The second installment of Eddie Curran's op-ed piece about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is now available on the Web. You can read the piece here.
Part two is vastly different from part once, which we dissected here. Part one was a solo job, Eddie Curran unfiltered, and consisted mostly of name calling and bomb throwing directed at Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and Harper's legal-affairs contributor Scott Horton. In the end, Curran landed no substantive blows, and part one went nowhere.
Part two might actually shed some light on events in the Siegelman case. Be warned: This is a lengthy piece of work, taking up 18 Web pages on the Montgomery Independent site. But I suspect it will be worth the effort to read it closely, and here is why: This is not an Eddie Curran solo piece.
I haven't been able to read the piece in its entirety. But the headline alone tells you this is different: "Did Siegelman Get a Fair Trial? Curran, Horton Square Off."
Part two appears to focus mainly on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and his handling of the trial. We get a heavy dose of Curran, but we also get Horton's responses. Editor Bob Martin weighs in with several salient editor's notes.
Don't want to comment much without having read the entire piece. But I think the give-and-take format--between the reporter credited with breaking the Siegelman story and the legal analyst who has led the charge in questioning the prosecution--is a good idea.
Also, Martin weighs in with an insightful column about the past week's activities in the Siegelman saga. I particularly like this line about Karl Rove:
Then Tuesday on Fox News, Rove admitted he had spoken with Simpson. Rove told Fox that he'd never met Jill Simpson, then he recanted on that , saying well, maybe he did. But added that he "never asked her to do a darn thing." .
Martin has this about former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods:
Perhaps the most persuasive statements on Siegelman's behalf came from former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a lifelong Republican. He was one of 52 active or former state attorney generals who petitioned Congress to investigate the Siegelman indictment and trial. "The case should have never gone to trial," Woods said. "There was no quid pro quo (this for that transaction between Siegelman and Richard Scrushy). The jury was deadlocked twice and the judge ordered them back."
Then, Martin has this about the response of the Alabama Republican Party and chair Mike Hubbard:
Simpson is akin to a person with a contagious disease. Nobody wants to associate with her and her party is even trying to publicly disown her. Here's what State GOP Chair Mike Hubbard has to say about Simpson:
"Our staff has done an exhaustive search of Alabama Republican Party
records going back several years, and we can find not one instance of Dana
Jill Simpson volunteering or working on behalf of the Alabama Republican
Party - as stated by 60 Minutes. Nor can we find anyone within the Republican Party leadership in Alabama who has ever so much as heard of Dana Jill Simpson until she made her first wave of accusations last summer."
I would suggest that Rep. Hubbard check her local county where I believe he will find Ms. Simpson is (or was) listed as GOP Co-chair. I talked at length with Ms. Simpson a few months ago and found her to be very precise and knowledgeable about this situation. Frankly, I would not want to be on her list. She has a lot of records in her filing cabinets.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Karl Rove's Obsession With Sex
We now know that Karl Rove asked a Republican operative to get evidence that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was having a gay affair. We also know that this kind of tactic has worked well for Rove in the past--particularly in Alabama.
"Karl Rove in a Corner," an article by Joshua Green of The Atlantic, probably is the definitive account of Rove's campaign tactics.
Green writes about some of Rove's darkest tricks:
One constant throughout his career is the prevalence of whisper campaigns against opponents. The 2000 primary campaign, for example, featured a widely disseminated rumor that John McCain, tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had betrayed his country under interrogation and been rendered mentally unfit for office. More often a Rove campaign questions an opponent's sexual orientation. Bush's 1994 race against Ann Richards featured a rumor that she was a lesbian, along with a rare instance of such a tactic's making it into the public record—when a regional chairman of the Bush campaign allowed himself, perhaps inadvertently, to be quoted criticizing Richards for "appointing avowed homosexual activists" to state jobs.
One of Rove's earliest hit jobs was against fellow Texas political consultant John Weaver, who went on to manage John McCain's campaign in 2000. In the 1980s, Rove and Weaver were locked in a battled to become the dominant Republican strategist in Texas. When it appeared that Weaver's star was rising faster than Rove's, something interesting happened:
The details vary slightly according to which insider tells the story, but the main point is always the same: after Weaver went into business for himself and lured away one of Rove's top employees, Rove spread a rumor that Weaver had made a pass at a young man at a state Republican function. Weaver won't reply to the smear, but those close to him told me of their outrage at the nearly two-decades-old lie. Weaver was first made unwelcome in some Texas Republican circles, and eventually, following McCain's 2000 campaign, he left the Republican Party altogether.
Perhaps Rove's most vicious whisper campaign came in one of his early Alabama contests. It was a judicial race between Republican Harold See and Democratic incumbent Mark Kennedy, which proved to be a rare loss for a Rove candidate in a close race. But Kennedy paid a high price for his victory.
When Kennedy's term was up, he decided not to run again. And it had much to do with vicious rumors he'd had to fight during the campaign against See and Rove. A former juvenile and family-court judge, Kennedy long had held an interest in aiding abused children. In fact, he served as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse. So naturally, according to Green, the See campaign started a rumor that Kennedy was a pedophile. Green provides insight on how the Rove rumor machine works.
Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out—he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."
"Karl Rove in a Corner," an article by Joshua Green of The Atlantic, probably is the definitive account of Rove's campaign tactics.
Green writes about some of Rove's darkest tricks:
One constant throughout his career is the prevalence of whisper campaigns against opponents. The 2000 primary campaign, for example, featured a widely disseminated rumor that John McCain, tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, had betrayed his country under interrogation and been rendered mentally unfit for office. More often a Rove campaign questions an opponent's sexual orientation. Bush's 1994 race against Ann Richards featured a rumor that she was a lesbian, along with a rare instance of such a tactic's making it into the public record—when a regional chairman of the Bush campaign allowed himself, perhaps inadvertently, to be quoted criticizing Richards for "appointing avowed homosexual activists" to state jobs.
One of Rove's earliest hit jobs was against fellow Texas political consultant John Weaver, who went on to manage John McCain's campaign in 2000. In the 1980s, Rove and Weaver were locked in a battled to become the dominant Republican strategist in Texas. When it appeared that Weaver's star was rising faster than Rove's, something interesting happened:
The details vary slightly according to which insider tells the story, but the main point is always the same: after Weaver went into business for himself and lured away one of Rove's top employees, Rove spread a rumor that Weaver had made a pass at a young man at a state Republican function. Weaver won't reply to the smear, but those close to him told me of their outrage at the nearly two-decades-old lie. Weaver was first made unwelcome in some Texas Republican circles, and eventually, following McCain's 2000 campaign, he left the Republican Party altogether.
Perhaps Rove's most vicious whisper campaign came in one of his early Alabama contests. It was a judicial race between Republican Harold See and Democratic incumbent Mark Kennedy, which proved to be a rare loss for a Rove candidate in a close race. But Kennedy paid a high price for his victory.
When Kennedy's term was up, he decided not to run again. And it had much to do with vicious rumors he'd had to fight during the campaign against See and Rove. A former juvenile and family-court judge, Kennedy long had held an interest in aiding abused children. In fact, he served as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse. So naturally, according to Green, the See campaign started a rumor that Kennedy was a pedophile. Green provides insight on how the Rove rumor machine works.
Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out—he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. "What Rove does," says Joe Perkins, "is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin', tobacco-chewin', pickup-drivin' kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take."
This gives you an idea of just how low Karl Rove will go in an attempt to win a campaign. And he honed his craft in Alabama. Perhaps Siegelman was too well known for a rumor campaign to be effective if spread through the University of Alabama law school. Maybe that's why Rove wanted intelligence from Jill Simpson.
All of which reminds me to raise a question we addressed earlier: If this is the kind of ethics that drove Karl Rove's judicial campaigns in Alabama, campaigns that proved to be highly successful, what kind of ethics are found in Alabama state courts now?
We hope you stay tuned to Legal Schnauzer as we shine a light into the dark corners of the Courts that Karl Built.
Rove Was Looking for Gay Sex
How's that for a headline? And it's true, according to Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News and Journal.
Let me explain:
The juiciest part of 60 Minutes' story on the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman came when Jill Simpson revealed that Rove asked her to come up with evidence that Siegelman was "cheating on his wife."
I imagine the overwhelming majority of viewers, including yours truly, thought that meant Rove wanted evidence of Siegelman fooling around with a female aide.
But Wilson reports today that Rove actually wanted proof that Siegelman was gay, that he was having an affair with a male aide, Nick Bailey. The 60 Minutes report featured footage of Bailey in federal prison, where he is serving a sentence after pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against Siegelman.
Here is what Wilson writes about Rove's intentions:
The CBS News magazine show “60 Minutes” liked the part of the story about how Mr. Rove wanted Ms. Simpson to look into Don Siegelman’s sex life. It was what we call in the business “something new” or a “new angle” or “advancing the story” or “new details.” It’s not only sensational and scintillating. It’s downright sleazy. And of course it helped get the national audience interested, and I’m told it worked. The show’s ratings were off the charts - except in that part of North Alabama and Southern Tennessee where it was blacked out, of course.
Quite frankly, I did not want to report on that part of the story because it opened the door to bring out all of the other Karl Rove allegations about Mr. Siegelman, a tactic he’s used in every political race he’s ever been involved in. That is to say, what the “60 Minutes” story points to, without revealing it, was that what Rove wanted Ms. Simpson to investigate was this: Whether Don Siegelman was gay.
Let me explain:
The juiciest part of 60 Minutes' story on the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman came when Jill Simpson revealed that Rove asked her to come up with evidence that Siegelman was "cheating on his wife."
I imagine the overwhelming majority of viewers, including yours truly, thought that meant Rove wanted evidence of Siegelman fooling around with a female aide.
But Wilson reports today that Rove actually wanted proof that Siegelman was gay, that he was having an affair with a male aide, Nick Bailey. The 60 Minutes report featured footage of Bailey in federal prison, where he is serving a sentence after pleading guilty and agreeing to testify against Siegelman.
Here is what Wilson writes about Rove's intentions:
The CBS News magazine show “60 Minutes” liked the part of the story about how Mr. Rove wanted Ms. Simpson to look into Don Siegelman’s sex life. It was what we call in the business “something new” or a “new angle” or “advancing the story” or “new details.” It’s not only sensational and scintillating. It’s downright sleazy. And of course it helped get the national audience interested, and I’m told it worked. The show’s ratings were off the charts - except in that part of North Alabama and Southern Tennessee where it was blacked out, of course.
Quite frankly, I did not want to report on that part of the story because it opened the door to bring out all of the other Karl Rove allegations about Mr. Siegelman, a tactic he’s used in every political race he’s ever been involved in. That is to say, what the “60 Minutes” story points to, without revealing it, was that what Rove wanted Ms. Simpson to investigate was this: Whether Don Siegelman was gay.
Wilson goes on to provide perspective on Rove's previous use of whisper campaigns and the ugly history of such rumors in Alabama politics:
Rove did it to Ann Richards in Texas when he was running George W. Bush’s first campaign for governor, and it worked on her. Bush won. That is well documented. He has already done it to Hillary Clinton.
And this part is lost on the reporters and producers in New York. The same sort of rumor in Alabama helped George Wallace defeat George McMillan in the 1982 race for governor, the next closest election in the state before the 2002 race between Siegelman and Riley. If memory serves, Wallace won by something like 30 votes per precinct in Alabama’s 67 counties. I know for a fact the gay rumor was floating around about McMillan from the Wallace crowd, because I heard it myself and even repeated it to then Birmingham News managing editor Tom Bailey.
Wilson talks about his own struggles as a reporter on the receiving end of ugly rumors.
Apparently, in addition to just not liking Mr. Siegelman, the Birmingham News and Mobile Press-Register reporters actually believed the rumors. And maybe they still do. I heard those rumors in the bars of Montgomery myself back in 2004 while researching Bush’s time in Alabama in 1972, when he was AWOL from the Air National Guard and working for Red Blount’s campaign for governor.
Another reason I didn’t report it initially was because it is a long and complicated story with way too many characters to get down in a newspaper or magazine story. It would take a book to document Don Siegelman’s story--and now Jill Simpson’s role in it.
The other reason is that Ms. Simpson failed to find any evidence of a homosexual relationship between Mr. Siegelman and his long-time aide Nick Bailey. So why bring that to light at all?
This is just the latest example of Rove using a well-worn page in his playbook. He's used the nasty whisper campaign in Texas. And he's used it before in Alabama, long before the Don Siegelman case hit the national stage.
More on that coming up.
Alabama GOP "Attacks" 60 Minutes
The Alabama Republican Party has unleashed a ferocious rebuttal to 60 Minutes' story about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. But somehow, I don't think the folks at CBS are too worried about the GOPers' retort.
You can check out the Alabama GOP's version of truth and fiction related to the 60 Minutes story here. It involves six "fictions" the GOP claims was part of the report. Let's examine the GOP's fictions a little closer:
No. 1
GOP: Reporter Scott Pelley identified William Canary as "campaign manager" for Bob Riley in 2002. The actual campaign director was Toby Roth. Canary was an "informal advisor."
Legal Schnauzer: We'll give the GOPers half a point here. Technically, 60 Minutes got this wrong. But Pelley's key point was this: Canary was involved with the Riley campaign while his wife, Leura Canary, was overseeing the investigation of Riley's opponent, Siegelman. That is true, and it represents a pretty clear conflict of interest.
No. 2
GOP: Pelley stated that Jill Simpson had "worked for" the Republican Party and was a GOP "operative." Mike Hubbard, Alabama Republican Party chair, says "we can find not one instance of Dana Jill Simpson volunteering on behalf of the Alabama Republican Party."
LS: Simpson stated under oath that she volunteered for Republican causes and was in regular contact with Rob Riley, son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley. Simpson also has submitted letters and phone records to support her claims of contact with Riley. Hubbard's statement in a news release hardly compares to Simpson's sworn statements that were subject to questioning in Congress. No points for the GOP here.
No. 3
GOP: Simpson presented zero evidence to support her claim that she was asked to do opposition research by Karl Rove. Simpson never offered these claims about Rove when testifying before the House Judiciary Committee staff.
LS: When testifying before Congressional staff, Simpson was responding to questions and was required to stick to subjects that were put before her. Multiple journalists have reported that Simpson told them of her involvement with Rove well before she was interviewed by 60 Minutes. Also, Simpson's attorney says her client has proof of communication with Rove but is withholding it while Rove refuses to answer questions under oath about the Siegelman case. No points for GOP.
No. 4
GOP: Simpson alleged that William Canary told her she would "not have to do more intelligence work." This was the first time she had made this statement.
LS: This was reported in connection with Canary's statement that "his girls" would take care of Siegelman--a reference to U.S. attorneys Leura Canary (Bill Canary's wife) and Alice Martin. GOPers can't seem to get it through their skulls that there is a difference between making an affidavit, answering questions under oath before Congressional staffers, and answering questions in a television interview. In the first two circumstances, the goal is to make a narrow statement or give a narrow answer to the question asked. In a televised interview, not under oath, the interviewee has more freedom to provide details. The fact that Simpson added some details in an interview situation does nothing to hurt her credibility. No points for GOP.
No. 5
GOP: The cases against Siegelman in the northern district and the southern district were the same.
LS: Now it's the GOP having trouble with facts--serious facts. Pelley never said this, and a look at the show's transcript proves it. Pelley said the first trial, in the northern district, involved an alleged Medicaid scam. On the second case, in the southern district, Pelley says Siegelman was indicted on "new charges." And Pelley correctly states that the primary charge for which Siegelman was convicted was bribery. GOP loses two points for this substantive misstatement.
No. 6
GOP: Pelley said Siegelman was convicted only for the bribery related parts of his indictment. But the former governor also was convicted of obstruction of justice.
LS: The GOP scores no points with this weak effort. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice is what might be called a "piggyback" charge, one that can be brought only in conjunction with something else. In that sense, it is similar to conspiracy. You can't have a conspiracy unless it involves a conspiracy to commit another crime. And you can't have obstruction of justice unless it involves someone trying to interfere with investigation of another crime. The obstruction of justice charge was directly related to the bribery charge, so Pelley's statement was correct.
The verdict? The GOP's effort to take on 60 Minutes results in a loss, by 1 1/2 points. And I would say I was using a pretty generous scoring system for the GOPers.
You can check out the Alabama GOP's version of truth and fiction related to the 60 Minutes story here. It involves six "fictions" the GOP claims was part of the report. Let's examine the GOP's fictions a little closer:
No. 1
GOP: Reporter Scott Pelley identified William Canary as "campaign manager" for Bob Riley in 2002. The actual campaign director was Toby Roth. Canary was an "informal advisor."
Legal Schnauzer: We'll give the GOPers half a point here. Technically, 60 Minutes got this wrong. But Pelley's key point was this: Canary was involved with the Riley campaign while his wife, Leura Canary, was overseeing the investigation of Riley's opponent, Siegelman. That is true, and it represents a pretty clear conflict of interest.
