little once your wife has a job offer. Or perhaps you just don't realize the extent to which powerful people will go to track your communications. Anyway, you make a mistake.

Your wife is at her new employer one day, filling out some papers prior to beginning work. She calls once from one of her employer's phones to your office phone.

A few days later, your wife is told that the job offer is no longer on the table, even though she had accepted it and was to begin work any day. Your wife is stunned. When she asks for an explanation, she gets generalities like "we didn't think it was going to work out" and "we didn't think it would be a good fit."

Strangely, the woman who gives your wife this distressing news says the company will pay her two weeks salary. Amidst your anger and suspicion, you wonder, "Why would they pay two weeks' salary? Is this a form of hush money, which is supposed to keep you and your wife from asking questions?"

You ask yourself another pretty obvious question: Is somebody tracking calls to or from your office phone? Did your wife's call to your office phone cost her a job?

From your research on phone surveillance, you know that anyone with connections to a judge could do this easily.

Meanwhile, your wife wants answers. She writes a letter to the woman who had offered the job, and taken it away, asking for a legitimate explanation. Your wife also explains about your involvement with a legal case and the possibility that someone had tracked your communication and intentionally taken steps to cost your wife a job.

The company does not respond, but your wife soon hears from their attorney. Your wife notes options that would allow her under the law to conduct discovery in an effort to determine whether she was harmed--both criminally and civilly--by these recent events. (This option is called Rule 27. It allows a party to conduct discovery prior to filing a claim, essentially to discover whether the party truly has a claim or not.) The lawyer makes it clear that the company does not want to get into a legal proceeding over the matter. So your wife says, "Fine, I'd like to see records of ingoing and outgoing phone calls to the company from the time I applied and was interviewed and offered a job till the time I was told I did not have a job."

These records, your wife knows, would reveal the phone numbers of anyone who, having tracked her phone communication, might have followed up with the a call to the company, discouraging them from hiring her.

The attorney doesn't seem at all interested in providing this information. She says that under Alabama law, the employer doesn't have to offer an explanation for its actions. The attorney, who once had stated that she would like to see the matter resolved short of a courtroom, now seems mainly interested in stonewalling.

Of course, it's not just you and your wife who should be interested in getting to the bottom of the situation. If someone called the company and said something false and defamatory about your wife, it cost the company a very good employee, one who probably would have worked for them for years. It cost them an employee who had already proven she was the best candidate for the job.

What if someone, seemingly acting in an official capacity, called the company and said something false and defamatory about your wife, causing the company to have second thoughts about hiring her? If that happened, you, your wife, and the company were victims of wire fraud--a federal crime. Your wife was the victim of slander, a civil wrong.

The lawyer and company, however, clearly are not interested in discovering the truth. They just want to duck and cover, which makes you think even more that someone in a powerful position got to them in an unlawful way.

Another question comes to your mind: Does this company have a history of treating employees and would-be employees this way? If so, you figure it would have a number of lawsuits filed against it in federal court. So you check court records and find only one employment lawsuit against the company, and that was about 12 years earlier, a race-discrimination case--and race is not a factor with your wife, who is white.

The company evidently does not have a history of acting the way it has acted toward your wife. So you are left to ask: Why is it acting this way now?

Imagine that all of this has happened to you and your wife. What would you think had happened? What would you do about it?

Birmingham and the Great Bush Catastrophe

We recently posted about a little-known government official who made a report that shows with stark clarity the catastrophic nature of the George W. Bush administration.

The official's name is David M. Walker, who as U.S. comptroller general is the nation's top budget auditor and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). He came to our attention through a post by Scott Horton on his No Comment blog at Harper's.org.

It turns out that David Walker is a native of Birmingham, and he was in town recently to speak at the Birmingham Rotary Club. Walker evidently is not one to pull punches, and he did not pull any for his Alabama audience, which almost certainly included a goodly number of loyal Bushies.

In fact, at the Birmingham Rotary Club, I would say the audience was probably almost all loyal Bushies. Did they throw dinner rolls at Walker upon hearing his honest appraisal of Dubya's economic performance? Let's hope not.

The headline on the story--"GAO chief warns of financial disaster"--pretty much says it all.

"Within the next five years, if nothing is done, this country faces a serious economic catastrophe because it is addicted to debt," Walker said.

I have a feeling The Birmingham News put a conservative spin on Walker's presentation.

According to the News' account, Walker said the growing crisis is driven by growth of government spending, entitlement programs, and a lack of political will to solve the problem.

No mention of the effects of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or the war in Iraq, policies supported by President George W. Bush. Notice the difference between the News' account and that of Scott Horton from an earlier Walker speech.

To its credit, the News did follow up today with a somewhat more well-rounded editorial on Walker's message. But the paper still goes out of its way to avoid mentioning any blame that Bush, or a Congress that was controlled by Republicans for most of his tenure, might deserve for his role in our fiscal crisis.

Playing Loose with Prosecutorial Ethics

The case of Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff continues to present a stunning example of a warped Bush Justice Department. And it also shows the longstanding ties between the Bush DOJ and state politics in Alabama.

Just how blatant is the behavior of loyal Bushies in the Goff case? According to a nationally prominent attorney and legal journalist, it would justify the removal from office of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.

Could that actually happen? More on that in a moment. But first, let's look at the latest on the Goff case itself.

One of Goff's attorneys has asked for a second time that the entire U.S. Attorney's Office in Montgomery be removed from an investigation of the Alabama insurance executive.

Thomas T. Gallion III, in a letter last week to Associate Deputy U.S. Attorney General David Margolis, said denial of the original request was without merit.

"It is apparent, in that you responded in only a few days, that you did little if any investigation into this most serious matter," Gallion wrote. Gallion asked Margolis to send an independent investigator to Montgomery to look into the circumstances surrounding the federal investigation of Goff.

Goff filed a lawsuit in March 2007 against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others with strong Republican ties, alleging they engaged in a conspiracy to ruin one of his insurance businesses. Once Goff had filed the lawsuit, Leura Canary's office evidently made Goff the target of a grand-jury investigation.

Gallion contends that the investigation is in retaliation for Goff's lawsuit, and he asked that Canary and her entire staff recuse themselves from the investigation. Canary stepped aside, but chief prosecutor Louis Franklin and other members of her staff will continue to press the investigation.

A Montgomery County circuit judge has set a hearing for February 5 to review motions in Goff's lawsuit.

Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, says Margolis, the most senior career employee in the Department of Justice (DOJ), has a reputation for having high ethical standards. But Horton says the DOJ's handling of the Goff matter indicates Margolis' ethical standards might have been lowered.

Horton shared Margolis' original denial of the recusal request with several legal ethicists. All of them, including Georgetown University's David Luban, said the analysis was "dead wrong."

"Two facts or allegations stand out in this case," Luban said. "First, Goff's testimony in his lawsuit against the governor and lieutenant governor could implicate Leura Canary's husband. Second, she launched the criminal investigation of Goff after he filed the lawsuit against her husband's political cronies. . . . It looks as if the Justice Department simply blew off the allegations. And it also blew off Goff's request that not only Leura Canary, but other lawyers in the office she heads, should be disqualified from the Goff case."

Horton says federal guidelines require that a U.S. attorney from a different district be appointed and an outside staff brought in to handle the investigation. But that, of course, has not happened.
And then Horton cuts to the heart of the matter, comparing Canary's possible ethics violations to that alleged against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. "If Gallion's allegations are true, Leura Canary violated the ethics standard and the statutory standard (28 U.S. Code 528). . . . The remedy is crystal clear. The statute states 'a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.' Leura Canary should have tendered her resignation or should have been forcibly removed from office."

Horton says both the Siegelman and Canary matters "involve ethics infractions which rise as alleged to the level of crimes, and both play on the public perception of conduct which the official actor insists is entirely innocent." The DOJ, of course, pursued the Siegelman case with considerable gusto while seemingly brushing off the Canary case.

"What we are seeing is two flavors of justice: one for the political opposition, and one for the 'home team,' as Ms. Canary would say," Horton writes. "This reflects the justice standards of a banana republic."

Horton is describing a mindset that is at the very heart of this blog. In my Legal Schnauzer case, Republican state judges repeatedly were required by law to take certain action. But they refused to do it, making numerous unlawful rulings in order to favor someone who was a member of the "home team."

The quaint concepts of "due process" and "equal protection," found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, used to mean something--particularly to the avowed "patriots" on the political right. But Horton shows just how far the modern GOP has drifted from its principles.

Long before I started this blog, I can remember my wife and I discussing our bizarre experiences at the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana. At first, when rulings in inexplicably went against us, it just seemed peculiar. But once I started educating myself on the law and realized that I was witnessing judicial corruption in an up-close-and-personal way, the whole experience made me think I was in a third-world country. In fact, I can remember telling my wife, "Every time we go to Columbiana, I feel like we are visiting a banana republic."

And now we have a major figure in legal journalism using almost identical language to describe corruption that goes way beyond my little case in Shelby County Circuit Court. Horton, of course, is talking about our entire U.S. Justice Department.

How profound is it to have a Columbia University law professor refer to the U.S. Justice Department operating with the standards of a banana republic? And he presents considerable facts and law to back it up?

It's hard to imagine a more profound statement for the future of our country. And yet I haven't heard a presidential candidate from either party even mention the Department of Justice scandal and the fact that we currently have true political prisoners in the US of A.

We certainly can understand why Republican candidates do not mention it. But will someone on the Democratic side ever speak up?

Alabama Republican Gets Nailed

Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White must be the wrong kind of Republican. He somehow managed to get prosecuted and convicted on bribery charges brought by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). That's a real dog-bites-man story.

The jury verdict came Friday in a case where White was accused of taking thousands of dollars in bribes from a company competing for county sewer business.

The case had a number of interesting connections to the Don Siegelman case:

* White's prosecution was brought by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Martin, of course brought the first prosecution against Siegelman, the one that was tossed out of court.

* The judge in the White case was U.W. Clemon, the judge who tossed the first Siegelman case.

* Prosecutors said Clemon was not impartial when he dismissed the Siegelman case. Clemon dismissed two of the charges in the White case, and there is no indication that prosecutors complained much at all.

* The White case was moved from Birmingham to Montgomery when Clemon voiced concerns about White's ability to get a fair trial in Birmingham because of previous convictions of other county officials--all Democrats--in sewer-related cases. Siegelman, of course, had his first case dismissed in Birmingham and was convicted in a second trial, on a different set of charges, in Montgomery.

Based on my research, this appears to be the first instance of Alice Martin pursuing corruption charges against a Republican public official. Was the White case brought as a shield against charges of selective prosecution? Or was White just not part of the Rove/Riley/Canary cabal that seems to run Alabama these days?

The Suffering of a Political Prisoner

Some distressing news about a political prisoner in the United States. Former Mississippi state judge Wes Teel, one of three men wrongly convicted in the Paul Minor case, has suffered a heart attack while in federal prison in Atlanta.

I received a note today from Teel's friend, Simone Simone. She said that Teel had a heart attack on the evening of January 1. He had reported to federal prison on December 27.

Teel had triple-bypass surgery and appears to be doing well. Simone reports that Teel's cholesterol and blood-pressure levels were good, causing his doctors to think the heart attack was caused by stress.

Here is Simone's complete report:

Wes Teel had a heart attack the night of January 1st at the prison camp in Atlanta. Even though he arrived there and self-reported on 12/27/07, he had not yet been duly processed and had not undergone the orientation. Kind inmates had loaned him a pillow and other necessities on his first night because he was not given any of his own. He didn't feel well during the evening and started feeling nauseated. Pain developed in his neck and jaw. At first he thought it was his normal TMJ for which he is treated but had not been issued medication due to lack of processing. However, when the pain increased and radiated down his left arm, he reported to the unit clerk who immediately called an ambulance. The paramedics administered sublingual nitro tablets which eased the pain. Subsequently, triple by-pass surgery was performed and he seems to be doing well except for the resulting weakness and post-surgical pain. There is more blockage but plans are not yet clear about the treatment. His doctors stated that his blood pressure is low, and his cholesterol count was only slightly elevated. They believe his heart attack was brought on by stress. His wife was not informed of the heart attack and surgery until today.

What Happened to Court Reporter?

Jimmy Dickens is making big news in Alabama these days. But most Alabamians probably cannot place the name.

I couldn't place it until I did a little research the other day. Turns out Jimmy Dickens probably is making more news in death than he ever did in life.

The ongoing imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman remains a major story in Alabama. And it has become a central focus in the unfolding national story of a Bush Justice Department that appears to have gone wildly off track.

Attention has focused in recent days on the trial transcript--or rather the lack thereof--in the Siegelman case. Even the Montgomery Advertiser pulled its head out of the sand long enough to opine that Siegelman should be released pending appeal--if for no other reason than that the trial transcript still is not completed.

Actually, there are numerous reasons that Siegelman should be released pending appeal, going way beyond the absent trial transcript. But that would require taking a close and critical look at Judge Mark Fuller's recent memorandum opinion, the one saying Siegelman should remain in prison. The mainstream Alabama press is not about to scrutinize Fuller's amateurish handiwork. So the mainstreamers have focused on the transcript.

And that is where Jimmy Dickens comes in.

Recent press reports have noted that one reason for the transcript delay was the death of the original court reporter in the Siegelman case. Most of the recent stories I've seen have not mentioned the court reporter's name.

His name was Jimmy Dickens. And why has he posthumously become such a news item? Well, the timeline in the Siegelman case has gone from ridiculous to absurd.

Siegelman was convicted on June 29, 2006. He was sentenced and immediately sent to federal prison on June 26, 2007. Here it is January 10, 2008, and we still have no trial transcript. And Siegelman's attorneys cannot prepare an appeal without a transcript.

Thanks to Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, we know that it is the trial judge's responsibility to ensure that a transcript is completed in a timely fashion. The trial judge, of course, was Mark Fuller. But Alabama's mainstream press evidently would rather blame a dead man than turn a white-hot spotlight on Judge Fuller.

And that's how Jimmy Dickens, God rest his soul, came to be a major news item.