No. 2
GOP: Pelley stated that Jill Simpson had "worked for" the Republican Party and was a GOP "operative." Mike Hubbard, Alabama Republican Party chair, says "we can find not one instance of Dana Jill Simpson volunteering on behalf of the Alabama Republican Party."
LS: Simpson stated under oath that she volunteered for Republican causes and was in regular contact with Rob Riley, son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley. Simpson also has submitted letters and phone records to support her claims of contact with Riley. Hubbard's statement in a news release hardly compares to Simpson's sworn statements that were subject to questioning in Congress. No points for the GOP here.
No. 3
GOP: Simpson presented zero evidence to support her claim that she was asked to do opposition research by Karl Rove. Simpson never offered these claims about Rove when testifying before the House Judiciary Committee staff.
LS: When testifying before Congressional staff, Simpson was responding to questions and was required to stick to subjects that were put before her. Multiple journalists have reported that Simpson told them of her involvement with Rove well before she was interviewed by 60 Minutes. Also, Simpson's attorney says her client has proof of communication with Rove but is withholding it while Rove refuses to answer questions under oath about the Siegelman case. No points for GOP.
No. 4
GOP: Simpson alleged that William Canary told her she would "not have to do more intelligence work." This was the first time she had made this statement.
LS: This was reported in connection with Canary's statement that "his girls" would take care of Siegelman--a reference to U.S. attorneys Leura Canary (Bill Canary's wife) and Alice Martin. GOPers can't seem to get it through their skulls that there is a difference between making an affidavit, answering questions under oath before Congressional staffers, and answering questions in a television interview. In the first two circumstances, the goal is to make a narrow statement or give a narrow answer to the question asked. In a televised interview, not under oath, the interviewee has more freedom to provide details. The fact that Simpson added some details in an interview situation does nothing to hurt her credibility. No points for GOP.
No. 5
GOP: The cases against Siegelman in the northern district and the southern district were the same.
LS: Now it's the GOP having trouble with facts--serious facts. Pelley never said this, and a look at the show's transcript proves it. Pelley said the first trial, in the northern district, involved an alleged Medicaid scam. On the second case, in the southern district, Pelley says Siegelman was indicted on "new charges." And Pelley correctly states that the primary charge for which Siegelman was convicted was bribery. GOP loses two points for this substantive misstatement.
No. 6
GOP: Pelley said Siegelman was convicted only for the bribery related parts of his indictment. But the former governor also was convicted of obstruction of justice.
LS: The GOP scores no points with this weak effort. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice is what might be called a "piggyback" charge, one that can be brought only in conjunction with something else. In that sense, it is similar to conspiracy. You can't have a conspiracy unless it involves a conspiracy to commit another crime. And you can't have obstruction of justice unless it involves someone trying to interfere with investigation of another crime. The obstruction of justice charge was directly related to the bribery charge, so Pelley's statement was correct.
The verdict? The GOP's effort to take on 60 Minutes results in a loss, by 1 1/2 points. And I would say I was using a pretty generous scoring system for the GOPers.
Tightening the Screws on "Turd Blossom"
Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove might be feeling the walls closing in on him just a little.
The Republican campaign guru has taken to friendly media outlets--Fox News, The Birmingham News--to deny that he ever sought help with "opposition research" from Alabama lawyer and whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Rove tells The Birmingham News that he has no recollection of ever meeting with, or talking to, Simpson. But in the same article, Simpson attorney Priscilla Duncan makes a statement that could be ominous for Rove:
"In her telephone records, there are calls to Rove and calls to Twinkle Andress," said Priscilla Duncan, Simpson's attorney. Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh is the former Alabama Republican Party chairwoman and now an adviser to Republican Gov. Bob Riley.
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork News, goes a step further in writing about documentation that supports Simpson's story:
For the record, and I’ve already indicated my willingness to testify to this, I have heard from Ms. Simpson all about her dealings directly with Karl Rove, over and over again and late into the night on the telephone on many occasions. I have seen the documents which back them up.
But Ms. Simpson and her lawyer in Montgomery are not going to release any more documents until Karl Rove and the other participants in this scandal, including assistant U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin, are called to testify under oath. And for good reason. They have a pretty good case building up that might land some people around here in some pretty hot legal water themselves, including the new head of the Alabama Republican Party, and Mr. Franklin at the so-called Justice department down in Montgomery.
A number of Republican pundits have stated that Simpson has presented little, if any, corroborating evidence to support her story. Rove himself, in The Birmingham News, said he was frustrated that national media accounts have not pressed Simpson for proof or details of when she says she met with him and where, or what work she might have produced as a result.
But Wilson says Simpson and her attorney have decided to withhold certain documents until Rove and others are forced to testify under oath--as she has done. Sounds fair to me.
The story seems to be this: Just because Rove and his supporters haven't seen certain documents does not mean they don't exist.
Rove & Co. also seem to forget that Simpson has presented both written and oral testimony under oath and submitted herself to questioning from Congressional staffers representing both Democrats and Republicans. She also submitted herself to the scrutiny of the nation's premier broadcast news program. Rove has yet to do any of these things, and I suspect reasonable Americans must be asking themselves why that is.
The Republican campaign guru has taken to friendly media outlets--Fox News, The Birmingham News--to deny that he ever sought help with "opposition research" from Alabama lawyer and whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Rove tells The Birmingham News that he has no recollection of ever meeting with, or talking to, Simpson. But in the same article, Simpson attorney Priscilla Duncan makes a statement that could be ominous for Rove:
"In her telephone records, there are calls to Rove and calls to Twinkle Andress," said Priscilla Duncan, Simpson's attorney. Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh is the former Alabama Republican Party chairwoman and now an adviser to Republican Gov. Bob Riley.
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork News, goes a step further in writing about documentation that supports Simpson's story:
For the record, and I’ve already indicated my willingness to testify to this, I have heard from Ms. Simpson all about her dealings directly with Karl Rove, over and over again and late into the night on the telephone on many occasions. I have seen the documents which back them up.
But Ms. Simpson and her lawyer in Montgomery are not going to release any more documents until Karl Rove and the other participants in this scandal, including assistant U.S. Attorney Louis Franklin, are called to testify under oath. And for good reason. They have a pretty good case building up that might land some people around here in some pretty hot legal water themselves, including the new head of the Alabama Republican Party, and Mr. Franklin at the so-called Justice department down in Montgomery.
A number of Republican pundits have stated that Simpson has presented little, if any, corroborating evidence to support her story. Rove himself, in The Birmingham News, said he was frustrated that national media accounts have not pressed Simpson for proof or details of when she says she met with him and where, or what work she might have produced as a result.
But Wilson says Simpson and her attorney have decided to withhold certain documents until Rove and others are forced to testify under oath--as she has done. Sounds fair to me.
The story seems to be this: Just because Rove and his supporters haven't seen certain documents does not mean they don't exist.
Rove & Co. also seem to forget that Simpson has presented both written and oral testimony under oath and submitted herself to questioning from Congressional staffers representing both Democrats and Republicans. She also submitted herself to the scrutiny of the nation's premier broadcast news program. Rove has yet to do any of these things, and I suspect reasonable Americans must be asking themselves why that is.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Mystery of the Siegelman Court Reporter
Speaking of matters that 60 Minutes was not able to include in its story Sunday night, what about the case of the missing transcript?
We posted a few weeks back about the transcript and the late Jimmy Dickens, who was the court reporter for the Siegelman case.
When I wrote this post, I must confess that the paranoid, conspiracy-minded part of me was in overdrive. But at the last minute, I toned the post down and held off on writing what I really was thinking.
Since then, I've discovered--from reading comments on a number of blogs-- that quite a few folks are thinking the same thing I was thinking. Most recently I noticed this on a post and comments at the always interesting firedoglake.
Here is what folks are asking: What caused the death of Jimmy Dickens? Did he die of natural causes?
Those folks clearly are wondering what I was wondering when I wrote the original post on Mr. Dickens and the mystery transcript: Is it possible that Mr. Dickens refused to tamper with the transcript and wound up being killed because of it?
Now perhaps I watched too many Barnaby Jones episodes in my youth. But evidence strongly suggests that a certain faction of the modern Republican Party can play awfully rough. We also know that, when under duress, they can turn on folks who are pretty much in their inner circle.
I know nothing about Jimmy Dickens' politics. But from reading his obituary, he sure sounds like an upstanding guy. Here is the obituary, and as far as I know, it's the only thing that has been written about his passing--even though he was a central figure in one of the nation's most controversial criminal cases:
DICKENS, Sr., James Raymond, 59, a resident of Montgomery, Alabama, died Friday, August 24, 2007. Funeral services will be held on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 2:00 P.M. from Frazer United Methodist Church with Dr. John Ed Mathison officiating. Burial will follow in Alabama Heritage Cemetery. Mr. Dickens served in the United States AirForce from 1968 until 1972. He was a Court Reporter for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. He is survived by his wife, Pamela Duncan Dickens; three sons, Dr. Frank Eric Dickens (Peggy), Joel Scott Dickens (Jane), James Raymond Dickens, Jr. (Becky); six grandchildren, Michael James Dickens, Hayden Scott Dickens, Caroline Chappell Dickens, Sean Patrick Dickens, Elizabeth Ann Dickens, and Katherine Elizabeth Dickens; two brothers, Danny Dickens (Vicki) and Bob Dickens (Jerri). Visitation will beheld Sunday, August 26, 2007,from 1:00 P.M. until 2:00 P.M. at the church.
Funeral Home: GREENWOOD & SERENITYPublication Date: 08/26/2007
We posted a few weeks back about the transcript and the late Jimmy Dickens, who was the court reporter for the Siegelman case.
When I wrote this post, I must confess that the paranoid, conspiracy-minded part of me was in overdrive. But at the last minute, I toned the post down and held off on writing what I really was thinking.
Since then, I've discovered--from reading comments on a number of blogs-- that quite a few folks are thinking the same thing I was thinking. Most recently I noticed this on a post and comments at the always interesting firedoglake.
Here is what folks are asking: What caused the death of Jimmy Dickens? Did he die of natural causes?
Those folks clearly are wondering what I was wondering when I wrote the original post on Mr. Dickens and the mystery transcript: Is it possible that Mr. Dickens refused to tamper with the transcript and wound up being killed because of it?
Now perhaps I watched too many Barnaby Jones episodes in my youth. But evidence strongly suggests that a certain faction of the modern Republican Party can play awfully rough. We also know that, when under duress, they can turn on folks who are pretty much in their inner circle.
I know nothing about Jimmy Dickens' politics. But from reading his obituary, he sure sounds like an upstanding guy. Here is the obituary, and as far as I know, it's the only thing that has been written about his passing--even though he was a central figure in one of the nation's most controversial criminal cases:
DICKENS, Sr., James Raymond, 59, a resident of Montgomery, Alabama, died Friday, August 24, 2007. Funeral services will be held on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 2:00 P.M. from Frazer United Methodist Church with Dr. John Ed Mathison officiating. Burial will follow in Alabama Heritage Cemetery. Mr. Dickens served in the United States AirForce from 1968 until 1972. He was a Court Reporter for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. He is survived by his wife, Pamela Duncan Dickens; three sons, Dr. Frank Eric Dickens (Peggy), Joel Scott Dickens (Jane), James Raymond Dickens, Jr. (Becky); six grandchildren, Michael James Dickens, Hayden Scott Dickens, Caroline Chappell Dickens, Sean Patrick Dickens, Elizabeth Ann Dickens, and Katherine Elizabeth Dickens; two brothers, Danny Dickens (Vicki) and Bob Dickens (Jerri). Visitation will beheld Sunday, August 26, 2007,from 1:00 P.M. until 2:00 P.M. at the church.
Funeral Home: GREENWOOD & SERENITYPublication Date: 08/26/2007
Mr. Dickens certainly sounds like the kind of guy you would enjoy having as a neighbor, and my condolences go out to his family. He evidently was a member of Frazer United Methodist Church in Montgomery, which I'm guessing is a pretty large congregation. From checking the Web, it looks like one of his sons, Dr. Frank Dickens is an OB/GYN in Montgomery.
More than likely, Mr. Dickens died of natural causes. But I guess my curiosity about the transcript in general, and Mr. Dickens in particular, is driven by own experiences in court.
I don't fully understand all the procedures surrounding a transcript, although a lawyer source has filled me in some and I hope to post about that soon. But as a layperson, it seems impossible to overstate the importance of a transcript in any legal proceeding. And the keeper of that all-important official record is the court reporter.
Here's an example of just how important a court reporter can be: When I was the victim of a crime (criminal trespass) and sought to have it prosecuted--starting the legal sojourn that led to this blog--a court reporter was present for the case (which is unusual, I understand, in district court). My wife and I were wrongfully kept outside the courtroom for much of the proceedings, so when the judge found my troublesome neighbor "not guilty" (a decision which led to the lawsuit against me) we had no idea what that was based on.
But my wife and I got a copy of the transcript, and that's when we first began to understand how corrupt Alabama state courts are. You might say the scales began to fall from our eyes. The transcript revealed--and I'm not joking--that the defendant had admitted to committing the crime and still was found not guilty!
Without a court reporter, I never would have known that. Later in my case, after my neighbor had sued me for malicious prosecution, I employed a court reporter to take the neighbor's deposition. (That's expensive, by the way; set us back $900.) But it yielded some most interesting information, much of which you will read later on this blog.
For example, in that deposition I caught an individual making a statement that was contradictory to a statement I had taped another neighbor making regarding a certain issue in the case. This statement clearly shows that a motion that had been filed in the case was fraudulent and was designed to scare me into some kind of settlement. Because the U.S. mails were used to send the motion, this individual clearly committed a federal crime-honest-services mail fraud. This is one of numerous facts that U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, Northern District of Alabama, is trying to keep under wraps.
Anyway, you can see how important court reporters can be and why they hold a special place in my heart. My impression is that, in general, court reporters are noble people.
Unfortunately, I've also learned that our justice system is filled with many less-than-noble people. And many of those folks outrank court reporters.
It's not hard at all for me to imagine someone pressuring a court reporter to alter a transcript just enough--and it probably wouldn't take much in many cases--to ensure that a trial-court judgment held up on appeal. And that could ensure that someone like Don Siegelman stayed in prison for a very long time.
How would someone accomplish this, say if we were writing a John Grisham novel? Well, I don't know. I welcome any input from readers who are familiar with, or curious about, court reporting.
What 60 Minutes Didn't Tell You
As strong as 60 Minutes Don Siegelman story was--and I suspect folks who had never heard of the former Alabama governor found it to be compelling television--it could only scratch the surface of a complex tale in roughly 14 minutes.
We've seen reports that more than 100 hours of material had to be left out of the story. Could CBS return to the Siegelman story? Sounds like the network certainly has plenty of ammunition if it decides to use it. (With modern video technology on the Web, 60 Minutes really needs to explore the idea of at least providing expanded Web casts.)
Based on the quality of its report on Sunday night, it's safe to assume that CBS has material that would break new ground in the case. It's not unusual for 60 Minutes to revisit stories and update them. The Siegelman case cries out for that kind of treatment--particularly because it is not just an "Alabama" story. This goes to the heart of wrongdoing in the Bush Department of Justice, which involves all Americans.
Just consider a few angles that 60 Minutes was not able to touch:
* The apparent electronic manipulation of votes in Baldwin County that gave Bob Riley the 2002 election over Siegelman.
* The myriad conflicts of interests involving U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and the possible criminal activity Fuller has been engaged in--as laid out in a scorching affidavit by Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
* The fact that key prosecution witness Lanny Young also provided damning testimony about Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor, which federal investigators evidently ignored.
* The strong connections, driven home in recent days by Huffington Post, between Bob Riley and Jack Abramoff--and how money funneled through Abramoff helped Riley beat Siegelman.
* The stunningly weak memorandum opinion that Fuller issued as an "explanation" for denying bond pending Siegelman's appeal.
* The fact that, so far, no transcript exists in the Siegelman case, supposedly because the original court reporter died.
* The influence that Karl Rove has had on Alabama state courts, starting in the mid 1990s, and the untold damage he has done to the state's overall justice apparatus.
* The peculiar reporting methods of the Birmingham and Mobile newspapers in the case and their apparent close ties to prosecutors.
Alabama is essentially ground zero for corruption in the Bush DOJ. Our state is to justice-based terrorism what lower Manhattan is to Islamic terrorism. It's where a disturbing and profoundly important story had its genesis.
It's where the nation first learned about modern-day American political prisoners. (And there are others--at least three we know of, connected to the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. That case, too, would make a superb 60 Minutes story.)
CBS has done a splendid job of providing an overview of the Siegelman case and what it represents. Let's hope Scott Pelley and crew are allowed to finish the job.
We've seen reports that more than 100 hours of material had to be left out of the story. Could CBS return to the Siegelman story? Sounds like the network certainly has plenty of ammunition if it decides to use it. (With modern video technology on the Web, 60 Minutes really needs to explore the idea of at least providing expanded Web casts.)