All of which raises this question: Who was Jimmy Dickens and how did he die?

From doing some research on the Web, I could find out very little about Mr. Dickens, who was 59 at the time of his death.

Here is an obituary from the August 26, 2007, issue of the Montgomery Advertiser. Mr. Dickens died on August 24. No indication as to cause of death. Certainly sounds like he was a fine fellow--an Air Force veteran, a Methodist, a husband, a father to three sons, a grandfather to six. One of his sons evidently is a physician.

Here is a photo from 2005 when Mr. Dickens probably was 57 years old. He is second from left, immediately to Mark Fuller's left. He and the judge appear to be on good terms. Mr. Dickens looks hale and hearty at this point.

Thinking about Mr. Dickens brought a number of questions to mind:

* If Mr. Dickens became seriously ill at some point from June 2006 until August 2007, a span of 14 months, why didn't Fuller get another court reporter going on the transcript?

* If Mr. Dickens had become seriously ill during that time, you would think that would be a news story worth reporting. After all, he was court reporter for one of the biggest trials in Alabama history. But I've seen no evidence that it was reported.

* If Dickens died unexpectedly in August 2007, why didn't he already have the transcript completed? I don't pretend to be an expert on the work of court reporters, but couldn't a transcript be completed in 14 months? Does it usually take longer than that?

I posed some of these questions to a source of mine in the legal community, and I received some interesting answers. Turns out the production of a trial transcript can be more complex than the average layperson might imagine. It's a process filled with many variables. We will take a look at some of those variables in an upcoming post.

As for the Siegelman case, we know the new court reporter recently received an extension of time to complete the transcript. It will be at least another two months or so before the transcript is completed.

That means Jimmy Dickens will remain in the news for a while.

Mark Fuller: Naked in the Town Square

A historic moment in American journalism might have occurred in recent days.

I don't think an unindicted judge, either federal or state, ever has been laid bare quite the way U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller was last night in a post by Scott Horton, of Harper's.org.

Based on my research, it appears that judicial corruption almost always comes to light only when government authorities initiate investigations. As a general rule, American journalists give judges a huge, unwarranted free pass. A rare exception I am aware of came in 2006 with a major investigation by the Los Angeles Times of judges in Las Vegas.

But Horton hardly gives Fuller a free pass. In fact, he leaves the federal judge--who oversaw the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman--wearing little more than a fig leaf.

We have no evidence that Fuller is under investigation for his handling of the Siegelman case. And as long as Bushies run the Justice Department, Fuller almost certainly will not be investigated. But that doesn't keep Horton from taking a fillet knife to Fuller's carcass and opening him up for all to see.

Here at Legal Schnauzer, we like to think we've played some role in Fuller's exposure. In a series of recent posts, we have shown that Fuller's legal reasoning has more holes than the Miami Dolphins' defensive line. Specifically, we have focused on Fuller's 30-page memorandum opinion that is designed to show why Siegelman should remain in prison pending appeal. But we show that Fuller does just the opposite: The judge's own words reveal clear substantial questions of law and fact that require that Siegelman be freed while his appeal unfolds.

It's reassuring to have someone of Horton's stature join us in taking an extremely dim view of Fuller's handiwork. But Horton does more than that. He adds important context and analysis to the matter. And his investigative work adds new details that put Fuller in an especially unflattering light.

Some highlights from Horton's latest:

* "[The] opinion, which I have examined and shared with several of my lawyer and legal academic colleagues, is farcical, the sort of thing that any judge would be ashamed to allow to see the light of day. . . . It reflects a third-rate legal mind. . . . It fails to provide any meaningful explanation for his decision. The weakness of this document serves further to underscore the now pervasive suspicions of improper motive."

* On the investigative front, Horton reveals intriguing ties between Fuller, the Bush administration, and Alabama's current governor, Republican Bob Riley. You might recall that the day after Siegelman was sentenced, Riley canceled an engagement in Alabama and rushed off to Washington. His explanation? He had to meet with Air Force officials in order to promote the interests of Alabama companies seeking contracts. Horton reports that this explanation was true. And who was to benefit from Riley's efforts. Well, one of the companies pushing at that time for a lucrative contract was Doss Aviation, which is owned by Judge Mark Fuller. Shortly after that, Fuller reports, the Bush administration made a decision that helped Judge Fuller become a very wealthy man--it took steps that led to the Air Force awarding an $18.1 million contract to Doss Aviation.

* And how did Fuller come to be in charge of Doss Aviation? "How he and his family came to operate and then control Doss is, I am told, a fascinating story," Horton writes, "and it has a long track record of extremely murky dealings through the seventies." Hmmm, sounds like more might be coming on that.

* Horton concludes by issuing a call to action: "Congress has the duty to expose misconduct by government actors and misbehaving judges. Ultimately that includes the right to remove them from their sinecures. . . . Congress needs to issue subpoenas requiring the offending parties to appear and submit to questions under oath. It's time to bring this farce to an end and hold those who have dragged our justice system through the mud to account for their misconduct."

I couldn't agree more. But I would take it a step further. At one point, in reference to the Siegelman matter, Horton writes, "The stench from this case just couldn't get any stronger."

Horton is correct. But let's not forget the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, another case involving a blatantly corrupt federal judge. And it has resulted in three innocent men languishing in prison.

And let's remember that the stench does not end with federal courts. Alabama's state courts also emit noxious odors. The recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling overturning a multibillion-dollar verdict against oil giant ExxonMobil is just the most recent example of wrongdoing in our state courts.

My sources tell me they are aware of numerous cases, many involving regular folks, where Alabama's appellate courts allow clearly unlawful trial-court judgments to stand. And how do the appellate courts accomplish this? By abusing the state's no-opinion confirmance rule. That allows them to confirm an unlawful lower-court ruling without issuing an opinion, effectively sweeping judicial corruption under the rug.

I know for sure of one state-court case--mine--where trial and appellate judges have behaved in ways that are straight from the Mark Fuller school. And like Scott Horton, I'm sharpening my fillet knife to lay them bare in the public square.

Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex

Will Scrushy Ruling Help Siegelman?
A federal appeals court has denied Richard Scrushy's release from prison on appeal bond, finding that Scrushy is a flight risk. Associated Press reporter Bob Johnson wonders if this ruling could help Scrushy's codefendant, Don Siegelman.

Johnson reports that even U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller has stated in court filings that Siegelman is not a flight risk. "I do think it should be encouraging for Siegelman that there has not been a question of him being a flight risk," says University of Alabama political scientist William Stewart. "He's obviously got to have hope."

What should give Siegelman more hope than anything else is Fuller's own language, found in his 30-page memorandum opinion stating that Siegelman, like Scrushy, should be denied appeal bond. We have shown in a series of posts that Fuller's opinion actually provides clear evidence of substantial questions of fact and law, requiring that Siegelman be released.

How bad is Fuller's memorandum. Harper's Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University, calls it "farcical, the sort of thing that any judge would be ashamed to allow to see the light of day."

An Alabama Newspaper Shows Some Spine!
Try not to faint, but a newspaper in one of Alabama's major cities actually has shown some guts, common sense, and at least a faint grasp of justice issues.

The Montgomery Advertiser, which has hardly distinguished itself in its (lack of) coverage of Bush Justice Department shenanigans in Alabama, calls for former Governor Don Siegelman to be released pending appeal.

The Advertiser bases its finding on the court's outrageous delays in the development of a trial transcript.

The newspaper doesn't go nearly far enough. It should expose the stunningly weak legal reasoning in Judge Mark Fuller's recent opinion claiming Siegelman should remain in prison. But we'll take anything we can get from Alabama's pitiful big-city newspapers. And the Advertiser deserves kudos for, finally, doing something right.

ExxonMobil: Calling a Fraud a Fraud
Jim Martin, former commissioner of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, minces no words when it comes to discussing the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ruling to overturn a $3.6 billion jury verdict against oil giant ExxonMobil.

Martin was commissioner when ExxonMobil was caught shortchanging the state on natural-gas royalties. "This was a case where Exxon cheated the State of Alabama and believed it could get away with intentional wrongdoing," Martin told Phillip Rawls of Associated Press.

Martin did not stop there. "When a powerful and politically influential corporate giant can get away with what Exxon did to the citizens of our state, it's truly a sad day for Alabama," he said. "This wasn't just a case where the terms of a contract were not lived up to--it was outright fraud committed at the highest levels of the corporate structure of Exxon. This was a total miscarriage of justice. I was shocked at what the Supreme Court did in this case."

What's Up With Party Switcher?
You have to wonder what is going on inside the cranium of Alabama State Senator Jimmy Holley, who evidently is planning to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

Let's review some of the Republican Party's recent achievements:

* A GOP president has led us into a wretched war on false pretenses;

* A GOP-led Justice Department is ridden with scandal and has introduced Americans to the concept of political prisoners;

* A GOP administration is running up massive deficits and leading us almost certainly into a recession;

* Prices at the gas pump are skyrocketing under a GOP administration;

* Our GOP-controlled Alabama Supreme Court recently screwed the state out of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against oil giant ExxonMobil.

* Our GOP governor evidently violated state campaign-finance laws, routinely handed out state contracts to political cronies, gave millions of state dollars to contributors in Huntsville for a biotech project that duplicates what the state already has at UAB--and oh yes, evidence is strong that our GOP governor won the office with the help of tainted money from convicted felons and possible electronic vote manipulation.

So Senator Holley, tell us again why switching parties makes sense at this time. Are folks in your district around Elba so riddled with race-based fears that they are willing to overlook all of the foibles of the GOP on both the state and national stages? You must think so.

Fuller, Bush Connected to Drug Trade?

Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill says he finds it increasingly easy to believe stories that have been circulating for a while that a number of conservatives, including U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and George H.W. Bush, have been involved in the drug trade.

Hill references a story by investigative reporter Wayne Masden stating that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was targeted because he was aware of Fuller's involvement in drug trafficking. The Masden report also says the Bush family was involved in drug trafficking.

Does this sound ridiculous? Not to Hill.

He has worked as a private investigator and paralegal, helping to defend a number of drug addicts and small-time dealers. The same names keep coming up, Hill reports, when these defendants tell him who is behind the illicit drug trade. And the names are the same regardless of what Alabama county or city Hill is working in.

And Justice for All?

Readers have sent a number of interesting justice-related stories recently. Let's take a look:

Suppression of Prosecution in Wisconsin?
The issue of selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) so far has focused on cases where individuals are prosecuted for apparently political reasons. But the flip side of that--cases where individuals are not prosecuted for political reasons--has received far less attention.

But a possible case of such "suppression of prosecution" is receiving attention in Wisconsin.

The case involves Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler, who presided over cases as a circuit judge where she had a conflict of interest. A three-judge panel recommended that Ziegler, a Republican, received a reprimand for handling at least 11 cases involving a bank at which her husband served on the board of directors. The reprimand is the least severe punishment Ziegler could have received.

The recommendation was criticized by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which had filed a complaint against Ziegler. "When a reprimand--at best--is standard discipline for judges who run afoul of ethics rules, the bar has been set too low," said Mike McCabe, executive director of the Democracy Campaign. "In fact, the bar couldn't get any lower without digging a trench."

News accounts I've seen have not indicated how Ziegler ruled in cases involving West Bend Savings Bank. But it appears that she ruled in the bank's favor. It's possible that, under the facts and the law in each case, she should have ruled in the bank's favor. But news accounts evidently have not explored that side of the story.

Reports do say that the three-judge panel found that Ziegler "didn't personally benefit" from her decisions in the cases. (That language should be of interest to Don Siegelman supporters.)

And here's a key question: Was there any evidence of possible criminal acts--bribery or honest-services mail fraud? Did the Bush DOJ even look into such a possibility when the target was a prominent Republican?

A Democrat Beats the Rap
Carl Marlinga, former prosecutor in Macomb County, Michigan, might have been one of the first Democrats to be targeted by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, he is one of the few Democrats to clearly beat the rap.

Marlinga faced up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for allegedly swapping prosecutorial favors in two rape cases for contributions to his failed 2002 congressional campaign. He was charged with bribery, honest-services mail fraud, making false statements to the Federal Elections Commission, and exceeding campaign-contribution limits.

A popular Democrat who had served as county prosecutor for 20 years, Marlinga was forced to step down after an indictment was issued in April 2004. But in September 2006, a federal jury found him not guilty on all charges.

Here is a fascinating point about the Marlinga case: He testified in his own defense. That did not occur in the Don Siegelman (Alabama) or the Paul Minor (Mississippi) cases.

"We all felt that it was the greatest thing that Carl Marlinga got on the stand," juror Sue Kramer said. "You could get a real sense of who he is and what was in his heart."

Mark Kriger and N.C. Deday LaRene served as Marlinga's defense attorneys.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure there are many good reasons that defense attorneys often instruct defendants not to take the stand. But I suspect many jurors feel like Ms. Kramer: If the defendant does not stand up for himself, he appears at least a little guilty.

Everything I've seen indicates that Siegelman and Minor had excellent attorneys. But you wonder if the defendants could have overcome everything stacked against them, including corrupt judges, if they had spoken directly to the jurors.

Mobile Register Puckers Up

The laziness and intellectual dishonesty of the Mobile Press-Register is on bold display today.

In an editorial titled "Siegelman's Jailing Backed by Legal Logic," the Register intones that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller "had good reasons for not letting former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman out of prison on bond pending appeal of his June 2006 conviction on corruption-related charges."

A more fitting headline would have been: "Siegelman's Jailing Lacks Legal Logic."

Actually, it's not a matter of logic. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals did not ask Fuller for any logic to explain his decision to keep Siegelman in prison pending appeal. The 11th Circuit asked Fuller to provide some facts and law that support his decision. At this task, Fuller failed utterly.

But when it comes to receiving the Register's big, fat kiss on his nice judicial fanny, Fuller succeeds spectacularly.

In fact, the Register's editorial writer was so busy puckering up that he or she could not bother to do the slightest homework.