Based on the quality of its report on Sunday night, it's safe to assume that CBS has material that would break new ground in the case. It's not unusual for 60 Minutes to revisit stories and update them. The Siegelman case cries out for that kind of treatment--particularly because it is not just an "Alabama" story. This goes to the heart of wrongdoing in the Bush Department of Justice, which involves all Americans.
Just consider a few angles that 60 Minutes was not able to touch:
* The apparent electronic manipulation of votes in Baldwin County that gave Bob Riley the 2002 election over Siegelman.
* The myriad conflicts of interests involving U.S. Judge Mark Fuller and the possible criminal activity Fuller has been engaged in--as laid out in a scorching affidavit by Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
* The fact that key prosecution witness Lanny Young also provided damning testimony about Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor, which federal investigators evidently ignored.
* The strong connections, driven home in recent days by Huffington Post, between Bob Riley and Jack Abramoff--and how money funneled through Abramoff helped Riley beat Siegelman.
* The stunningly weak memorandum opinion that Fuller issued as an "explanation" for denying bond pending Siegelman's appeal.
* The fact that, so far, no transcript exists in the Siegelman case, supposedly because the original court reporter died.
* The influence that Karl Rove has had on Alabama state courts, starting in the mid 1990s, and the untold damage he has done to the state's overall justice apparatus.
* The peculiar reporting methods of the Birmingham and Mobile newspapers in the case and their apparent close ties to prosecutors.
Alabama is essentially ground zero for corruption in the Bush DOJ. Our state is to justice-based terrorism what lower Manhattan is to Islamic terrorism. It's where a disturbing and profoundly important story had its genesis.
It's where the nation first learned about modern-day American political prisoners. (And there are others--at least three we know of, connected to the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. That case, too, would make a superb 60 Minutes story.)
CBS has done a splendid job of providing an overview of the Siegelman case and what it represents. Let's hope Scott Pelley and crew are allowed to finish the job.
McCain Lets Riley Off the Hook
As many folks focused on Sunday night's 60 Minutes segment about the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, Sam Stein of Huffington Post was preparing to break a story that sheds much light on how the Siegelman case came to be.
Stein's scoop should go way beyond the borders of Alabama. In fact, it should become a major issue in the presidential campaign because it casts presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in a most unfavorable light.
For good measure, Stein's story also touches on our Legal Schnauzer case.
McCain led a 2006 Senate investigation into the activities of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But Stein reports that McCain left information out of the report that detailed how Alabama Governor Bob Riley was targeted by Abramoff's influence-peddling scheme.
Huffington Post obtained a copy of a 2002 e-mail in which Abramoff explains to an aide what he would like to see Riley do in return for the "help" he received from Abramoff's tribal clients:
An official with the Mississippi Choctaws "definitely wants Riley to shut down the Poarch Creek operation," Abramoff wrote, including his announcing that anyone caught gambling there can't qualify for a state contract or something like that."
McCain and his staff had access to this information before issuing their report--showing a direct link between Abramoff and Riley. But McCain's committee sat on the information.
Stein notes the political implications of the committee's failure to expose the Abramoff-Riley connection. Word leaked prior to the 2002 election that Siegelman was under federal investigation, and he lost the Alabama gubernatorial race to Riley by fewer than 3,000 votes.
Riley took office in January 2003 and won re-election in 2006, while McCain kept the Abramoff connection safely under wraps.
Would the prosecution that landed Siegelman in prison have ever happened if McCain had not provided cover for Riley? That is one of many interesting questions raised by Stein's story.
The tie to our Legal Schnauzer case, as often happens in our tale of intrigue, is provided by Alabama GOP "consultant" Dax Swatek. Swatek's ethically challenged father, Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that is at the heart of this blog. And Alabama Republican judges made numerous unlawful rulings in the case, making sure that Bill Swatek was not held accountable for filing a lawsuit that had no basis in fact or law.
Dax Swatek, after serving as Bob Riley's campaign manager in 2006, was hired as an advisor for McCain's exploratory committee in Alabama. Swatek wound up getting dumped when the McCain campaign had financial difficulties. (Interestingly, Dax Swatek also was campaign manager for the failed 2000 judicial race of Alice Martin, now U.S. attorney in Alabama and the first prosecutor to go after Don Siegelman.)
Now that the resurgent McCain appears headed to the GOP nomination, the Arizonan's ties to Bob Riley and Dax Swatek merit special scrutiny. Not surprisingly, those ties appear to involve questionable ethics.
Here's the irony in all of this: Evidence strongly suggests that Bob Riley and Alice Martin, along with Republican judges, have taken steps to protect Dax Swatek's father from the repercussions of filing a bogus lawsuit in Alabama state courts. That sounds very similar to the kind of cover John McCain provided for Bob Riley back in 2002.
Covering one another seems to be a prime hobby of Alabama Republicans. Now we know that John McCain is part of a pretty sleazy crowd.
Stein's scoop should go way beyond the borders of Alabama. In fact, it should become a major issue in the presidential campaign because it casts presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in a most unfavorable light.
For good measure, Stein's story also touches on our Legal Schnauzer case.
McCain led a 2006 Senate investigation into the activities of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But Stein reports that McCain left information out of the report that detailed how Alabama Governor Bob Riley was targeted by Abramoff's influence-peddling scheme.
Huffington Post obtained a copy of a 2002 e-mail in which Abramoff explains to an aide what he would like to see Riley do in return for the "help" he received from Abramoff's tribal clients:
An official with the Mississippi Choctaws "definitely wants Riley to shut down the Poarch Creek operation," Abramoff wrote, including his announcing that anyone caught gambling there can't qualify for a state contract or something like that."
McCain and his staff had access to this information before issuing their report--showing a direct link between Abramoff and Riley. But McCain's committee sat on the information.
Stein notes the political implications of the committee's failure to expose the Abramoff-Riley connection. Word leaked prior to the 2002 election that Siegelman was under federal investigation, and he lost the Alabama gubernatorial race to Riley by fewer than 3,000 votes.
Riley took office in January 2003 and won re-election in 2006, while McCain kept the Abramoff connection safely under wraps.
Would the prosecution that landed Siegelman in prison have ever happened if McCain had not provided cover for Riley? That is one of many interesting questions raised by Stein's story.
The tie to our Legal Schnauzer case, as often happens in our tale of intrigue, is provided by Alabama GOP "consultant" Dax Swatek. Swatek's ethically challenged father, Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that is at the heart of this blog. And Alabama Republican judges made numerous unlawful rulings in the case, making sure that Bill Swatek was not held accountable for filing a lawsuit that had no basis in fact or law.
Dax Swatek, after serving as Bob Riley's campaign manager in 2006, was hired as an advisor for McCain's exploratory committee in Alabama. Swatek wound up getting dumped when the McCain campaign had financial difficulties. (Interestingly, Dax Swatek also was campaign manager for the failed 2000 judicial race of Alice Martin, now U.S. attorney in Alabama and the first prosecutor to go after Don Siegelman.)
Now that the resurgent McCain appears headed to the GOP nomination, the Arizonan's ties to Bob Riley and Dax Swatek merit special scrutiny. Not surprisingly, those ties appear to involve questionable ethics.
Here's the irony in all of this: Evidence strongly suggests that Bob Riley and Alice Martin, along with Republican judges, have taken steps to protect Dax Swatek's father from the repercussions of filing a bogus lawsuit in Alabama state courts. That sounds very similar to the kind of cover John McCain provided for Bob Riley back in 2002.
Covering one another seems to be a prime hobby of Alabama Republicans. Now we know that John McCain is part of a pretty sleazy crowd.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Schnauzer Awards: 60 Minutes Edition
If you care about justice in Alabama, and beyond, today has been like the Monday after the Super Bowl.
Instead of watching and talking about a football game, justice hounds have been engrossed in last night's 60 Minutes piece on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The story clearly hit a nerve. At last check almost 1,700 comments about the story had been left at the 60 Minutes Web site. And the Web and progressive e-mail lists have been abuzz since the broadcast. We even have the story of a mysterious "blackout" at a television station in Huntsville, Alabama, one whose owners evidently have connections to the Bush family. Hmmm.
As victims of Republican corruption in Alabama state courts, my wife and I took a special interest in the 60 Minutes story. We spent pretty much the whole evening talking about it. Today, someone told me an awards show of some kind was on TV last night.
Which got me to thinking: In the spirit of the Oscars and that little football game that was played a few weeks back, maybe we should present our own awards based on the 60 Minutes story. We'll call them the Schnauzers:
* MVP (Most Valuable Player)--Grant Woods, former attorney general of Arizona. He was authoritative, direct, splendid all the way around. And his comment about what's best for America being more important than what's best for the Republican Party was a classic. Maybe a few statesmen still exist. My God, if this guy ran for office in a place where I cast a ballot, I might actually consider voting Republican!
* MCP (Most Courageous Player)--Jill Simpson, Republican whistleblower. The woman has stuck her personal and professional neck on the line. And her credibility remains rock solid, I suspect, with most rational viewers.
* MVQ (Most Valuable Questioner)--Scott Pelley proved to be a pro's pro. His reporting was solid, fair, and compelling. One thought I had as I watched: Wonder if folks in North Dakota care about this? Thanks to Pelley and his crew, I bet they do.
* BTG (Best Tour Guides)--Producers Joel Bach and David Gelber. They guided the story masterfully. And they packed a ton of information into a 14-minute slot.
* MVSS (Most Valuable Siegelman Supporter)--Attorney Doug Jones. His point about Nick Bailey's story regarding the check--and how it didn't add up--was key. Perhaps that point has been reported before, but Jones drove it home expertly.
* MVB (Most Valuable Behind-the-Scenes-Source)--Harper's Scott Horton. I suspect this story never would have happened without Horton's work at his No Comment blog. When a Columbia University law professor talks about a court case, people listen. If I'm ever held a political prisoner--and given my recent experiences in Shelby County, Alabama, that's not out of the question--I hope someone like Horton takes up my cause.
* MVPh (Most Valuable Photographer)--Whoever got the shot of Don Siegelman emptying mop buckets at a Louisiana prison. Fantastic work. If anyone changed channels after that, I'd be amazed.
* MVPr (Most Valuable Prisoner)--Off-camera interview with Nick Bailey was critical. Showed just how uncertain Bailey's testimony was and highlighted chicanery by prosecution in failing to produce Bailey's writings.
* MAC (Most Amazing Coincidence)--Technical difficulties at Huntsville station just happen to hit as Siegelman piece is going on the air. And station owners are Bush supporters!
* MDP (Most Despicable Prickhead)--Rove attorney who suggested his client deserved an apology from CBS. Hey Bub, your client had every opportunity to appear and be interviewed on the program. He chose not to. He's had every opportunity to testify under oath in Congress, as Jill Simpson has done. He's chosen not to. Your client owes American an apology for what he's done to our country.
* MSAG (Most Slimy Alabama GOPer)--Party chair Mike Hubbard. Claims hardly anyone in the party knows who Jill Simpson is? Last time a Republican tried to pull that kind of stunt, Artur Davis made him look like a fool on the floor of the House. I suspect history will do the same to Hubbard.
Instead of watching and talking about a football game, justice hounds have been engrossed in last night's 60 Minutes piece on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
The story clearly hit a nerve. At last check almost 1,700 comments about the story had been left at the 60 Minutes Web site. And the Web and progressive e-mail lists have been abuzz since the broadcast. We even have the story of a mysterious "blackout" at a television station in Huntsville, Alabama, one whose owners evidently have connections to the Bush family. Hmmm.
As victims of Republican corruption in Alabama state courts, my wife and I took a special interest in the 60 Minutes story. We spent pretty much the whole evening talking about it. Today, someone told me an awards show of some kind was on TV last night.
Which got me to thinking: In the spirit of the Oscars and that little football game that was played a few weeks back, maybe we should present our own awards based on the 60 Minutes story. We'll call them the Schnauzers:
* MVP (Most Valuable Player)--Grant Woods, former attorney general of Arizona. He was authoritative, direct, splendid all the way around. And his comment about what's best for America being more important than what's best for the Republican Party was a classic. Maybe a few statesmen still exist. My God, if this guy ran for office in a place where I cast a ballot, I might actually consider voting Republican!
* MCP (Most Courageous Player)--Jill Simpson, Republican whistleblower. The woman has stuck her personal and professional neck on the line. And her credibility remains rock solid, I suspect, with most rational viewers.
* MVQ (Most Valuable Questioner)--Scott Pelley proved to be a pro's pro. His reporting was solid, fair, and compelling. One thought I had as I watched: Wonder if folks in North Dakota care about this? Thanks to Pelley and his crew, I bet they do.
* BTG (Best Tour Guides)--Producers Joel Bach and David Gelber. They guided the story masterfully. And they packed a ton of information into a 14-minute slot.
* MVSS (Most Valuable Siegelman Supporter)--Attorney Doug Jones. His point about Nick Bailey's story regarding the check--and how it didn't add up--was key. Perhaps that point has been reported before, but Jones drove it home expertly.
* MVB (Most Valuable Behind-the-Scenes-Source)--Harper's Scott Horton. I suspect this story never would have happened without Horton's work at his No Comment blog. When a Columbia University law professor talks about a court case, people listen. If I'm ever held a political prisoner--and given my recent experiences in Shelby County, Alabama, that's not out of the question--I hope someone like Horton takes up my cause.
* MVPh (Most Valuable Photographer)--Whoever got the shot of Don Siegelman emptying mop buckets at a Louisiana prison. Fantastic work. If anyone changed channels after that, I'd be amazed.
* MVPr (Most Valuable Prisoner)--Off-camera interview with Nick Bailey was critical. Showed just how uncertain Bailey's testimony was and highlighted chicanery by prosecution in failing to produce Bailey's writings.
* MAC (Most Amazing Coincidence)--Technical difficulties at Huntsville station just happen to hit as Siegelman piece is going on the air. And station owners are Bush supporters!
* MDP (Most Despicable Prickhead)--Rove attorney who suggested his client deserved an apology from CBS. Hey Bub, your client had every opportunity to appear and be interviewed on the program. He chose not to. He's had every opportunity to testify under oath in Congress, as Jill Simpson has done. He's chosen not to. Your client owes American an apology for what he's done to our country.
* MSAG (Most Slimy Alabama GOPer)--Party chair Mike Hubbard. Claims hardly anyone in the party knows who Jill Simpson is? Last time a Republican tried to pull that kind of stunt, Artur Davis made him look like a fool on the floor of the House. I suspect history will do the same to Hubbard.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Deconstructing Eddie Curran
If we learn anything from part one of Eddie Curran's op-ed piece in the the Montgomery Independent, it is this: A good copy editor is worth his or her weight in gold.
I've read a fair chunk of Curran's multipart investigative series in the Mobile Press-Register on the administration of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Curran is credited with sparking the federal investigation that led to Siegelman's indictment and conviction on corruption charges. A national audience tonight, courtesy of 60 Minutes, will learn some of the details that have caused quite a few observers to conclude that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated and legally unjust.
Curran's original series appeared to be presented in a professional way. Siegelman insiders probably would quibble with some of the facts and certainly would take issue with the conclusions drawn. But I've been in journalism myself, in one form or another, for almost 30 years and, on its face, the Mobile series comes across as the work of a solid investigative reporter.
Curran's op-ed piece, which hit the Web yesterday, is another matter. The journalist comes across as a petulant fifth grader, firing spitballs at kids he doesn't like. In this case, the kids he doesn't like are named Jill Simpson (Republican whistleblower who will be at the heart of the 60 Minutes piece) and Scott Horton (legal-affairs reporter for Harper's). Curran fires plenty of spitballs at his targets, but his aim is way off line.
The goal of Curran's op-ed apparently is to convince readers that the Siegelman prosecutors were ethical, U.S. Judge Mark Fuller was honorable, Siegelman was criminal, Simpson is delusional, and Horton is, well, a stain on Harper's considerable legacy.
Curran fails on all counts. And that might be partly because, as Independent editor Bob Martin takes pains to point out in a lengthy editor's note, the piece was published without editing. (You can almost hear the soap and water running over Martin's hands as he attempts to cleanse himself following the decision to run Curran's piece.)
This all makes me think the Mobile Press-Register must have some outstanding copy editors on board. In fact, if I were a copy editor at a major newspaper, I would save Curran's op-ed and take it with me the next time I go to my boss asking for a raise. I would plop the article on my boss' desk and say, "Without people like me, this is the kind of stuff you would have running in your newspaper every day. So pay up, bub."
Based on Curran's op-ed, I can only assume that copy editors had a lot to do with the professional presentation of his work in the Mobile paper. In the Montgomery Independent, we get Eddie Curran raw. And it's not a pretty sight.
In fact, I have to wonder: Where was the editor of the Mobile Press-Register when the deal to run Curran's op-ed was going down? Curran states that he is on unpaid sabbatical from the paper in order to write a book about the Siegelman case. That means he still should be answerable to the editor of the Press-Register. And I know more than one newspaper editor who would consider a sophomoric op-ed such as Curran's to be grounds for dismissal.