Consider this paragraph:

"In his detailed statement, the judge pointed out that the prosecution didn't have to prove a quid pro quo between Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, as both men contend. Judge Fuller said the statute under which the men were convicted does not require prosecutors to prove there was a joint understanding that the money was changing hands in return for a specific benefit."

The writer obviously has no clue about federal law. Federal statutes are notoriously broad, and one almost always must dig into the case law to understand what courts have found to be the specifics of a particular crime. And one does not have to dig far into 11th Circuit case law, to see that the Register's statement above is wrong.

We have shown that long-established 11 th Circuit precedent has held that a quid pro quo is required for a conviction on bribery. The most recent example is a 2007 case called U.S. v. McCarter. Try looking it up, Register folks. It's not that hard.

And then get a load of this final paragraph:

"In the meantime, the public can rest assured that Judge Fuller made a logical decision when he sent Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy directly to prison."

What the public actually can rest assured of is that the Register is trying to provide cover for a corrupt judge and a sham prosecution.

How many Alabamians will see through the Register's morally bankrupt act?

Fuller Makes Siegelman's Case for Him

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman probably thought U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller never would do him a favor. But Fuller has inadvertently done just that.

The point of Fuller's recent 30-page memorandum opinion was supposed to be that Siegelman should remain in federal prison pending appeal. But the opinion does just the opposite. In fact, Fuller actually makes Siegelman's case for him--showing that, under the law and the facts, Siegelman must be released from prison pending appeal.

How could a federal judge, someone you assume to be rather intelligent, make such a gaffe? My only explanation is this: People who are attempting to cover up wrongdoing are prone to step in doo-doo. And if you actually read Fuller's opinion with a somewhat critical eye, it becomes clear that the judge has stepped in doo-doo big time with this one.

And that makes me think he is doing his darnedest to cover up a sham of a prosecution.

With two recent posts, we have shown that Fuller's own memo proves that Siegelman, by law, should be released from prison pending appeal. And it's not even a close call.

Fuller worked up a 30-page memo in an apparent effort to make this look like a complicated matter. Well, it isn't. All you need to do is read roughly three pages of his opinion, conduct some quick legal research and . . . presto, you see that Judge Mark Fuller is blowing some serious smoke.

Here's an easy way to sum it up:

* The key question is: Does the appeal raise a substantial question of law or fact that, if found in the defendant's favor, would result in reversal or an order for a new trial.

* Fuller's own words show there is a substantial question of law on both key charges--federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud.

* On bribery, Fuller indicates there is some question whether 11th Circuit law requires a quid pro quo, a "something-for-something" arrangement, in order to have a conviction. And as we have shown from a 2007 case--U.S. v. McCarter, 219 Fed. Appx. 921--there is no question about it. The language in McCarter is clear: "To prove a defendant is guilty of bribery, the government must prove there was a quid pro quo--a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act." And McCarter is based on a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision, so its grounded in pretty solid stuff. So there you have it: The judge's own words show there is a question of law that should be decided in Siegelman's favor. Score: Siegelman 1, Fuller 0.

* On honest-services mail fraud, Fuller indicates that he has no clue what he is talking about. He states that there is some question whether a quid pro quo is required for a mail-fraud conviction. And as we have shown, a quid pro quo has nothing to do with mail fraud. It is not remotely an element of the crime. Once again, the judge's own words show there is a question of law that should be decided in Siegelman's favor. Score: Siegelman 2, Fuller 0.

* As for questions of fact, all facts are in question because there is no transcript of the case--and there won't be one for at least another two months. Fuller spends almost 16 pages of his memo reciting his version of facts in the case. But those are not facts, in a legal sense, at all. And one can only wonder what dark crevice he pulled them from. Score: Siegelman 3, Fuller 0.

I would say Siegelman is pitching a shut out, and Fuller is toast.

Does this mean the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will be releasing Siegelman from prison any moment? Of course not. That court is made up of judges, and the whole point of this blog is to show that judges often are the last people you want to trust with the law. And for all I know, the 11th Circuit might consist of justices whose respect for the law may be no greater than Fuller's.

But if the law still means anything in the Age of Rove--and that's a mighty big if--Don Siegelman should be out of prison pretty darn soon.

Mark Fuller's own words prove it.

Responding to "Dixie" Readers

Thanks to the folks at Daily Dixie for linking to our original post about U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller's memorandum opinion, outlining his reasons for denying release pending appeal in the Don Siegelman case.

The post generated a fair number of comments from Dixie readers, and I wanted to respond to a point that was raised several times. In fact, I've seen this point raised a number of places, regarding a number of criminal trials--and it has grown into the kind of myth that needs to be debunked.

The argument goes something like this: If a jury convicted someone of an offense, then the conviction must be correct and the trial must have been fair under the law.

In fact, let's just examine the way a Daily Dixie reader phrased it:

"I'm still waiting for one of them (Siegelman supporters) to tell us about how (Karl) Rove manipulated the jury. Oh, hold on. They never mention the jury. It's better to make it sound like some judge convicted Don (Siegelman) on his own. It doesn't sound so good to admit that Don was convicted on multiple charges by an uncorrupted jury of his peers."

If you ever have been a party in a jury trial--and I, unfortunately, have been (in a civil matter)--you know how the judge controls things, even though a "jury of your peers" supposedly makes the final decision.

In fact, we have done a number of posts showing how U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate unlawfully manipulated the facts and the law in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Our most recent post regarding Wingate can be found here.

Wingate used two critical tools at the judge's disposal to ensure the desired result in the Minor case: He made unlawful rulings regarding expert witnesses, rulings that essentially prevented the defendants from putting on a defense. And he gave unlawful jury instructions on the two key charges--bribery and honest-services mail fraud (the same two key charges that were present in the Siegelman case).

As I noted in my most recent post on Wingate, he not only did not get the law right in his jury instructions, he did not even get the right kind of law right. He actually based the jury instruction in a federal bribery case on Mississippi state law.

Many of you might have heard a variation of this quote about the limitations of computers: You put junk in, you get junk out.

Juries have the same limitations: If the judge puts junk rulings and junk instructions in, you are likely to get junk for a jury verdict. And it's not just "junk" we are talking about. We are talking about an "unlawful" verdict, one that can send innocent people to prison.

That unquestionably happened in the Minor case. And the evidence strongly suggests it happened in the Siegelman case, too. It's hard to say for sure in the Siegelman matter because no one has access to a trial transcript and probably won't for at least another two months.

The Daily Dixie reader's notion of a pure, unadulterated, and "uncorrupted" jury is not always a reality. That does not mean the jurors themselves are corrupt--although I have little doubt that has happened in some cases. But it certainly means that jurors can be unwittingly corrupted by the judge.

Jurors are lay people assigned an extremely important task. But as regular folks, they have little or no knowledge of the law that is relevant to a particular case. In that sense, any lay person serving on a jury (me included) is kind of like a computer--we're just a dumb box that can only output good information if someone inputs good data.

That someone who is supposed to input good data is a judge. And in the Age of Rove, we are increasingly seeing evidence that certain Republican judges, in both federal and state courts, intentionally input bad data in hopes of getting a politically motivated and lawfully flawed result.

In fact, I have a follow up to my original post about Fuller's memorandum opinion. This post shows the extremely shaky legal footing upon which Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy are being kept in prison pending their appeals.

Rechecking the Mark Fuller Shuffle

More thoughts on the memorandum opinion by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, explaining his reasons for denying Don Siegelman's motion for release pending appeal. The more you study Fuller's memorandum, the more you understand why he put off writing it for so long. Fuller is like a fifth grader who did not do his homework, and now is having to explain that to his teacher. As you will see, Fuller's written explanation has holes large enough to drive a Peterbilt through:

* It's impossible to conduct a thorough analysis of Fuller's opinion without access to a trial transcript. We are forced to accept Fuller's version of events because we have no transcript to check against the judge's opinion. In fact, news comes today that the court reporter has been granted a second extension, until March 31, to complete the transcript. So that's almost another two months that Siegelman and Richard Scrushy must remain in prison because of the court's incompetence. And who is responsible for ensuring that a transcript is completed in a timely fashion? According to Scott Horton, of Harper's, it's Fuller himself.

* Here's a question for you: If no one has access to a transcript, how did Fuller manage to complete his opinion released this week? More than half of the 30 pages consist of his recitation of events in the trial. How did he come up with those events if he doesn't have a transcript? Does he have a spectacular memory? If his memory is so spectacular, why could he not remember that he is responsible for ensuring that a trial transcript is prepared in a timely manner? And if more than half of Fuller's opinion is based simply on his memory of events, how much stock should we put in it?

* We noted in our previous post on this subject, that only 14 pages of Fuller's 30-page opinion dealt with the questions posed by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Of those 14 pages, almost six deal with the obstruction of justice charge against Siegelman. I've stated here many times that I am not a lawyer. But based on my legal research, obstruction of justice appears to be what I would call a "piggyback" charge in criminal law. In that regard, it seems to be similar to a charge of conspiracy. By definition, conspiracy cannot be charged without other charges being involved. And it seems that obstruction of justice, in the vast majority of cases, would only "ride along" with other, more fundamental, charges. My point is this: I don't think the jury in the Siegelman case would have gone for a guilty verdict on the obstruction of justice charge without also making a guilty finding on at least one of the more fundamental charges. For that reason, the obstruction of justice charge is somewhat extraneous, so I won't spend much time on Fuller's statements about that.

* The two fundamental charges in the Siegelman case were federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud. And interestingly, Fuller uses barely two pages to address the two most important issues in the trial--that's two pages out of a 30-page memorandum. The memorandum is available here. Fuller's discussion of these critical subjects begins in the middle of page 27 and runs to the middle of page 29. Makes you think he doesn't want to talk about them much.

* And here is why Fuller probably does not want to talk much about federal-funds bribery or honest-services mail fraud. A close reading of Fuller's opinion suggests that the judge either does not know, or is intentionally misstating, the law on those two key charges. Fuller states that Siegelman's motion does not establish that a conviction under 18 U.S. Code 666 (bribery) or 18 U.S. Code 1346 (honest-services mail fraud) must be predicated on an explicit quid pro quo. I don't know the various cases Siegelman's lawyers cited in their motion. But there is no question that 11th Circuit precedent requires a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. I don't have the first day of law school, and I was able to find that case law, so I feel certain Siegelman's attorneys were able to find it, too.

* The most recent 11th Circuit case on bribery appears to be U.S. v. McCarter, 219 Fed. Appx. 921 (2007). The McCarter opinion could not be more clear: "To prove a defendant is guilty of bribery, the government must prove there was "a quid pro quo--a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act." The McCarter court cited U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398, a well-known U.S. Supreme Court decision related to bribery from 1999.

* Did Fuller's jury instruction on bribery reflect this language? He claims that it did--sort of. He says the jury was "sufficiently apprised" of the quid quo pro requirement. Sufficiently apprised? What the heck does that mean? Either the jury received the language noted above--or language very similar to it--or it didn't. That's the law in the 11th Circuit, and we're not talking about a close call here. If Fuller's jury instruction did not pretty much mirror the language noted above, the conviction of Siegelman and Scrushy was based on trumped-up law. Of course, we could check the jury instruction if we had a trial transcript. But we don't, thanks largely to Fuller. Maybe he doesn't want the public to know what his jury instruction was, not when he can keep Siegelman and Scrushy languishing in prison for as long as possible.

* Even more troubling is the fact that Fuller ties bribery and honest-services mail fraud together in his statement regarding quid pro quo. Honest-services mail fraud has nothing to do with a quid pro quo, and a federal judge should know that. You can learn what mail fraud actually is here. At the heart of the offense is "a willful act by defendant with specific intent to deceive or cheat." It's hard to see how Siegelman committed an act to deceive or cheat by appointing Scrushy to a spot on the Certificate of Need (CON) Board, especially when Scrushy had served on the board under three other governors. And at least one of those governors, Republican Fob James, received a major campaign contribution from Scrushy.

* In the 14 pages relevant to 11th Circuit questions, Fuller makes one reference to honest-services mail fraud. It's the second most important charge in the indictment, and the judge makes one passing reference to it? Makes me think the government's case against Siegelman on this charge was incredibly weak, and Fuller either knows it or he simply hasn't bothered to educate himself on the relevant law.

* Let's get to the heart of the matter, the whole reason for Fuller's memorandum. On page 16, he lays out a four-pronged test for determining whether the defendants should be detained pending appeal. The four-pronged test is based on language from U.S. v. Giancola, 754 F. 2d 898 (11th Cir., 1985). Fuller and the government seem to concede that Siegelman meets the first two prongs--that he is not likely to flee or pose danger to the safety or others; and his appeal is not for purposes of delay. So it comes down to prongs 3 and 4: Does the appeal raise a substantial question of law or fact; and if that substantial question is determined favorably to the defendant on appeal, that decision is likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial of all counts.

* It's shockingly easy to answer the questions raised by prongs 3 and 4--and the answer is yes. And that means Siegelman and Scrushy, by law, must be released pending appeal. Why do I say it's easy to make this determination? Well, Fuller's own language makes it clear that he either doesn't know, or is intentionally misstating, the law related to the two most important charges--federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud. As we've shown above, Fuller indicates that he is not aware that a bribery conviction requires a quid pro quo. And Fuller's own words indicate that he knows next to nothing about honest-services mail fraud. So we clearly have substantial questions of law because the judge himself has shown that he doesn't have much of a clue what the law really is

* And as for questions of fact: Without a transcript, there is a question about every fact in the case. In fact, without a transcript, there is a question about every element of law raised in the case. I've got a stump in my backyard that could get this right: Siegelman and Scrushy, by law, must be released pending appeal--and by law, they never should have been imprisoned in the first place. Will the 11th Circuit get it right? Don't hold your breath. My guess is that the 11th Circuit does not want to expose Judge Mark Fuller for the corrupt bozo that he is. Better that Siegelman and Scrushy unlawfully remain in prison rather than the public know what Mark Fuller really is all about.