I assume folks at the Press-Register care, at least a little bit, about their reputation. After checking out Curran's op-ed, a reasonable reader might ask: If this is the P-R's ace investigative reporter, unfiltered, what kind of editorial judgment does the paper have? And wouldn't they be wise to keep a fairly tight leash on him?
It's not breaking news that Eddie Curran is, to put it charitably, an eccentric fellow. We've had our own interesting encounters with him at Legal Schnauzer. You can check out our posts mentioning Mr. Curran here. If you want to get a flavor for what it's like to have Mr. Curran as an e-mail buddy, scroll to the bottom post and work your way up. You'll see some comments that are so off the wall that I, at first, thought it had to be an impostor. But Curran made it clear that it was indeed him, hair follicles and all.
Now, I've known a few wacky reporters in my time. Investigative reporting is tough, risky work, the kind that doesn't necessarily attract "9 to 5, church deacon" types. But even the nuttiest reporters usually know when to dial it back and let their work speak for itself. They also know that their credibility is strongest when they stick to the facts at hand. And perhaps most importantly, they know that copy editors, managing editors, executive editors, and others are important parts of the reporting process. Going solo might be an attractive option if you are Paul McCartney or Paul Simon, but an investigative reporter should be humble and calm enough to know that it's a good idea to stay within the team framework--to rely on people to check and question and enhance your raw material.
And that seems to be the greatest failing of Curran's op-ed--it is pure Eddie, all bluster and cockiness, with one smart-alecky remark coming after another. It is full of name calling and bomb throwing. But the piece never really goes anywhere. And that's because Curran didn't have an editor to force him to support his assertions--or maybe he just doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Here's one example of Curran making serious charges but not backing them up. He opens by noting that a friend had sent him a copy of a Scott Horton article that ran in the Jan. 21 issue of the Independent. The friend had found it "disturbing," and Curran tells us that he, too, was disturbed by it. "The article is laden with factual error, innuendo and a level of sourcing that would not be permitted in the lowest rank of newspapers."
But Curran gives no examples of factual error or innuendo or poor sourcing in the story. "Unlike my Montgomery friend, I knew something about the subject of the piece--Mark Fuller--as well as its author." But Curran gives us little, if any, information to support his claim that he is knowledgeable about Fuller and Horton.
Curran observed Fuller during the Siegelman trial and gives him high marks for being a "neutral arbiter." Can Curran present any facts that helped him form this conclusion? Evidently not. Curran also likes the fact that Fuller "never grandstanded or tried to make himself the focus of the trial." That's nice, but what does it mean? You could say the same thing about a department-store mannequin conducting a trial.
As for the two targets of his spitballs, Curran doesn't lay a glove on either Simpson or Horton. He takes healthy swings at some matters on the periphery of Simpson's sworn statements and testimony. But he has no answer for her main point: That she overheard Republican operatives saying they were going to work with the U.S. Justice Department to "take care of" Don Siegelman.
As U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) pointed out in a Congressional hearing on selective prosecution, Simpson has records that show a phone call to the office of Rob Riley (son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley) at the time she says it took place. How does Curran deal with this? It "could be explained by Simpson being placed on hold."
Oh, really. Says who? Why doesn't he quote Rob Riley on this matter?
Interestingly, Curran did talk to Rob Riley before writing his piece. But he never points out the highly hedged language in the affidavit Riley filed with Congress.
And Curran seems to have a double standard when it comes to seeking comment from subjects before writing a story. He goes apoplectic when noting that Horton did not seek comment from him for a piece in Harper's. But he gives no indication that he sought comment from either Simpson or Horton for his own op-ed piece.
As for Horton, Curran makes it clear that he doesn't much care for the Harper's columnist. And he levels all sorts of charges against Horton, calling him a "bully, liar, phony and pompous ass."
Does Curran provide any facts to support his claim that Horton is just an old meany? Nope. The closest he comes is mocking Horton's tendency to use literary references in his work. (By the way, Curran tells us only that Horton is an "Internet columnist." No mention of the fact that Horton is a law professor at an Ivy League school, Columbia University.)
In an apparent effort to contrast himself with this learned Horton fellow, Curran throws in a reference in his own work to the old Scooby Doo cartoon. That'll teach that uppity Horton fellow.
After comparing Horton to Rush Limbaugh (bet Horton never thought he would see that comparison), Curran does tell us this:
I will limit my critique of Horton's work primarily to the article sent me by my friend, and even then will not be able to address all the falsehoods presented there. Such a critique requires considerable length because the lies are so vast and based upon other lies, bogus coincidences and innuendo requiring them, too, to be placed in perspective.
I've read a fair chunk of Curran's multipart investigative series in the Mobile Press-Register on the administration of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Curran is credited with sparking the federal investigation that led to Siegelman's indictment and conviction on corruption charges. A national audience tonight, courtesy of 60 Minutes, will learn some of the details that have caused quite a few observers to conclude that the Siegelman prosecution was politically motivated and legally unjust.
Curran's original series appeared to be presented in a professional way. Siegelman insiders probably would quibble with some of the facts and certainly would take issue with the conclusions drawn. But I've been in journalism myself, in one form or another, for almost 30 years and, on its face, the Mobile series comes across as the work of a solid investigative reporter.
Curran's op-ed piece, which hit the Web yesterday, is another matter. The journalist comes across as a petulant fifth grader, firing spitballs at kids he doesn't like. In this case, the kids he doesn't like are named Jill Simpson (Republican whistleblower who will be at the heart of the 60 Minutes piece) and Scott Horton (legal-affairs reporter for Harper's). Curran fires plenty of spitballs at his targets, but his aim is way off line.
The goal of Curran's op-ed apparently is to convince readers that the Siegelman prosecutors were ethical, U.S. Judge Mark Fuller was honorable, Siegelman was criminal, Simpson is delusional, and Horton is, well, a stain on Harper's considerable legacy.
Curran fails on all counts. And that might be partly because, as Independent editor Bob Martin takes pains to point out in a lengthy editor's note, the piece was published without editing. (You can almost hear the soap and water running over Martin's hands as he attempts to cleanse himself following the decision to run Curran's piece.)
This all makes me think the Mobile Press-Register must have some outstanding copy editors on board. In fact, if I were a copy editor at a major newspaper, I would save Curran's op-ed and take it with me the next time I go to my boss asking for a raise. I would plop the article on my boss' desk and say, "Without people like me, this is the kind of stuff you would have running in your newspaper every day. So pay up, bub."
Based on Curran's op-ed, I can only assume that copy editors had a lot to do with the professional presentation of his work in the Mobile paper. In the Montgomery Independent, we get Eddie Curran raw. And it's not a pretty sight.
In fact, I have to wonder: Where was the editor of the Mobile Press-Register when the deal to run Curran's op-ed was going down? Curran states that he is on unpaid sabbatical from the paper in order to write a book about the Siegelman case. That means he still should be answerable to the editor of the Press-Register. And I know more than one newspaper editor who would consider a sophomoric op-ed such as Curran's to be grounds for dismissal.
I assume folks at the Press-Register care, at least a little bit, about their reputation. After checking out Curran's op-ed, a reasonable reader might ask: If this is the P-R's ace investigative reporter, unfiltered, what kind of editorial judgment does the paper have? And wouldn't they be wise to keep a fairly tight leash on him?
It's not breaking news that Eddie Curran is, to put it charitably, an eccentric fellow. We've had our own interesting encounters with him at Legal Schnauzer. You can check out our posts mentioning Mr. Curran here. If you want to get a flavor for what it's like to have Mr. Curran as an e-mail buddy, scroll to the bottom post and work your way up. You'll see some comments that are so off the wall that I, at first, thought it had to be an impostor. But Curran made it clear that it was indeed him, hair follicles and all.
Now, I've known a few wacky reporters in my time. Investigative reporting is tough, risky work, the kind that doesn't necessarily attract "9 to 5, church deacon" types. But even the nuttiest reporters usually know when to dial it back and let their work speak for itself. They also know that their credibility is strongest when they stick to the facts at hand. And perhaps most importantly, they know that copy editors, managing editors, executive editors, and others are important parts of the reporting process. Going solo might be an attractive option if you are Paul McCartney or Paul Simon, but an investigative reporter should be humble and calm enough to know that it's a good idea to stay within the team framework--to rely on people to check and question and enhance your raw material.
And that seems to be the greatest failing of Curran's op-ed--it is pure Eddie, all bluster and cockiness, with one smart-alecky remark coming after another. It is full of name calling and bomb throwing. But the piece never really goes anywhere. And that's because Curran didn't have an editor to force him to support his assertions--or maybe he just doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Here's one example of Curran making serious charges but not backing them up. He opens by noting that a friend had sent him a copy of a Scott Horton article that ran in the Jan. 21 issue of the Independent. The friend had found it "disturbing," and Curran tells us that he, too, was disturbed by it. "The article is laden with factual error, innuendo and a level of sourcing that would not be permitted in the lowest rank of newspapers."
But Curran gives no examples of factual error or innuendo or poor sourcing in the story. "Unlike my Montgomery friend, I knew something about the subject of the piece--Mark Fuller--as well as its author." But Curran gives us little, if any, information to support his claim that he is knowledgeable about Fuller and Horton.
Curran observed Fuller during the Siegelman trial and gives him high marks for being a "neutral arbiter." Can Curran present any facts that helped him form this conclusion? Evidently not. Curran also likes the fact that Fuller "never grandstanded or tried to make himself the focus of the trial." That's nice, but what does it mean? You could say the same thing about a department-store mannequin conducting a trial.
As for the two targets of his spitballs, Curran doesn't lay a glove on either Simpson or Horton. He takes healthy swings at some matters on the periphery of Simpson's sworn statements and testimony. But he has no answer for her main point: That she overheard Republican operatives saying they were going to work with the U.S. Justice Department to "take care of" Don Siegelman.
As U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) pointed out in a Congressional hearing on selective prosecution, Simpson has records that show a phone call to the office of Rob Riley (son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley) at the time she says it took place. How does Curran deal with this? It "could be explained by Simpson being placed on hold."
Oh, really. Says who? Why doesn't he quote Rob Riley on this matter?
Interestingly, Curran did talk to Rob Riley before writing his piece. But he never points out the highly hedged language in the affidavit Riley filed with Congress.
And Curran seems to have a double standard when it comes to seeking comment from subjects before writing a story. He goes apoplectic when noting that Horton did not seek comment from him for a piece in Harper's. But he gives no indication that he sought comment from either Simpson or Horton for his own op-ed piece.
As for Horton, Curran makes it clear that he doesn't much care for the Harper's columnist. And he levels all sorts of charges against Horton, calling him a "bully, liar, phony and pompous ass."
Does Curran provide any facts to support his claim that Horton is just an old meany? Nope. The closest he comes is mocking Horton's tendency to use literary references in his work. (By the way, Curran tells us only that Horton is an "Internet columnist." No mention of the fact that Horton is a law professor at an Ivy League school, Columbia University.)
In an apparent effort to contrast himself with this learned Horton fellow, Curran throws in a reference in his own work to the old Scooby Doo cartoon. That'll teach that uppity Horton fellow.
After comparing Horton to Rush Limbaugh (bet Horton never thought he would see that comparison), Curran does tell us this:
I will limit my critique of Horton's work primarily to the article sent me by my friend, and even then will not be able to address all the falsehoods presented there. Such a critique requires considerable length because the lies are so vast and based upon other lies, bogus coincidences and innuendo requiring them, too, to be placed in perspective.
But he proceeds to not critique Horton's work at all--at least not in part one. Curran seems to be doing a "trust me" op-ed, saying, in essence, "This Horton guy is a sorry excuse for a columnist. I'm not going to give you any examples of his sorry work. But trust me, he's bad."
Perhaps Curran will offer some legitimate critique in part two, which apparently will come next Friday. But for all of the sound and fury about Curran's distaste for Horton, you would think our guy Eddie would offer up at least a morsel of fact-based criticism in part one.
Curran does tell us that the title of part two will be "Who's Lying?" That sounds like a screed focused on Jill Simpson. After all, she's the person in the Siegelman saga who has most put her credibility on the line. (And based on part one of Curran's op-ed, I'd say her credibility still stands strong.)
Will Curran ever get down to telling us exactly what it is that causes him to find Scott Horton so distasteful? Guess we'll have to wait for part two.
Perhaps Curran unwittingly shines some light on the real reasons for his pique at Simpson and Horton. "If anyone should declare I have a conflict in writing this piece, let them."
OK, Eddie, I'll take you up on that. Seems to me you have a conflict when it comes to criticizing Simpson and Horton, and here's why: They are casting serious doubts on the Siegelman prosecution, and in so doing, they clearly are causing problems for your plans to write a book. If Siegelman's prosecution is overturned, the market for your book will dry up. You have a vested interest in seeing that Don Siegelman remains in federal prison. And now Jill Simpson and Scott Horton have gone and even helped get 60 Minutes raising questions about the Siegelman case.
No wonder you're pissed. If I were in your shoes, I would be pissed, too. Of course, if I were in your shoes, I might have held off on writing a book about the Siegelman case until it was over--until after the appeal.
And here's another thought: If the Siegelman verdict is overturned, and a Congressional investigation shows that he truly was a political prisoner, now that will be a book.
But that's evidently not the book you want to write. Maybe Scott Horton will write it.
Coming up: Deconstructing Eddie Curran, Part II
A Schnauzer Primer on 60 Minutes Story
As a public service, we at Legal Schnauzer provide some background that we hope will enhance your understanding, and enjoyment, of tonight's 60 Minutes segment on the Don Siegelman case.
For its powerhouse reputation in broadcast journalism--and 60 Minutes' reputation is about as strong as it gets--we must remember this about the show: A standard episode runs about 42 minutes, excluding ads, so that means a segment goes about 14 minutes. That's not much time for a tale as complicated as the Siegelman case.
So 60 Minutes will be able to focus narrowly on certain aspects of the case. I'm sure large chunks of interviews will be left on the editing-room floor. So here are some background issues to keep in mind:
* The piece evidently will focus heavily on the role of White House advisor Karl Rove in the Siegelman case. Folks outside of Alabama might wonder: Why would a national figure like Karl Rove care about the governor of Alabama? Well, before Karl Rove was a national figure, he built his reputation on judicial races in Alabama, turning our courts from all-Democratic to virtually all-Republican. In fact, Rove built his national reputation in Alabama, not in Texas. We have posted about Rove's Alabama connections here.
* Based on previews of the 60 Minutes piece, it appears that Rove will be portrayed as an individual with serious ethical shortcomings. And yet, he and Bill Canary (who also will probably come off as being ethically challenged) played a huge role in shaping today's state courts in Alabama. So as you watch the show, I encourage you to ask this question: If these two gentlemen are so unethical, what kind of state courts must Alabama have?
That is the story that continues to go unreported in the mainstream press. Long before Don Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons, long before George W. Bush took over the U.S. Department of Justice, Karl Rove was turning Alabama state courts into a political cesspool. And they remain a political cesspool today.
The most well known example of the sleaze in Alabama courts is the ExxonMobil case, in which our Supreme Court unlawfully overturned a $3.6 billion judgment for the state and against the oil giant. But our Legal Schnauzer case has been handled just as unlawfully, and we will lay it all out for you in the weeks and months ahead--in spite of recent threats by Alabama Republican honchos to steal my house. That, of course, is a blatant attempt to shut down this blog, and I strongly suspect it originates with some key players in the Siegelman case. More on that is coming up very soon.
The bottom line? If you truly want to understand the mindset that led to the Don Siegelman case and the firings of U.S. attorneys across the country, you need to understand Alabama state courts. That's where Karl Rove's grand power grab began.
And that's the primary point behind this blog: to shine light on the corruption that still runs wild in Karl Rove's Alabama court system.
For its powerhouse reputation in broadcast journalism--and 60 Minutes' reputation is about as strong as it gets--we must remember this about the show: A standard episode runs about 42 minutes, excluding ads, so that means a segment goes about 14 minutes. That's not much time for a tale as complicated as the Siegelman case.
So 60 Minutes will be able to focus narrowly on certain aspects of the case. I'm sure large chunks of interviews will be left on the editing-room floor. So here are some background issues to keep in mind:
* The piece evidently will focus heavily on the role of White House advisor Karl Rove in the Siegelman case. Folks outside of Alabama might wonder: Why would a national figure like Karl Rove care about the governor of Alabama? Well, before Karl Rove was a national figure, he built his reputation on judicial races in Alabama, turning our courts from all-Democratic to virtually all-Republican. In fact, Rove built his national reputation in Alabama, not in Texas. We have posted about Rove's Alabama connections here.
* Based on previews of the 60 Minutes piece, it appears that Rove will be portrayed as an individual with serious ethical shortcomings. And yet, he and Bill Canary (who also will probably come off as being ethically challenged) played a huge role in shaping today's state courts in Alabama. So as you watch the show, I encourage you to ask this question: If these two gentlemen are so unethical, what kind of state courts must Alabama have?
That is the story that continues to go unreported in the mainstream press. Long before Don Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons, long before George W. Bush took over the U.S. Department of Justice, Karl Rove was turning Alabama state courts into a political cesspool. And they remain a political cesspool today.
The most well known example of the sleaze in Alabama courts is the ExxonMobil case, in which our Supreme Court unlawfully overturned a $3.6 billion judgment for the state and against the oil giant. But our Legal Schnauzer case has been handled just as unlawfully, and we will lay it all out for you in the weeks and months ahead--in spite of recent threats by Alabama Republican honchos to steal my house. That, of course, is a blatant attempt to shut down this blog, and I strongly suspect it originates with some key players in the Siegelman case. More on that is coming up very soon.
The bottom line? If you truly want to understand the mindset that led to the Don Siegelman case and the firings of U.S. attorneys across the country, you need to understand Alabama state courts. That's where Karl Rove's grand power grab began.
And that's the primary point behind this blog: to shine light on the corruption that still runs wild in Karl Rove's Alabama court system.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Eddie Curran's Take on Siegelman Case
The Eddie Curran piece just became available at the Montgomery Independent's Web site.
The article can be read in its entirety here.
Haven't had a chance to fully digest the piece yet. But you can tell right off that it comes with an interesting editor's note. In fact, it seems that Editor Bob Martin is trying his darnedest to distance himself from Curran's work.
Why was the story run? It is well documented that Scott Horton, of Harper's, has been highly critical of Alabama's three Newhouse newspapers--in Birmingham, Mobile, and Huntsville. As a reporter for the Mobile Press-Register, Curran evidently took issue with Horton's work and felt he deserved an opportunity to respond.
The Independent decided to give him that opportunity and publishes the article without editing.
The article can be read in its entirety here.
Haven't had a chance to fully digest the piece yet. But you can tell right off that it comes with an interesting editor's note. In fact, it seems that Editor Bob Martin is trying his darnedest to distance himself from Curran's work.
Why was the story run? It is well documented that Scott Horton, of Harper's, has been highly critical of Alabama's three Newhouse newspapers--in Birmingham, Mobile, and Huntsville. As a reporter for the Mobile Press-Register, Curran evidently took issue with Horton's work and felt he deserved an opportunity to respond.
The Independent decided to give him that opportunity and publishes the article without editing.
What's Going On With Montgomery Independent?
According to several reports on the Web, the Montgomery Independent has published an article about the Don Siegelman case by Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran.
The story evidently was published Friday in the Independent's print edition and has not appeared yet on the Web. I haven't seen Curran's piece, but it sounds like it is a critical take on the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and the reporting Harper's legal-affairs analyst Scott Horton.
The Independent seems like an odd venue for Curran's analysis. By Alabama standards, the Independent appears to be unusually fair-minded and progressive and has even run Horton's pieces on occasion.
Editor and Publisher Bob Martin showed significant courage a few weeks back when he allowed reporter Bob Gambacurta to shine light on possible campaign-finance violations by Alabama Governor Bob Riley. The story seemed to grow from Gambacurta's reporting on the dispute between Riley and Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff.
At the time, Martin wrote in an editorial that if Riley was not able to provide sufficient explanation for the apparent violations, he was prepared to call for legal action. Martin said he considered the alleged violations by Riley to be every bit as serious as the charges that landed previous governor Don Siegelman in federal prison.
To my knowledge, neither Riley nor anyone on his staff, has offered any legitimate explanation for the apparent violations in his campaign--which, by the way, was managed by Dax Swatek, son of Pelham attorney Bill Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against your humble blogger. Despite the lack of any defense from Riley, the Independent seemingly has allowed the story to drop.
And we now have the paper running what seems to be a two-part attack on those who have testified or written about the apparent political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution.
Strange.
Here is one possible factor: The Independent and Bob Martin recently came under fire from the Flashpoint blog. A post at Flashpoint indicated that Martin might have a conflict of interest connected to coverage of the Alabama two-year college scandal.
Did someone with a rightward agenda unearth information in order to get the Independent off the John Goff/Riley story and onto stories written by Eddie Curran?
Does the Independent, for some reason, feel the need to balance the Scott Horton pieces it has run with a couple of pieces from Eddie Curran?
If it comes down to a contest between Scott Horton and Eddie Curran on reporting about legal affairs, I would put my money on Scott Horton every time.
The story evidently was published Friday in the Independent's print edition and has not appeared yet on the Web. I haven't seen Curran's piece, but it sounds like it is a critical take on the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and the reporting Harper's legal-affairs analyst Scott Horton.
The Independent seems like an odd venue for Curran's analysis. By Alabama standards, the Independent appears to be unusually fair-minded and progressive and has even run Horton's pieces on occasion.
Editor and Publisher Bob Martin showed significant courage a few weeks back when he allowed reporter Bob Gambacurta to shine light on possible campaign-finance violations by Alabama Governor Bob Riley. The story seemed to grow from Gambacurta's reporting on the dispute between Riley and Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff.
At the time, Martin wrote in an editorial that if Riley was not able to provide sufficient explanation for the apparent violations, he was prepared to call for legal action. Martin said he considered the alleged violations by Riley to be every bit as serious as the charges that landed previous governor Don Siegelman in federal prison.
To my knowledge, neither Riley nor anyone on his staff, has offered any legitimate explanation for the apparent violations in his campaign--which, by the way, was managed by Dax Swatek, son of Pelham attorney Bill Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against your humble blogger. Despite the lack of any defense from Riley, the Independent seemingly has allowed the story to drop.
And we now have the paper running what seems to be a two-part attack on those who have testified or written about the apparent political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution.
Strange.
Here is one possible factor: The Independent and Bob Martin recently came under fire from the Flashpoint blog. A post at Flashpoint indicated that Martin might have a conflict of interest connected to coverage of the Alabama two-year college scandal.
Did someone with a rightward agenda unearth information in order to get the Independent off the John Goff/Riley story and onto stories written by Eddie Curran?
Does the Independent, for some reason, feel the need to balance the Scott Horton pieces it has run with a couple of pieces from Eddie Curran?
If it comes down to a contest between Scott Horton and Eddie Curran on reporting about legal affairs, I would put my money on Scott Horton every time.
Eddie Curran Resurfaces in Siegelman Saga
A familiar character has resurfaced in the Don Siegelman saga, just in time for tonight's story on the case by 60 Minutes.
Eddie Curran, who wrote an extensive series of articles that sparked the Siegelman investigation, apparently has a new piece in the Montgomery Independent. According to a number of reports on the Web, Curran's article is in the print version of the Independent, which was published Friday, but evidently is not available yet on the Web.
I haven't seen Curran's latest piece, but I understand that it attacks the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton.
Curran normally writes for the Mobile Press-Register. But he has been on sabbatical from the paper in order to finish a book on the Siegelman case.
We've had some interaction with Curran and found him to be quite a character. You can read about our experiences with Mr. Curran here and here.
From reading this account, some might call Mr. Curran a flake. Some might call him a meathead. Some might call him an ass. Some might call him a hero.
I understand that Curran has sent numerous wacky e-mails to Scott Horton. If Horton decides to share those e-mails with the world, it should be highly entertaining.
I've been a journalist for almost 30 years, and I've known a few reporters in my time. Some of the best ones are fruitcakes, and Mr. Curran might be keeping with this fine tradition. A reporter can be plenty eccentric and still be a fine reporter.
But I think it's fair to ask just how objective Curran might be at this point regarding Ms. Simpson's testimony and Scott Horton's reporting. It is well documented that Curran is indeed writing a book about the Siegelman case.
How much interest would there be in Curran's book if, through Simpson's testimony and Horton's reporting, it is shown that the prosecution was politically motivated and Siegelman was, in fact, not guilty. If I were in Curran's shoes, I very much would want the Siegelman conviction to stand. If it doesn't, I would fear that my book either would never be published or would sell about six copies.
I've spoken with a number of sources who have questioned Curran's objectivity all along regarding Don Siegelman. Larissa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, seems to be getting at this when she notes that Curran's father, a Mobile attorney, has a particularly close relationship with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions.
Of course, we learned a few weeks back that Lanny Young, a prime witness against Siegelman, also presented evidence about improper gifts he made to Sessions. Those allegations, however, apparently were never seriously investigated, while Siegelman was not only investigated but prosecuted.
On the subject of Eddie Curran's objectivity, I can only add this: I sent him at least two e-mails about the wrongdoing I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. I also had about a 10- to 12-minute phone conversation with him one day. He has yet to ask me the first question about what I witnessed. That might be because he's tied up with the Siegelman book. It might be because he thinks I'm a nutjob. But I would have been more impressed with his objectivity if he had at least referred me to another Press-Register reporter or editor and encouraged them to question me in a serious way. I would welcome such an inquiry. But I suspect Mr. Curran knows that no one at his paper wants to know the truth of what happened in my case.
As for Alexandrovna, she notes that American Spectator writer Quin Hillyer has attacked 60 Minutes in advance for its reporting on the Siegelman case. Alexandrovna does a nice job of counterpunching Mr. Hilyer here.
Eddie Curran, who wrote an extensive series of articles that sparked the Siegelman investigation, apparently has a new piece in the Montgomery Independent. According to a number of reports on the Web, Curran's article is in the print version of the Independent, which was published Friday, but evidently is not available yet on the Web.
I haven't seen Curran's latest piece, but I understand that it attacks the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton.
Curran normally writes for the Mobile Press-Register. But he has been on sabbatical from the paper in order to finish a book on the Siegelman case.
We've had some interaction with Curran and found him to be quite a character. You can read about our experiences with Mr. Curran here and here.
From reading this account, some might call Mr. Curran a flake. Some might call him a meathead. Some might call him an ass. Some might call him a hero.
I understand that Curran has sent numerous wacky e-mails to Scott Horton. If Horton decides to share those e-mails with the world, it should be highly entertaining.
I've been a journalist for almost 30 years, and I've known a few reporters in my time. Some of the best ones are fruitcakes, and Mr. Curran might be keeping with this fine tradition. A reporter can be plenty eccentric and still be a fine reporter.
But I think it's fair to ask just how objective Curran might be at this point regarding Ms. Simpson's testimony and Scott Horton's reporting. It is well documented that Curran is indeed writing a book about the Siegelman case.
How much interest would there be in Curran's book if, through Simpson's testimony and Horton's reporting, it is shown that the prosecution was politically motivated and Siegelman was, in fact, not guilty. If I were in Curran's shoes, I very much would want the Siegelman conviction to stand. If it doesn't, I would fear that my book either would never be published or would sell about six copies.
I've spoken with a number of sources who have questioned Curran's objectivity all along regarding Don Siegelman. Larissa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, seems to be getting at this when she notes that Curran's father, a Mobile attorney, has a particularly close relationship with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions.
Of course, we learned a few weeks back that Lanny Young, a prime witness against Siegelman, also presented evidence about improper gifts he made to Sessions. Those allegations, however, apparently were never seriously investigated, while Siegelman was not only investigated but prosecuted.
On the subject of Eddie Curran's objectivity, I can only add this: I sent him at least two e-mails about the wrongdoing I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. I also had about a 10- to 12-minute phone conversation with him one day. He has yet to ask me the first question about what I witnessed. That might be because he's tied up with the Siegelman book. It might be because he thinks I'm a nutjob. But I would have been more impressed with his objectivity if he had at least referred me to another Press-Register reporter or editor and encouraged them to question me in a serious way. I would welcome such an inquiry. But I suspect Mr. Curran knows that no one at his paper wants to know the truth of what happened in my case.
As for Alexandrovna, she notes that American Spectator writer Quin Hillyer has attacked 60 Minutes in advance for its reporting on the Siegelman case. Alexandrovna does a nice job of counterpunching Mr. Hilyer here.
The Flip Side of Political Prosecution
When 60 Minutes airs its story tomorrow night on the Don Siegelman case, it will focus on what most of us think about when we hear the term "selective prosecution:" an instance where a person who appears to be innocent is prosecuted for political reasons.
But as you watch the 60 Minutes piece, I would encourage you to keep in mind the other, less publicized, side of political prosecution: instances where someone who appears to be guilty is not prosecuted for political reasons.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, raised this issue in a recent post about former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott and his possibly improper intervention with federal investigators on behalf of his brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs. Horton builds his post around a Wall Street Journal story late last week reporting that federal agents are investigating whether Lott knowingly played a role in an alleged conspiracy in 2006 to influence a Mississippi judge presiding over a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Scruggs.
The Journal story focuses on Scruggs' problems in Mississippi, but Horton's sources say the probe might be more focused on Birmingham, Alabama. That's because Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has refused to prosecute Scruggs for violation of a court order in insurance litigation. In refusing to prosecute Scruggs, Martin ignored the recommendation of U.S. Judge William Acker. Could that have Martin, Lott, and Scruggs all in the crosshairs? Horton provides some insight:
Here’s one scenario, which two senior law enforcement figures in Mississippi told me was “more than simply plausible.” The FBI had secured warrants to monitor Scruggs’s phone calls early in the course of the case, during the summer or early fall. In some of those conversations Dickie Scruggs asked for his brother-in-law’s help in fighting off Judge Acker’s attempts to have him prosecuted. Trent Lott picked up the phone and spoke with a few friends in the Justice Department–or perhaps even directly with a U.S. Attorney or two in Alabama, or a senator from Alabama–and asked them to lay off his misbehaving brother-in-law.
My bet is that the investigators are looking very carefully at whether the decision by the U.S. Attorney in Birmingham not to charge Dickie Scruggs had anything to do with intervention by Senator Lott.
Horton goes on to connect Scruggs' situation to the Paul Minor case, the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer:
Of course, the other point that the Journal failed to pick up on is that Lott had a history of intervening with prosecutors to protect his extremely wealthy brother-in-law. I documented this in connection with the prosecution brought against Paul Minor. No matter how you cut it, Dickie Scruggs comes out smack in the middle of that case, playing a substantial role. Yet he was not charged with anything, and indeed, prosecutors treated him with tremendous deference.
So what do we have? We have Paul Minor, a supporter of Democratic candidates in federal prison, and Dickie Scruggs, whose brother-in-law is a Republican senator, is not prosecuted in two different cases. That gets to the crux of Horton's post:
All of this suggests that in the Birmingham U.S. Attorney’s office, it’s not just the decisions to bring charges that may reveal political motivation, but also the decisions not to bring charges.
This also gets to the crux of a series of posts we have coming here at Legal Schnauzer about my experience in trying to report Republican wrongdoing to Alice Martin. Just as occurred in the Dickie Scruggs case, considerations of family, friends, and politics easily trumped justice. Not only does the wrongdoing I witnessed reflect poorly on the Republican Party, but it also reflects very poorly on Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, whose son Dax was former campaign manager both for Alice Martin and Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Bill Swatek and his Shelby County judicial buddies are involved in federal crimes? Alice Martin doesn't want to hear it. And we will show you the steps she took to intentionally try to keep the case under wraps.
But as you watch the 60 Minutes piece, I would encourage you to keep in mind the other, less publicized, side of political prosecution: instances where someone who appears to be guilty is not prosecuted for political reasons.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, raised this issue in a recent post about former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott and his possibly improper intervention with federal investigators on behalf of his brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs. Horton builds his post around a Wall Street Journal story late last week reporting that federal agents are investigating whether Lott knowingly played a role in an alleged conspiracy in 2006 to influence a Mississippi judge presiding over a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Scruggs.
The Journal story focuses on Scruggs' problems in Mississippi, but Horton's sources say the probe might be more focused on Birmingham, Alabama. That's because Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has refused to prosecute Scruggs for violation of a court order in insurance litigation. In refusing to prosecute Scruggs, Martin ignored the recommendation of U.S. Judge William Acker. Could that have Martin, Lott, and Scruggs all in the crosshairs? Horton provides some insight:
Here’s one scenario, which two senior law enforcement figures in Mississippi told me was “more than simply plausible.” The FBI had secured warrants to monitor Scruggs’s phone calls early in the course of the case, during the summer or early fall. In some of those conversations Dickie Scruggs asked for his brother-in-law’s help in fighting off Judge Acker’s attempts to have him prosecuted. Trent Lott picked up the phone and spoke with a few friends in the Justice Department–or perhaps even directly with a U.S. Attorney or two in Alabama, or a senator from Alabama–and asked them to lay off his misbehaving brother-in-law.
My bet is that the investigators are looking very carefully at whether the decision by the U.S. Attorney in Birmingham not to charge Dickie Scruggs had anything to do with intervention by Senator Lott.
Horton goes on to connect Scruggs' situation to the Paul Minor case, the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer:
Of course, the other point that the Journal failed to pick up on is that Lott had a history of intervening with prosecutors to protect his extremely wealthy brother-in-law. I documented this in connection with the prosecution brought against Paul Minor. No matter how you cut it, Dickie Scruggs comes out smack in the middle of that case, playing a substantial role. Yet he was not charged with anything, and indeed, prosecutors treated him with tremendous deference.