* Methinks we are now understanding why Fuller waited so long in "answering" the 11th Circuit's queries. He has neither the facts nor the law on his side, so he is going into a stall--a legal version of the old "four corners" offense North Carolina used to employ in college basketball. Will the 11th Circuit, or perhaps Congress, force Fuller out of his stall by employing a serious full-court press? It's about time someone did.

The Great Bush Catastrophe

The first major step toward electing the next American president came yesterday, with Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee the big winners in the Iowa caucuses.

So perhaps it is a good time to ponder this question: Just how big a mess will our next president inherit? What will it be like to follow what is increasingly looking like the worst administration in American history?

Part of the answer to those questions came recently from one of the most profound stories I've seen in a long time. It has enormous implications for the future of our country, but I imagine only a small percentage of Americans read or understood it.

Legal Schnauzer readers will understand it. And for that, we can thank Scott Horton, of Harper's.

Horton reports on a speech by an obscure public official named David M. Walker, who is the comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

What did Mr. Walker have to say? "The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000. This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."

What does this say about the fiscal management of the George W. Bush administration? Let's allow Horton to put that into perspective: "The cost of this presidency, put in dollars and cents through today, is $32 trillion. That's a 150 percent increase in exposure since the reins of office were handed to George W. Bush."

Then Horton cuts directly to the heart of the matter: "It's as if a team of professional burglars were set loose with the tax code."

What kind of coverage did Walker's speech draw? Almost none. It appears that Horton came across it on a relatively obscure Web site. "Americans don't want to hear it," Horton says. "They'd rather be building up credit-card debt, not investments or savings."

The final word from Horton?

"If there is one single fault of the Bush-Cheney administration that will haunt it beyond all others, then it is this: They recognize no duty to posterity. They consume and squander shamelessly. And they mortgage the nation's future in the process."

How many Americans vote Republican because they think the party is fiscally responsible? The facts tell a different story.

I would correct Horton's assessment only slightly. He says this shameful fiscal record will haunt the Bushies. I doubt that; they don't care. I think it's more accurate to say their fiscal irresponsibility will haunt us--regular folks--for a long time to come.

Checking Out the Mark Fuller Shuffle

U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller finally has gotten around to "explaining" his reasons for refusing to release former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman pending an appeal.

Fuller's 30-page opinion can be read in its entirety. What exactly does it say? Well, I've read it, but I've not had a chance to fully digest it. But here are some early impressions:

* Thirty pages makes it sound like this is a serious document. But more than half of that is Fuller regurgitating his version of the facts in the case. Fewer than 14 pages are devoted to addressing the questions he was asked by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

* Fuller states that in the 1998 gubernatorial election, Richard Scrushy supported Siegelman's Republican opponent, Fob James, and donated $350,000 to the James campaign. It has been reported in numerous places on the Web that Scrushy served on the Certificate of Need (CON) Board under James, just as he did under Siegelman. Fuller himself reports that Scrushy gave money to the James campaign, just as he gave money to a Siegelman campaign. Which raises this obvious question: Why was Fob James not investigated and prosecuted on corruption problems, as Siegelman was? Does Fuller ask or answer this question in his memorandum opinion? Not on your life.

* Fuller's opinion reminds me of Rob Riley's affidavit filed with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, the one regarding whistleblower Jill Simpson. Both documents are filled with "hedge" language. "In this Court's view" seems to be a Fuller favorite, and it seems to indicate when he knows he's walking on shaky legal footing.

* Fuller is on his shakiest footing when he discusses Siegelman's argument that a bribery conviction must be predicated on an explicit quid pro quo. "In this Court's view, Siegelman's argument overstated or mischaracterized the holdings of the cases on which he relied," Fuller writes. This section is full of "hedge language," but Fuller seems to be saying that federal bribery law under 18 U.S. Code 666 does not require a quid pro quo. And the fact is this: Federal bribery law most definitely does require a quid pro quo, specifically in the 11th Circuit (which includes Alabama).

The most recent 11th Circuit case I could find was U.S. v. McCarter, which was handed down on March 9, 2007. McCarter makes it abundantly clear that a quid pro quo is required.

In his best "hedge language," Fuller gives the impression that he gave a muddled jury instruction on this issue--when, by law, there should have been nothing muddled about it. Fuller claims the jury was "sufficiently apprised" of the quid pro quo requirement. But he does not tell us what his jury instruction was. Hmmm, wonder why that is.

Of course, we've written about this trick before--regarding U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, who oversaw the Paul Minor trial in Mississippi.

Rappin' on Riley

Who Needs $3.6 Billion?
How's this for irony? A few weeks ago, the Alabama Supreme Court threw out most of a jury verdict in favor of the state and against oil giant ExxonMobil. The case had to do with underpayment of natural-gas royalties, which the facts and law showed ExxonMobil was doing in a fraudulent manner.

Price tag of the Supreme Court's decision for Alabama citizens? A mere $3.6 billion. But Governor Bob Riley did not think it was important enough to even file an application for rehearing. His spokesman said the governor felt an effort to seek rehearing would be futile given the vote of eight Republicans for Exxon and one Democrat for the people of Alabama.

But we know the real reason Riley did not want to go for rehearing. The Supreme Court's ruling was so blatantly unlawful that any halfway honest brief supporting the application for rehearing would have made it clear to citizens just how badly they had been screwed. Riley did not want to blow the cover of his Republican colleagues on Alabama's high court. Our corporate-owned governor was protecting our corporate-owned appellate courts.

So guess who now is looking at dealing with a major shortfall in his upcoming state budget? None other than Governor Riley himself. We learn today that slower economic growth could lead to a drop in state education spending of perhaps $300 million in fiscal year 2009, which starts Oct. 1.

Now get this: Riley staff members are talking about making up for the shortfall by diverting natural-gas royalties paid by companies that pump gas from offshore--companies like ExxonMobil. The diverted royalties could help pay for education, Medicaid, and other services.

And here's more irony: Most of Alabama's natural-gas royalties, 64.35 percent to be exact, go to the Alabama Trust Fund, which state voters approved more than two decades ago. The fund is described as a "giant savings account for the state" and currently has $3.2 billion in stocks, bonds, and other assets.

Hmmm, $3.2 billion. Where have I heard that figure before?

Seems that Alabama's giant savings account would soon be doubling if not for the Alabama Supreme Court's unlawful ruling--the one Riley says we should not bother trying to have reheard.

It's not breaking news that Alabama politicians are shortsighted and corrupt. But it's time Alabama citizens take their share of the blame, too. It's also time a few more of us pulled our collective heads out of dark crevices and realized what happens when we mindlessly elect corporate cronies to run our state.

Alabamians, you can't have it both ways. One on the one hand, you always vote down any tax hike, and you tend to vote for any politician who claims he is going to cut taxes. But on the other hand, you also vote for corporate-owned judges who say it's OK for companies to defraud the state out of what little money it does have.

That's no way to run any enterprise, and Alabamians certainly would not stand for having their major-college football programs run that way.

Campaign-Finance Story Finds Its MoJo
Major news outlets in Alabama steadfastly ignore the story of Governor Bob Riley possibly violating state campaign-finance laws in 2002 and 2006.