So what do we have? We have Paul Minor, a supporter of Democratic candidates in federal prison, and Dickie Scruggs, whose brother-in-law is a Republican senator, is not prosecuted in two different cases. That gets to the crux of Horton's post:
All of this suggests that in the Birmingham U.S. Attorney’s office, it’s not just the decisions to bring charges that may reveal political motivation, but also the decisions not to bring charges.
This also gets to the crux of a series of posts we have coming here at Legal Schnauzer about my experience in trying to report Republican wrongdoing to Alice Martin. Just as occurred in the Dickie Scruggs case, considerations of family, friends, and politics easily trumped justice. Not only does the wrongdoing I witnessed reflect poorly on the Republican Party, but it also reflects very poorly on Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, whose son Dax was former campaign manager both for Alice Martin and Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Bill Swatek and his Shelby County judicial buddies are involved in federal crimes? Alice Martin doesn't want to hear it. And we will show you the steps she took to intentionally try to keep the case under wraps.
GOP Cockroaches Squirming in the Spotlight
Have you ever noticed what happens when you turn on a light in a darkened room where cockroaches have convened? They scurry for cover, right?
A certain breed of Republican, like the cockroach, fears the light. This breed of GOPer strongly prefers dark places, states like Alabama and Mississippi, where an obedient mainstream press is not likely to shine a flashlight in their direction.
But a national news program, CBS' 60 Minutes, will use its prime slot tomorrow night to shine light on a dark corner of the Republican Party. And that appears to have the King Cockroach himself, Karl Rove, scurrying for cover.
Teasers released about the 60 Minutes piece indicate it will focus on Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and her statements that Rove asked her to get evidence of marital infidelity by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Team Rove fired back on Friday evening with a statement to the Associated Press. But as seems to be typical for Team Rove, its statements don't seem to square with the facts.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that Rove attorney Robert Luskin presents two key defenses for his client--neither of which has any connection to the truth.
First, Luskin asserts that Simpson had never said before that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity on Siegelman's part. It was pretty clear this would be one line of attack by Rove because, indeed, such statements by Simpson have not been previously reported. But Horton states that she made such statements to him last July in an off-the-record conversation. And he says she evidently made similar statements to at least two other reporters.
Second, Luskin asserts that 60 Minutes ran the story without talking to Rove. Again, this isn't true. CBS' own teaser says that Rove refused to talk with them for the story. Actually, according to Horton, Rove did talk with 60 Minutes at some length, but insisted that his comments not be used without his prior permission.
In other words, it was an off-the-record conversation, but Rove was not willing to go on camera or on the record. Interesting that he also is not willing to go before Congress to testify about such justice-related matters.
A certain breed of Republican, like the cockroach, fears the light. This breed of GOPer strongly prefers dark places, states like Alabama and Mississippi, where an obedient mainstream press is not likely to shine a flashlight in their direction.
But a national news program, CBS' 60 Minutes, will use its prime slot tomorrow night to shine light on a dark corner of the Republican Party. And that appears to have the King Cockroach himself, Karl Rove, scurrying for cover.
Teasers released about the 60 Minutes piece indicate it will focus on Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and her statements that Rove asked her to get evidence of marital infidelity by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Team Rove fired back on Friday evening with a statement to the Associated Press. But as seems to be typical for Team Rove, its statements don't seem to square with the facts.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, notes that Rove attorney Robert Luskin presents two key defenses for his client--neither of which has any connection to the truth.
First, Luskin asserts that Simpson had never said before that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity on Siegelman's part. It was pretty clear this would be one line of attack by Rove because, indeed, such statements by Simpson have not been previously reported. But Horton states that she made such statements to him last July in an off-the-record conversation. And he says she evidently made similar statements to at least two other reporters.
Second, Luskin asserts that 60 Minutes ran the story without talking to Rove. Again, this isn't true. CBS' own teaser says that Rove refused to talk with them for the story. Actually, according to Horton, Rove did talk with 60 Minutes at some length, but insisted that his comments not be used without his prior permission.
In other words, it was an off-the-record conversation, but Rove was not willing to go on camera or on the record. Interesting that he also is not willing to go before Congress to testify about such justice-related matters.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Inside Rove's Sleaze Campaign
Several sources are reporting that 60 Minutes' story on the Don Siegelman case will focus on Karl Rove's attempts to prove that Siegelman had been unfaithful to his wife.
Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson says Rove asked her to get proof of Siegelman's infidelity in an effort to harm the former Alabama governor politically. Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that Simpson told 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley that she found no evidence of infidelity despite months of observation.
Video teasers for the 60 Minutes report are available at Larissa Alexandrovna's at-Largely blog here.
Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson says Rove asked her to get proof of Siegelman's infidelity in an effort to harm the former Alabama governor politically. Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that Simpson told 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley that she found no evidence of infidelity despite months of observation.
Video teasers for the 60 Minutes report are available at Larissa Alexandrovna's at-Largely blog here.
Are Alabama GOPers Losing It?
With the 60 Minutes story on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman set to run on Sunday, we are seeing reports that make you wonder if higher ups in the Alabama Republican Party are about to go over the edge.
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely and Raw Story, reports that several progressive journalists and a central character in the Siegelman drama are going to be targets of a printed smear campaign.
The targets include Scott Horton of Harper's, Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork News, Alexandrovna herself, and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Writes Alexandrovna:
My understanding is that the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson, Scott Horton of Harper's, Glyn Wilson of Locust Fork, and possibly (this I have only heard from one person) 60 Minutes are going to be smeared from here to eternity. I don't know the exact form the slander will take, but what I do know is that this will constitute an act of political war using an Alabama publication, possibly two - willingly I might add - to attack reporters.
I am not going to name the publication(s) at this point. I am hoping that they have some sense of ethics and refuse to run the hit piece. But, I will say this and openly, any publication that acts as the personal attack dog of a group of corrupt politicians needs to be run out of business. Or let me put it another way, none of us are going to stand by and allow slander as intimidation.
I ask that everyone - who believes in a free press; who depends on publications like Harper's, Raw Story, and TV shows like 60 Minutes for truth; everyone who believes in whistle-blower protection; everyone who does not want Soviet style justice in this country; and everyone who believes that this is still a country of laws - to please be ready to shame any publication that prints this hit piece into non-existence.
Defend your reporters people, because they are all you have standing between you and an all-powerful authoritarian state. You want a free press? Fight for it. So, I ask you to ready yourselves for this assault. If any Alabama publication runs this hit piece, I want to know you will stand with me - with us really.
I will keep everyone posted on what happens. Let's hope there is still some integrity left in the two major newspapers in Alabama. Certainly the citizens of Alabama deserve honest brokers in the news business.
Meanwhile, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News reports that legal sources in Montgomery say U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, a Bush appointee, plans to issue and serve more indictments on Democrats in the Alabama Legislature in the days after the 60 Minutes report airs.
Wilson's sources say perhaps nine Democrats will be dragged from the floor of the Legislature in handcuffs, and that the Alabama Bushies hope to include one Republican lawmaker to make it appear that the two-year college investigation is non-partisan.
If Alabama GOPers are indeed feeling unstable, I hope I can add to that feeling when I present firsthand written proof that Alice Martin indeed conducts her office in a partisan fashion. We already have begun to lay the groundwork for that report, which should be starting in the next week to 10 days.
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely and Raw Story, reports that several progressive journalists and a central character in the Siegelman drama are going to be targets of a printed smear campaign.
The targets include Scott Horton of Harper's, Glynn Wilson of Locust Fork News, Alexandrovna herself, and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Writes Alexandrovna:
My understanding is that the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson, Scott Horton of Harper's, Glyn Wilson of Locust Fork, and possibly (this I have only heard from one person) 60 Minutes are going to be smeared from here to eternity. I don't know the exact form the slander will take, but what I do know is that this will constitute an act of political war using an Alabama publication, possibly two - willingly I might add - to attack reporters.
I am not going to name the publication(s) at this point. I am hoping that they have some sense of ethics and refuse to run the hit piece. But, I will say this and openly, any publication that acts as the personal attack dog of a group of corrupt politicians needs to be run out of business. Or let me put it another way, none of us are going to stand by and allow slander as intimidation.
I ask that everyone - who believes in a free press; who depends on publications like Harper's, Raw Story, and TV shows like 60 Minutes for truth; everyone who believes in whistle-blower protection; everyone who does not want Soviet style justice in this country; and everyone who believes that this is still a country of laws - to please be ready to shame any publication that prints this hit piece into non-existence.
Defend your reporters people, because they are all you have standing between you and an all-powerful authoritarian state. You want a free press? Fight for it. So, I ask you to ready yourselves for this assault. If any Alabama publication runs this hit piece, I want to know you will stand with me - with us really.
I will keep everyone posted on what happens. Let's hope there is still some integrity left in the two major newspapers in Alabama. Certainly the citizens of Alabama deserve honest brokers in the news business.
Meanwhile, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News reports that legal sources in Montgomery say U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, a Bush appointee, plans to issue and serve more indictments on Democrats in the Alabama Legislature in the days after the 60 Minutes report airs.
Wilson's sources say perhaps nine Democrats will be dragged from the floor of the Legislature in handcuffs, and that the Alabama Bushies hope to include one Republican lawmaker to make it appear that the two-year college investigation is non-partisan.
If Alabama GOPers are indeed feeling unstable, I hope I can add to that feeling when I present firsthand written proof that Alice Martin indeed conducts her office in a partisan fashion. We already have begun to lay the groundwork for that report, which should be starting in the next week to 10 days.
Revisiting the Bradley Byrne Story--Again
Looks like we need to correct our correction on the Bradley Bryne story in the Opelika-Auburn News.
Joe McAdory, editor of the O-A News, now confirms that a version of the story did disappear from the paper's Web site for a while. Here is McAdory's explanation:
Roger:
I have since learned the fate of the story that "disappeared" from our Web site. There was a temporary story in place there until the complete story -- the one that remained on the Web site since it was finished -- was ready. The first story was written in the afternoon to get something on the Web ASAP. It was nothing more than a plug until Amy Weaver's complete story was ready to go that night. That said, you were right all along. There was a story that disappeared, but it was intended for that purpose all along. It's been fun tracing this whole matter. I will now return to the opinion page and leave the investigative work to intrepid bloggers.
Joe
PS -- Still love that schnauzer logo
By the way, I told Mr. McAdory that I would be more than happy to make myself available to him or one of his reporters for a story about judicial corruption in Alabama. Have no indication that he is going to take me up on that offer. Will keep you posted.
If you would like to encourage Mr. McAdory to devote attention to the corruption I've witnessed from Republican judges in Alabama, his e-mail address is jmcadory@oanow.com.
Joe McAdory, editor of the O-A News, now confirms that a version of the story did disappear from the paper's Web site for a while. Here is McAdory's explanation:
Roger:
I have since learned the fate of the story that "disappeared" from our Web site. There was a temporary story in place there until the complete story -- the one that remained on the Web site since it was finished -- was ready. The first story was written in the afternoon to get something on the Web ASAP. It was nothing more than a plug until Amy Weaver's complete story was ready to go that night. That said, you were right all along. There was a story that disappeared, but it was intended for that purpose all along. It's been fun tracing this whole matter. I will now return to the opinion page and leave the investigative work to intrepid bloggers.
Joe
PS -- Still love that schnauzer logo
By the way, I told Mr. McAdory that I would be more than happy to make myself available to him or one of his reporters for a story about judicial corruption in Alabama. Have no indication that he is going to take me up on that offer. Will keep you posted.
If you would like to encourage Mr. McAdory to devote attention to the corruption I've witnessed from Republican judges in Alabama, his e-mail address is jmcadory@oanow.com.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
An Alabama Democrat Shows Some Spine
In the roughly eight years I've been fighting corrupt judges in Alabama courts, I'm not sure which has been most disgusting: the utter lack of ethics among certain Republicans or the general lack of courage among Democrats.
All of the judges in the main portion of my case have been Republicans. And I had this quaint notion that Democrats might like to know about the sleazy activities of their rivals. Isn't that called "opposition research?"
I also had this notion that Democrats might take my information and use it--both to educate the public about the deplorable conditions of their courts and to help get Democratic judges (hopefully honest ones) elected.
But if any Democrats are willing to stand up and be counted on the issue of judicial corruption, I sure haven't found them. I've contacted probably six to 10 Democratic public officials about my experiences. Only two replied at all.
Only one engaged me in a substantive dialogue about the issue. Interestingly, that Democrat--a candidate for statewide office--told me the problem of judicial corruption is even worse than I thought it was. And he tried to make the issue a centerpiece of his campaign. Unfortunately, the media ignored the issue (surprise, surprise), and this Democrat lost.
So imagine my surprise when I checked the Fort Payne Times-Journal today and read about a Democrat who appears to have some fire in his belly. Rep. Jack Page (D-Gadsden) wasn't talking about judicial corruption. But he was talking about Governor Bob Riley, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and their apparent collaboration in the investigation of the Alabama two-year college system.
Specifically, Page was defending his legislative colleague Todd Greeson (R-Ider), who is the subject of a federal investigation.
Page, who like Greeson is employed by the two-year college system, had some choice words about what Greeson, and others, are going through. He called the investigation a "a glorious witch hunt." And he was just warming up:
“These efforts and money could be used so much better on fighting the war on meth or sex offenders. Instead, they choose to make a mockery of the Justice Department.”
And what did Page think of the investigative tactics?
“The two-year system seizes the hard drive and the FBI subpoenas the co-workers. I have a word for that. It’s called collusion. Why are they working so closely together?
"If they are after Todd’s hard drive and someone touched it between Todd and the FBI, someone could have tampered with it. They could have put anything they wanted into it.”
Gasp! Someone is questioning the ethics of the Bush Justice Department. And Page still wasn't done:
“I think anybody employed by the two-year system is under scrutiny. Innocent until proven guilty has long since gone out the window in this case. Officials are being tried and convicted in the media.”
Why, in Page's opinion, is Greeson a target?
“Todd refused to march in good step with Republicans on a procedural vote and was threatened. Todd voted the way he felt best represented his district.
And finally, what kind of environment do we have in Alabama now?
“[Gov. Bob] Riley and his henchmen have brought the worst form of Karl Rove brand of beltway politics into Alabama. That is his legacy. It feels like we are in the Alabama McCarthy era.”
I didn't know a thing about Jack Page until today. But I like the guy. He's feisty, and we need more feisty Democrats in this world. That last comment, about Riley and his henchmen, is the boldest and most truthful, statement I've seen from an Alabama Democrat in I don't know when.
Way to go, Jack! Are any other Democrats willing to fight back?
And by the way, kudos to the Fort Payne Times-Journal and reporter Jared Felkins. Maybe there's hope for journalism in Alabama yet.
All of the judges in the main portion of my case have been Republicans. And I had this quaint notion that Democrats might like to know about the sleazy activities of their rivals. Isn't that called "opposition research?"
I also had this notion that Democrats might take my information and use it--both to educate the public about the deplorable conditions of their courts and to help get Democratic judges (hopefully honest ones) elected.
But if any Democrats are willing to stand up and be counted on the issue of judicial corruption, I sure haven't found them. I've contacted probably six to 10 Democratic public officials about my experiences. Only two replied at all.
Only one engaged me in a substantive dialogue about the issue. Interestingly, that Democrat--a candidate for statewide office--told me the problem of judicial corruption is even worse than I thought it was. And he tried to make the issue a centerpiece of his campaign. Unfortunately, the media ignored the issue (surprise, surprise), and this Democrat lost.
So imagine my surprise when I checked the Fort Payne Times-Journal today and read about a Democrat who appears to have some fire in his belly. Rep. Jack Page (D-Gadsden) wasn't talking about judicial corruption. But he was talking about Governor Bob Riley, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and their apparent collaboration in the investigation of the Alabama two-year college system.
Specifically, Page was defending his legislative colleague Todd Greeson (R-Ider), who is the subject of a federal investigation.
Page, who like Greeson is employed by the two-year college system, had some choice words about what Greeson, and others, are going through. He called the investigation a "a glorious witch hunt." And he was just warming up:
“These efforts and money could be used so much better on fighting the war on meth or sex offenders. Instead, they choose to make a mockery of the Justice Department.”
And what did Page think of the investigative tactics?
“The two-year system seizes the hard drive and the FBI subpoenas the co-workers. I have a word for that. It’s called collusion. Why are they working so closely together?
"If they are after Todd’s hard drive and someone touched it between Todd and the FBI, someone could have tampered with it. They could have put anything they wanted into it.”
Gasp! Someone is questioning the ethics of the Bush Justice Department. And Page still wasn't done:
“I think anybody employed by the two-year system is under scrutiny. Innocent until proven guilty has long since gone out the window in this case. Officials are being tried and convicted in the media.”
Why, in Page's opinion, is Greeson a target?
“Todd refused to march in good step with Republicans on a procedural vote and was threatened. Todd voted the way he felt best represented his district.
And finally, what kind of environment do we have in Alabama now?
“[Gov. Bob] Riley and his henchmen have brought the worst form of Karl Rove brand of beltway politics into Alabama. That is his legacy. It feels like we are in the Alabama McCarthy era.”
I didn't know a thing about Jack Page until today. But I like the guy. He's feisty, and we need more feisty Democrats in this world. That last comment, about Riley and his henchmen, is the boldest and most truthful, statement I've seen from an Alabama Democrat in I don't know when.
Way to go, Jack! Are any other Democrats willing to fight back?
And by the way, kudos to the Fort Payne Times-Journal and reporter Jared Felkins. Maybe there's hope for journalism in Alabama yet.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Playing Politics With Child Sexual Abuse, Part II
Let's examine some of the questions raised by the child sexual abuse case against Amy and Charles Holley in Shelby County, Alabama.
We noted in an earlier post that Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner had recently granted Amy Holley's motion for a new trial. She, along with her husband, had been convicted by a Shelby County jury last fall.
Joiner is the judge who repeatedly made unlawful rulings in my Legal Schnauzer case, favoring an attorney who has practiced for many years in Shelby County and has a long-standing friendship with the judge. The attorney in my case, William E. Swatek, also has an almost 30-year history of unethical actions in the legal profession.
Joiner has proven in my case that he is more than happy to let politics triumph over the law and the facts in a case before him. And that raises questions about his handling of any case that comes before him--even one involving something as dreadful as alleged child abuse.
With all of that in mind, let's ponder some issues raised by the Holley case:
* Child sexual abuse cases must be among the most difficult that come before a court. Here is a Web site that focuses on child sexual abuse cases. Here is an article about media reporting of such cases, noting that child sexual abuse is one of the most under-reported crimes. Obviously victims of child sexual abuse are highly sympathetic. But here's the flipside: Numerous adults have seen their lives turned upside down by allegations of child sexual abuse that proved to be highly questionable or downright false. Here's a Web site for a firm that specializes in assisting adults who have been falsely accused of child sexual abuse.
* Comments left by readers of the Shelby County Reporter reflect the conflicting emotions that come from child sexual abuse cases. Friends, acquaintances, and family members wrote that they knew the Holleys and could not imagine that they had actually committed such crimes. Someone claiming to be a social worker in the case said the jury had made the right decision, and the children had been through "devastating" circumstances. Someone claiming to be a juror said there was not enough evidence to convict on some counts, but evidence was strong on others, and the jury stood by its decision.
* I was not present for the Holley trial, and I have not reviewed the case file. I do know that a jury convicted both Amy Holley and her husband, Charles, on child sexual abuse charges. And I know that a judge, J. Michael Joiner, who has a history of ignoring the law and facts and playing politics with cases before him, has set aside Amy Holley's guilty verdict and ordered a new trial. Charles Holley has asked for a new trial, and a hearing on that motion is set for February 27.
* My interest is not so much in the actions of the Holleys, but the actions of Judge Joiner. I know from firsthand experience that Mike Joiner is a corrupt judge. That he is allowed to serve on the bench at all is a disgrace. But that he is overseeing matters as important as those raised by the Holley case is truly horrifying.
*According to an account from The Birmingham News, the Holleys were foster parents to two children, a brother and sister who were 5 and 4, respectively, at the time. According to a motion by Amy Holley's lawyer, Mickey Johnson, the boy accused only Charles Holley, and the boy did not waver in his story from the first investigative interview through the trial. The girl, according to Johnson, denied anyone had abused her through three investigative interviews. The girl's story changed, and according to Johnson, eventually included a tale of swimming in a river of snakes.
* Recall in our previous post on this subject that even The Birmingham News reporter called Joiner's actions "unusual." An attorney who teaches criminal law said he had never seen a judge make such a decision in his 20 years in practice. Joiner would not comment on his action, and the News gave no indication that he had issued a written explanation, so we don't know his reasoning. But a look at the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure sure makes you wonder what was going through his mind.
* Let's consider just the case against Amy Holley for a moment. According to the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Joiner probably had at least three opportunities to find that there was insufficient evidence to convict Amy Holley. Mickey Johnson, Ms. Holley's attorney, almost certainly made motions for judgment of acquittal at three stages--at the close of the state's evidence, at the close of all evidence, and after the verdict. Evidently Joiner denied motions at all three stages. The court, on its own motion, may grant a judgment of acquittal. Joiner did not do that.
* Amy Holley was convicted of sexual abuse, and Joiner sentenced her in November to five years in prison. Charles Holley was convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
* A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 30 days after sentence is pronounced. Such a motion was filed for Amy Holley, and Judge Joiner granted it. Why did a newspaper reporter call this unusual? Why did a law professor say he had never seen such a ruling in 20 years of practice? Probably because Joiner almost certainly had three times ruled during the case that Ms. Holley was not due a motion of acquittal.
* Why would a judge, who had heard all the evidence and three times denied motions for judgment of acquittal, suddenly decide a few months later that Amy Holley should receive a new trial? Joiner is not talking, so we can only assume that he agreed with long-time Shelby County attorney Mickey Johnson that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. But why did he repeatedly find during the trial itself that the evidence was sufficient to move the case forward, eventually going to a jury?
* Here's a curious thing about Joiner's actions: When he repeatedly denied motions for a judgment of acquittal, a jury was on hand. But when the motion for a new trial was made, the jury had long since done its duty and was nowhere to be found? Did Joiner feel more free, at that point, to do whatever the heck he wanted to do?
At Legal Schnauzer, we have a slightly different take on that famous quote: A judge who perpetuates injustice in one case, is a threat to perpetuate injustice in any case. J. Michael Joiner is just that kind of judge.
We noted in an earlier post that Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner had recently granted Amy Holley's motion for a new trial. She, along with her husband, had been convicted by a Shelby County jury last fall.
Joiner is the judge who repeatedly made unlawful rulings in my Legal Schnauzer case, favoring an attorney who has practiced for many years in Shelby County and has a long-standing friendship with the judge. The attorney in my case, William E. Swatek, also has an almost 30-year history of unethical actions in the legal profession.
Joiner has proven in my case that he is more than happy to let politics triumph over the law and the facts in a case before him. And that raises questions about his handling of any case that comes before him--even one involving something as dreadful as alleged child abuse.
With all of that in mind, let's ponder some issues raised by the Holley case:
* Child sexual abuse cases must be among the most difficult that come before a court. Here is a Web site that focuses on child sexual abuse cases. Here is an article about media reporting of such cases, noting that child sexual abuse is one of the most under-reported crimes. Obviously victims of child sexual abuse are highly sympathetic. But here's the flipside: Numerous adults have seen their lives turned upside down by allegations of child sexual abuse that proved to be highly questionable or downright false. Here's a Web site for a firm that specializes in assisting adults who have been falsely accused of child sexual abuse.
* Comments left by readers of the Shelby County Reporter reflect the conflicting emotions that come from child sexual abuse cases. Friends, acquaintances, and family members wrote that they knew the Holleys and could not imagine that they had actually committed such crimes. Someone claiming to be a social worker in the case said the jury had made the right decision, and the children had been through "devastating" circumstances. Someone claiming to be a juror said there was not enough evidence to convict on some counts, but evidence was strong on others, and the jury stood by its decision.
* I was not present for the Holley trial, and I have not reviewed the case file. I do know that a jury convicted both Amy Holley and her husband, Charles, on child sexual abuse charges. And I know that a judge, J. Michael Joiner, who has a history of ignoring the law and facts and playing politics with cases before him, has set aside Amy Holley's guilty verdict and ordered a new trial. Charles Holley has asked for a new trial, and a hearing on that motion is set for February 27.
* My interest is not so much in the actions of the Holleys, but the actions of Judge Joiner. I know from firsthand experience that Mike Joiner is a corrupt judge. That he is allowed to serve on the bench at all is a disgrace. But that he is overseeing matters as important as those raised by the Holley case is truly horrifying.
*According to an account from The Birmingham News, the Holleys were foster parents to two children, a brother and sister who were 5 and 4, respectively, at the time. According to a motion by Amy Holley's lawyer, Mickey Johnson, the boy accused only Charles Holley, and the boy did not waver in his story from the first investigative interview through the trial. The girl, according to Johnson, denied anyone had abused her through three investigative interviews. The girl's story changed, and according to Johnson, eventually included a tale of swimming in a river of snakes.
* Recall in our previous post on this subject that even The Birmingham News reporter called Joiner's actions "unusual." An attorney who teaches criminal law said he had never seen a judge make such a decision in his 20 years in practice. Joiner would not comment on his action, and the News gave no indication that he had issued a written explanation, so we don't know his reasoning. But a look at the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure sure makes you wonder what was going through his mind.
* Let's consider just the case against Amy Holley for a moment. According to the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Joiner probably had at least three opportunities to find that there was insufficient evidence to convict Amy Holley. Mickey Johnson, Ms. Holley's attorney, almost certainly made motions for judgment of acquittal at three stages--at the close of the state's evidence, at the close of all evidence, and after the verdict. Evidently Joiner denied motions at all three stages. The court, on its own motion, may grant a judgment of acquittal. Joiner did not do that.
* Amy Holley was convicted of sexual abuse, and Joiner sentenced her in November to five years in prison. Charles Holley was convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
* A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 30 days after sentence is pronounced. Such a motion was filed for Amy Holley, and Judge Joiner granted it. Why did a newspaper reporter call this unusual? Why did a law professor say he had never seen such a ruling in 20 years of practice? Probably because Joiner almost certainly had three times ruled during the case that Ms. Holley was not due a motion of acquittal.
* Why would a judge, who had heard all the evidence and three times denied motions for judgment of acquittal, suddenly decide a few months later that Amy Holley should receive a new trial? Joiner is not talking, so we can only assume that he agreed with long-time Shelby County attorney Mickey Johnson that there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. But why did he repeatedly find during the trial itself that the evidence was sufficient to move the case forward, eventually going to a jury?
* Here's a curious thing about Joiner's actions: When he repeatedly denied motions for a judgment of acquittal, a jury was on hand. But when the motion for a new trial was made, the jury had long since done its duty and was nowhere to be found? Did Joiner feel more free, at that point, to do whatever the heck he wanted to do?
* Here is something else curious about this case: The Shelby County Reporter, at least based on a review of its Web site, has written nothing about Joiner's decision to grant Amy Holley a new trial. Recall that numerous readers had responded on the paper's Web site about a story on the Holleys' conviction. Those readers included someone claiming to be a social worker in the case and someone claiming to be a juror. Both of those readers indicated they felt the jury's decision had been correct. Is it possible that the Shelby County Reporter, at the urging of judges who operate across the street from the paper, has intentionally not reported on the new-trial ruling so as to not give a forum for knowledgeable readers to express their displeasure?
* I wonder how jurors in the Holley case feel about Joiner suddenly deciding to override their finding, apparently giving no explanation for his decision. It's safe to assume that those jurors took several days out of their lives in order to fulfill their public duty and hear what had to be a most unpleasant case. I think it's also safe to assume that a jury in "conservative" Shelby County was not chomping at the bit to find a foster mother guilty of child sexual abuse. The jury must have found something in the evidence to be compelling, and yet the very judge who three times had allowed the case to move forward has now overridden their work. Again, I don't have any information regarding Amy Holley's guilt or innocence. But if I had served on that jury, I would wonder what was behind Joiner's "unusual" actions.
* By the way, the Holley case is not the only criminal matter in Shelby County where politics appears to have reared its ugly head. I'm aware of a case of animal cruelty where politics might have trumped the law, resulting in a most curious acquittal. We will look at that case in a future post.
As for the Holley case, we will follow it closely. And we will keep in mind the words of Martin Luther King in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."At Legal Schnauzer, we have a slightly different take on that famous quote: A judge who perpetuates injustice in one case, is a threat to perpetuate injustice in any case. J. Michael Joiner is just that kind of judge.
Revisiting the Bradley Byrne Story
We reported Sunday that a story about Bradley Byrne, chancellor of the Alabama two-year college system, had mysteriously disappeared from the Web site of the Opelika-Auburn News.
Joe McAdory, editor of the O-A News, sends word that the story never did disappear from the paper's site and is available here.
Joe McAdory, editor of the O-A News, sends word that the story never did disappear from the paper's site and is available here.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Alice Martin's Political Pipeline, Part II
Just how close are the political ties between U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and Alabama Governor Bob Riley?
It is well known that Riley's campaign manager in 2006 was Montgomery-based political "consultant" Dax Swatek.
Guess who served as Alice Martin's campaign manager in 2000 when she ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals? None other than Dax Swatek.
Regular readers of Legal Schnauzer will recognize that last name. That's because Dax Swatek's father, Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, is the ethically challenged barrister who sued me on behalf of my criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity.
So you have Alice Martin in the Northern District of Alabama and Bob Riley in Montgomery and your humble blogger in Shelby County--all tied together by the unholy duo of Bill and Dax Swatek.
And we can make that an unholy trinity by adding GOP operative Bill Canary to the mix. Dax Swatek is a longtime associate of Mr. Canary, who has become famed for his "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote, courtesy of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson. One of Bill Canary's girls, of course was Alice Martin; the other was his wife, Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.
So you can see how the Swateks wind their way through both the Siegelman and Legal Schnauzer cases--kind of like a two-headed snake.
In fact, the Swateks are like snakes in a number of ways--although I hate to give snakes a bad name by comparing them to this pair. We will show that Bill Swatek has a record of unethical behavior in the legal profession that dates back almost 30 years. This includes a suspension of his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" and a criminal prosecution for perjury.
And what about Dax Swatek? Well, he appears to be an apple who didn't fall far from the tree. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported on Dax Swatek's connections to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
And Dax Swatek's slippery ways came to light when he served as Alice Martin's campaign manager. (By the way, Martin lost that race to Sue Bell Cobb, now chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.)
What happened in that 2000 race? The Martin campaign produced a circular that said Martin "has been a conservative law and order judge with 19 years experience." An official with a judicial-campaign oversight group said the circular was misleading. ("Judicial Panel Says Circular Misleading," Birmingham News, October 31, 2000.)
"Ms. Martin, a Florence lawyer, said in an interview that she has 19 years of legal experience, including eight years as a prosecutor, five years as a criminal defense attorney, and six years as a judge," the story says.
The circular, though, clearly gives the impression that Martin has 19 years experience as a judge. "We really think it's misleading," said Montgomery attorney Maury Smith, co-chairman of the Alabama Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee. "That's misleading. We think it's improper. We will notify her of that."
What did Dax Swatek have to say about the matter. He said he had no intention of asking the Republican Party to correct the circular "because I do not consider it misleading."
He probably doesn't consider his father a disreputable attorney, either, even though Bill Swatek has a disciplinary file at the Alabama State Bar that is about a foot thick.
So now we know that Alice Martin's problems with the truth go back several years. And we also know that her connections to the family that has caused me all kinds of legal headaches go back several years.
No wonder Ms. Martin doesn't want to look into the federal crimes that have been committed by Bill Swatek and his judicial cronies at the Shelby County Courthouse.
It is well known that Riley's campaign manager in 2006 was Montgomery-based political "consultant" Dax Swatek.
Guess who served as Alice Martin's campaign manager in 2000 when she ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals? None other than Dax Swatek.
Regular readers of Legal Schnauzer will recognize that last name. That's because Dax Swatek's father, Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, is the ethically challenged barrister who sued me on behalf of my criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity.
So you have Alice Martin in the Northern District of Alabama and Bob Riley in Montgomery and your humble blogger in Shelby County--all tied together by the unholy duo of Bill and Dax Swatek.
And we can make that an unholy trinity by adding GOP operative Bill Canary to the mix. Dax Swatek is a longtime associate of Mr. Canary, who has become famed for his "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote, courtesy of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson. One of Bill Canary's girls, of course was Alice Martin; the other was his wife, Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.
So you can see how the Swateks wind their way through both the Siegelman and Legal Schnauzer cases--kind of like a two-headed snake.
In fact, the Swateks are like snakes in a number of ways--although I hate to give snakes a bad name by comparing them to this pair. We will show that Bill Swatek has a record of unethical behavior in the legal profession that dates back almost 30 years. This includes a suspension of his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" and a criminal prosecution for perjury.
And what about Dax Swatek? Well, he appears to be an apple who didn't fall far from the tree. Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported on Dax Swatek's connections to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
And Dax Swatek's slippery ways came to light when he served as Alice Martin's campaign manager. (By the way, Martin lost that race to Sue Bell Cobb, now chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.)
What happened in that 2000 race? The Martin campaign produced a circular that said Martin "has been a conservative law and order judge with 19 years experience." An official with a judicial-campaign oversight group said the circular was misleading. ("Judicial Panel Says Circular Misleading," Birmingham News, October 31, 2000.)
"Ms. Martin, a Florence lawyer, said in an interview that she has 19 years of legal experience, including eight years as a prosecutor, five years as a criminal defense attorney, and six years as a judge," the story says.
The circular, though, clearly gives the impression that Martin has 19 years experience as a judge. "We really think it's misleading," said Montgomery attorney Maury Smith, co-chairman of the Alabama Judicial Campaign Oversight Committee. "That's misleading. We think it's improper. We will notify her of that."