But those doggone bloggers just won't let the story die. Left in Alabama reports that the MoJo Blog, at Mother Jones, has picked up on the story.

"This is hardly the first time that the words 'Riley' and 'election' have appeared together in a suspicious way," writes MoJo's Diane E. Dees. "Karl Rove is alleged to have been involved in the 2002 Alabama election, when GOP consultant Bill Canary, an advisor to Riley, worked with Rove to bring Governor Don Siegelman to prison on ethics charges."

And Left in Alabama makes a splendid point:

"So far the print big dogs are sticking with the Riley machine and saying absolutely nothing about this story. That's OK, but if they're going to cherry pick stories to keep their friends happy, the papers should quit the $%#* complaining about declining circulation and how those unprofessional bloggers are just ruining journalism."

Ruining journalism, my fanny. The big papers have exactly the dismal circulation numbers they deserve.

A Schnauzer Spy Story, Part III

Let's return to our "A Schnauzer Spy Story" series. In part I, we noted that I don't have all the facts nailed down in this tale of intrigue, so I will write about it in somewhat theoretical terms. But events very similar to this, have happened to your humble blogger. And we have shown that events in your personal life can have possible connections to events in a legal case. In part II, we went into details about strange things that can begin happening in your life, possibly as the result of conflict with officials in the justice system.

Now, we will show how people in power can abuse regular citizens and violate privacy laws. What tools are at their disposal? We've asked you to walk in my shoes, and my wife's shoes, to see what you would think if events like these happened to you. Let's pick up our story . . .

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Most law-abiding Americans give little, if any, thought to the notion that someone might be conducting illegal surveillance on their telephones. But that's the first thing you and your wife think of when you both had the idea that someone might be interfering with her efforts to get a job.

You conduct some research, and here's what you find: It would be unbelievably easy for someone to track your phone calls, particularly if that person is, or has ties to, a judge.

What would such a person use? Probably a pen register or a trap and trace device. A pen register tracks all outgoing calls from a certain telephone number. A trap and trace device tracks all incoming calls to a certain telephone number.

The use of these devices by law enforcement is governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. And how might someone in law enforcement be able to use such a device against a private citizen, such as yourself?

Why, by getting a court order--from a judge.

So you ask yourself, "Who would want to track my communications? Have I ticked off anyone lately?" Then the answer hits you--a judge!

What would keep a judge from abusing his powers to order surveillance? What would prevent a judge from violating privacy law in order to punish a litigant he considers troublesome? Nothing, that you can see, other than the judge's conscience--and perhaps the fear of getting caught.

But what if the judges has already shown he has a seriously diseased conscience? And what if the judge appears to have little fear of ever being caught?

(To be continued)

My Disjointed Blog--And Other Thoughts

Since we began this blog almost seven months ago, it would be fair to say that we've been all over the map. More than one reader has suggested, using gentle language, that the blog is, shall we say, disjointed.

One reader, in a comment at another blog, said the Schnauzer is useful but "confused." (I tried pondering that thought, but wound up being confused.)

Actually, I can't disagree with that assessment, and I find it ironic. A real-life schnauzer is one of the least confused creatures on the planet. One of the many reasons my wife and I loved our miniature schnauzer, Murphy, so much is that she seemed to wake up every day with this wonderful sense of purpose. She didn't go off on tangents or get her mind mixed up by going off in all directions. There were certain things she was put on this earth to do, and by God, she was going to do them. At least that's how it seemed to us.

As for this blog, I'm going to keep pondering ways to make it easier to follow. Blogs, by their nature, tend to be choppy, and that might be part of the problem. Not sure a blog is the best way to tell my personal tale of legal intrigue, and I plan someday in the not-too-distant future to tell it all in one place. Just trying to figure out the best locale and format.

But from the outset, I've wanted this endeavor to be about more than just my story. The goal is to help educate regular folks about the dangers that lurk in our courtrooms. And to shine a light on the corruption that has gripped our justice system at both the state and federal level.

We've tried to do that by focusing primarily on three cases--the Don Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own saga (which has come to be known as the Legal Schnauzer case).

Now that we've passed the six-month mark in blog years, we will be getting into heavy details about my case. The Siegelman and Minor cases are critically important to the overall story of the corrupt Bush Justice Department. But they involve folks of substantial power and/or wealth, so it might be hard for many people to relate to them. Most of us, after all, are never likely to be charged with giving or taking a bribe or committing honest-services mail fraud.

The Schnauzer case, on the other hand, involves regular folks--my wife and me. And it's the kind of legal problem that could happen to anybody. If you have anything worthwhile in your life--a marriage, a home, real or personal property, a job, children--it can be the source of a legal problem. And you can wind up in court, the victim of a lawsuit, whether you did anything wrong or not.

Here's one of the major lessons I hope to get across here: In our country, you can be sued for anything, by anybody. If you pass someone by without saying hello, they can sue you for causing them emotional distress. Doesn't mean they will win. But there is no bar that a plaintiff must reach in order to be able to file a lawsuit. It's an open market.

If you can write out some alleged wrong and sign your name on a piece of paper, and pay the filing fee, you can sue someone. Our system has "safeguards" that are supposed to punish someone for filing a bogus lawsuit. But from what I see, they are hardly ever enforced and they have zero deterrent effect.

I'm sure I will go off on tangents in the future. Posting occasionally about Birmingham's American Idol Taylor Hicks, and hearing from the Soul Patrol, is proving to be a great kick. And since my wife and I enjoy his music, I hope to continue posting about our guy Taylor--and perhaps other musicians I have found inspiring over the years.

But I will do my best to keep things flowing. And the plan is to have the Legal Schnauzer story all in one place someday.

As my wife and I rang in the new year, we decided that 2007, in many ways, was the Year of the Blog, for us. This time a year ago I never would have dreamed that I would be writing a blog. It just didn't seem like something I would do. In fact, if I didn't have three coworkers who have blogs and/or Web sites, I don't think I ever would have thought of it.

If someone had told me a year ago that someone of Scott Horton's stature--a Columbia University law professor, for crying out loud--would be citing my justice-related reporting in a national publication, I would have thought that impossible. If someone had said that my justice-related reporting would be cited in documents filed with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, I would have thought that absurd.

But those things have happened. And it goes to show the power of this relatively young communications instrument we call the blog. I once thought blogging seemed like a waste of time. I now know differently.

Also, I've made a number of e-friends, people whose thoughts and feelings I value greatly. I hope to meet them in person someday. Some, like me, have suffered under our corrupt system of justice. A few have suffered injustices that are so deep as to almost be beyond understanding.
I pray that they will find strength in the coming days, and that they will eventually be vindicated. I also pray that those who have corrupted our justice system will be held accountable.

Blogging has not been an entirely sweet experience. I've received numerous angry and uncomplimentary comments. One or two have bordered on being threatening.

I know my work is being read in the legal community, in multiple states. I also know it is being read in the halls of power. I imagine some people are pleased to read it. I'm certain a number of people are not.

I would not be surprised if some folks are threatened by it. And they should be. Because deep down, they know this blog is grounded in fact. They know it is based in truth. And truth is the first step on the road to justice.

Thanks for joining us on the ride.