What did Dax Swatek have to say about the matter. He said he had no intention of asking the Republican Party to correct the circular "because I do not consider it misleading."
He probably doesn't consider his father a disreputable attorney, either, even though Bill Swatek has a disciplinary file at the Alabama State Bar that is about a foot thick.
So now we know that Alice Martin's problems with the truth go back several years. And we also know that her connections to the family that has caused me all kinds of legal headaches go back several years.
No wonder Ms. Martin doesn't want to look into the federal crimes that have been committed by Bill Swatek and his judicial cronies at the Shelby County Courthouse.
Playing Politics with Child Sexual Abuse?
We are setting the stage for an inside look at selective prosecution, as practiced by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. But as we work our way toward unmasking Alice Martin for the partisan hack that she is, we need to shine a spotlight on two recent justice-related stories out of Shelby County, Alabama.
Shelby County, of course, is where your humble blogger resides and where our Legal Schnauzer case originated. It's possible that some readers have read about my legal travails and thought, "Hey, it's a civil case involving unfamiliar legal theories and relatively small amounts of money. What's the big deal? And besides, it's probably an isolated case."
Well, one of the key themes of this blog is that my experience is not isolated, that many people get cheated in Alabama's trial courts, in Shelby County and beyond. And perhaps most alarmingly, our Republican-dominated appellate courts have a habit of abusing the state's no-opinion affirmance rule to uphold unlawful trial-court rulings and sweep judicial corruption at the trial-court level safely out of public view.
Another theme is that judicial shenanigans can go beyond civil cases over what might seem to be relatively mundane matters. If a judge will tinker with the law in a civil case, what is to keep him from tinkering with the law in a criminal case--perhaps a case involving serious and disturbing charges?
The first story I want to spotlight from Shelby County received scant attention in the Birmingham press. But it's a case that all Alabamians should scrutinize closely.
It involves a highly emotional subject--child sexual abuse. And it involves someone who is central to our tale of judicial corruption here at Legal Schnauzer--Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner.
Joiner recently set aside a jury's guilty verdict against a woman in a child sex case when her lawyer sought a new trial for her. Amy Holley, 28, no longer stands convicted of sexual abuse following Joiner's action. She had been sentenced in November to five years in prison. Her lawyer is Mickey Johnson, who has practiced in Shelby County for many years.
Holley, a former assistant city clerk at Columbiana City Hall, and her husband, Charles Holley, 39, had been convicted last September. Charles Holley still stands convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse and is free on bond pending appeal. Joiner sentenced him to 15 years in prison. (By the way, isn't it interesting that someone convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse of a child is free on appeal, but former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is in federal prison while his conviction is appealed?)
The Holleys were foster parents to two children, and their conviction was reported here by the Shelby County Reporter.
Even The Birmingham News, a staunchly conservative newspaper, called Joiner's decision to set aside the verdict "unusual." All of the judges in Shelby County are Republicans.
John Lentine, who teaches criminal law at the Birmingham School of Law, said: "I have been in practice for 20 years and have not been a part of a case where this has happened."
Lentine went on to say it took "courage" for Joiner to say "there is not ample evidence to support the jury's verdict."
But that is not Lentine's only mind-boggling quote. He went on to describe Joiner as "a very conservative judge and very law-and-order oriented. He follows rules scrupulously."
I was eating breakfast at a local Hardee's when I read that, and I almost spewed biscuits and gravy across the restaurant.
I've written numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer about the utter disregard for the law that Mike Joiner displayed in handling the bogus lawsuit that was filed against me in Shelby County. Here is a post that summarizes what Joiner did, and I will be writing many more with gruesome details about this corrupt "public servant." If you want to read more posts about Joiner's handling of my case, just type J. Michael Joiner into the search window at the top of this blog.
We're going to consider the Holley case in more detail and take a look at some of the troubling questions it raises. But for now, let's consider this: We recently celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, who wrote in his famous letter from the Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Those words are profoundly true, and they have an even broader meaning than many people might realize.
We will show with absolute certainty on this blog that Shelby County Judge J. Michael Joiner acted corruptly in his handling of a bogus lawsuit that was filed against me by a neighbor with a lengthy criminal record. And we will show that Joiner repeatedly made unlawful rulings in favor of this neighbor and his attorney, William E. Swatek, who himself has an almost 30-year record of unethical behavior in the legal profession.
We already have shown that Joiner admitted that he and Swatek were longtime golf buddies and had been neighbors for many years and that by finally recusing himself (upon my motion), Joiner was showing that he never should have taken the case in the first place. We also have shown that, under the law, Joiner was required to recuse himself from the outset, but he failed to do it and proceeded to allow his numerous unlawful rulings to stand. In short, we will show that Mike Joiner was about as corrupt as a judge can be in his handling of my case, repeatedly favoring and providing protection for an attorney--Bill Swatek--who is a disgrace to the profession. And that is not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of public record. Anyone can visit the Alabama State Bar and view its file on Swatek, which is almost a foot thick.
Swatek's background, and the pathetic lawsuit he filed against me, didn't matter with Judge Joiner. All that seemed to matter was that Bill Swatek has practiced in Shelby County for many years and is buddies with the judge.
Interestingly, Amy Holley's lawyer, Mickey Johnson, also has practiced in Shelby County for many years, and I'm told he also is quite friendly with Joiner. Now I don't want to imply that Mickey Johnson resides in the same legal depths as Bill Swatek. A number of people have told me that Mr. Johnson is a fine attorney. I don't know that he needs help from judges on the Shelby County bench.
But I've talked with probably 20 local attorneys about my experiences, and the vast majority of them said this about law in Shelby County: The judges are notorious for playing favorites with certain "local counsel" who appear before them on a regular basis. And these lawyers say it is well known, and pretty much accepted, that "good old boy" politics will trump the law on more than a few cases in Shelby County.
All of this gets to the core of why I am writing Legal Schnauzer. You see, my wife and I have told our tale of legal woe to numerous people, and we tend to get curious reactions. Some people just don't get it--they don't understand the legal aspects of it and don't want to invest the energy it would take to understand it. Other people seem to get it, but they also seem to think, "Hey, it was just a civil case over relatively minor issues, and sure it cost you some money, but now it's over, so get on with your life."
But those folks don't understand the point Martin Luther King was making: If a judge allows an injustice in one case, how can we be sure he won't allow an injustice in another case? In other words: If we can't trust Mike Joiner to get it right on a simple civil case involving property-related issues, how can we trust him to get it right on a criminal case involving sexual abuse of a child?
If Mike Joiner played politics with my case--and we will show that he unquestionably did--would he play politics on a child sexual abuse case?
More on this subject, which is disturbing on many levels, coming up.
Shelby County, of course, is where your humble blogger resides and where our Legal Schnauzer case originated. It's possible that some readers have read about my legal travails and thought, "Hey, it's a civil case involving unfamiliar legal theories and relatively small amounts of money. What's the big deal? And besides, it's probably an isolated case."
Well, one of the key themes of this blog is that my experience is not isolated, that many people get cheated in Alabama's trial courts, in Shelby County and beyond. And perhaps most alarmingly, our Republican-dominated appellate courts have a habit of abusing the state's no-opinion affirmance rule to uphold unlawful trial-court rulings and sweep judicial corruption at the trial-court level safely out of public view.
Another theme is that judicial shenanigans can go beyond civil cases over what might seem to be relatively mundane matters. If a judge will tinker with the law in a civil case, what is to keep him from tinkering with the law in a criminal case--perhaps a case involving serious and disturbing charges?
The first story I want to spotlight from Shelby County received scant attention in the Birmingham press. But it's a case that all Alabamians should scrutinize closely.
It involves a highly emotional subject--child sexual abuse. And it involves someone who is central to our tale of judicial corruption here at Legal Schnauzer--Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner.
Joiner recently set aside a jury's guilty verdict against a woman in a child sex case when her lawyer sought a new trial for her. Amy Holley, 28, no longer stands convicted of sexual abuse following Joiner's action. She had been sentenced in November to five years in prison. Her lawyer is Mickey Johnson, who has practiced in Shelby County for many years.
Holley, a former assistant city clerk at Columbiana City Hall, and her husband, Charles Holley, 39, had been convicted last September. Charles Holley still stands convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse and is free on bond pending appeal. Joiner sentenced him to 15 years in prison. (By the way, isn't it interesting that someone convicted of sodomy and two counts of sexual abuse of a child is free on appeal, but former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is in federal prison while his conviction is appealed?)
The Holleys were foster parents to two children, and their conviction was reported here by the Shelby County Reporter.
Even The Birmingham News, a staunchly conservative newspaper, called Joiner's decision to set aside the verdict "unusual." All of the judges in Shelby County are Republicans.
John Lentine, who teaches criminal law at the Birmingham School of Law, said: "I have been in practice for 20 years and have not been a part of a case where this has happened."
Lentine went on to say it took "courage" for Joiner to say "there is not ample evidence to support the jury's verdict."
But that is not Lentine's only mind-boggling quote. He went on to describe Joiner as "a very conservative judge and very law-and-order oriented. He follows rules scrupulously."
I was eating breakfast at a local Hardee's when I read that, and I almost spewed biscuits and gravy across the restaurant.
I've written numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer about the utter disregard for the law that Mike Joiner displayed in handling the bogus lawsuit that was filed against me in Shelby County. Here is a post that summarizes what Joiner did, and I will be writing many more with gruesome details about this corrupt "public servant." If you want to read more posts about Joiner's handling of my case, just type J. Michael Joiner into the search window at the top of this blog.
We're going to consider the Holley case in more detail and take a look at some of the troubling questions it raises. But for now, let's consider this: We recently celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King, who wrote in his famous letter from the Birmingham jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Those words are profoundly true, and they have an even broader meaning than many people might realize.
We will show with absolute certainty on this blog that Shelby County Judge J. Michael Joiner acted corruptly in his handling of a bogus lawsuit that was filed against me by a neighbor with a lengthy criminal record. And we will show that Joiner repeatedly made unlawful rulings in favor of this neighbor and his attorney, William E. Swatek, who himself has an almost 30-year record of unethical behavior in the legal profession.
We already have shown that Joiner admitted that he and Swatek were longtime golf buddies and had been neighbors for many years and that by finally recusing himself (upon my motion), Joiner was showing that he never should have taken the case in the first place. We also have shown that, under the law, Joiner was required to recuse himself from the outset, but he failed to do it and proceeded to allow his numerous unlawful rulings to stand. In short, we will show that Mike Joiner was about as corrupt as a judge can be in his handling of my case, repeatedly favoring and providing protection for an attorney--Bill Swatek--who is a disgrace to the profession. And that is not a matter of my opinion. It's a matter of public record. Anyone can visit the Alabama State Bar and view its file on Swatek, which is almost a foot thick.
Swatek's background, and the pathetic lawsuit he filed against me, didn't matter with Judge Joiner. All that seemed to matter was that Bill Swatek has practiced in Shelby County for many years and is buddies with the judge.
Interestingly, Amy Holley's lawyer, Mickey Johnson, also has practiced in Shelby County for many years, and I'm told he also is quite friendly with Joiner. Now I don't want to imply that Mickey Johnson resides in the same legal depths as Bill Swatek. A number of people have told me that Mr. Johnson is a fine attorney. I don't know that he needs help from judges on the Shelby County bench.
But I've talked with probably 20 local attorneys about my experiences, and the vast majority of them said this about law in Shelby County: The judges are notorious for playing favorites with certain "local counsel" who appear before them on a regular basis. And these lawyers say it is well known, and pretty much accepted, that "good old boy" politics will trump the law on more than a few cases in Shelby County.
All of this gets to the core of why I am writing Legal Schnauzer. You see, my wife and I have told our tale of legal woe to numerous people, and we tend to get curious reactions. Some people just don't get it--they don't understand the legal aspects of it and don't want to invest the energy it would take to understand it. Other people seem to get it, but they also seem to think, "Hey, it was just a civil case over relatively minor issues, and sure it cost you some money, but now it's over, so get on with your life."
But those folks don't understand the point Martin Luther King was making: If a judge allows an injustice in one case, how can we be sure he won't allow an injustice in another case? In other words: If we can't trust Mike Joiner to get it right on a simple civil case involving property-related issues, how can we trust him to get it right on a criminal case involving sexual abuse of a child?
If Mike Joiner played politics with my case--and we will show that he unquestionably did--would he play politics on a child sexual abuse case?
More on this subject, which is disturbing on many levels, coming up.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Alabama's War on Teachers
Alabama is a state facing numerous serious issues--stressed state budgets, environmental degradation, an inadequate and grossly unfair tax system, a racist and antiquated constitution, dreadful rankings related to public health and safety, and a corrupt state judiciary, to name a few.
But what seems to be the No. 1 issue for Governor Bob Riley and his underlings? Conducting a war on teachers. And this war just happens to dovetail nicely with Riley's No. 1 goal: to produce a Republican takeover of the Alabama Legislature, the only one of the state's three branches of government the GOP does not already control.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, does a splendid job today of spotlighting the war on Alabama teachers and what it means for the state.
First, Horton notes the central role of Bradley Byrne, Riley's hand-picked choice as chancellor of the state's two-year college system. Before settling into his current role, Byrne was a state senator from Baldwin County, site of the mysterious "number shifting" that gave Riley the 2002 gubernatorial election over Don Siegelman. Horton notes that Baldwin might be the most conservative county in Alabama; I might have to quibble with Horton on that one, nominating my own Shelby County for that honor. It certainly would be a close race for a highly dubious honor.
Horton reports that Byrne recently gave an interview to the Opelika-Auburn News. The interview quickly disappeared from the newspaper's Web site shortly after Horton had written about the apparent coordination between Republican state officials such as Riley and Byrne and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Friends helped Horton secure a PDF of the Byrne interview, and it is available at Horton's post. Very interesting stuff.
Byrne seems to have a lot in common with Queen Alice Martin. We know that Martin craves a federal judgeship, which appears to be a driving force behind her prosecution of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican. Byrne appears to be an ambitious sort, too. Horton notes that Byrne is considered a strong candidate to follow Riley as governor in 2010. Could we have a Bradley Byrne-Artur Davis showdown in our future? Can we all hope and pray that Davis lays a serious hurting on Byrne's conservative behind?
Horton also presents a fascinating piece from Joe Reed, written for the Alabama Education Journal. Reed describes the tactics that Byrne and his henchmen have used to "clean up" the two-year system. They sound remarkably like the tactics Judy White (Gary White's wife) described in an affidavit about the pressure her husband received from federal law-enforcement officials to present false evidence against Don Siegelman.
Finally, Horton spotlights what has to be the early favorite for most ironic quote of 2007. I know it's only February, but somebody is really going to have to stretch to top this quote from Alice Martin, which she uttered in announcing a guilty plea from Joanne Jordan, president of Southern Union State Community College. Part of the charges against Jordan included perjury. Here is what Martin said:
"Lesson for the day--do not lie to a federal grand jury."
Talk about tone deaf! Nowhere in news reports does it note that Martin herself is under investigation for perjury.
Is that the kind of arrogance that could help bring down a public official? We will be following the story here at Legal Schnauzer. And we intend to add considerable information to the story.
Speaking of irony, consider this: One of the reasons Alice Martin is doing her best to sweep my Legal Schnauzer case under the carpet is because she wants to protect William E. Swatek, a Pelham, Alabama, attorney who is the father of Dax Swatek, former campaign manager for both Martin and Riley. Bill Swatek and a host of Republican judges in Alabama state courts have committed a cornucopia of federal crimes, and I have made Queen Alice quite aware of this--as you will see when I present a most interesting e-mail exchange I had a while back with the Queen. Of course, the Queen is not interested in the crimes I've witnessed because Bill and Dax Swatek are members of the GOP "home team."
Bill Swatek, it turns out, has a remarkably seedy history in the legal profession, with ethical problems dating back almost 30 years. His problems even have crossed over the line from ethical to criminal. And what crime was Mr. Swatek charged with back in the 1980s? Why, perjury.
Maybe Bill Swatek can give the Queen some pointers on how to beat a perjury rap, no matter how damning the evidence is against you. Sounds like she could use some pointers.
So when Joanne Jordan supposedly presents false testimony in a legal proceeding, it's a highly serious matter. But Bill Swatek, and his history of sleaze, are to be protected at all costs.
More details are coming on Alice Martin's ties to the Swatek clan.
But what seems to be the No. 1 issue for Governor Bob Riley and his underlings? Conducting a war on teachers. And this war just happens to dovetail nicely with Riley's No. 1 goal: to produce a Republican takeover of the Alabama Legislature, the only one of the state's three branches of government the GOP does not already control.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, does a splendid job today of spotlighting the war on Alabama teachers and what it means for the state.
First, Horton notes the central role of Bradley Byrne, Riley's hand-picked choice as chancellor of the state's two-year college system. Before settling into his current role, Byrne was a state senator from Baldwin County, site of the mysterious "number shifting" that gave Riley the 2002 gubernatorial election over Don Siegelman. Horton notes that Baldwin might be the most conservative county in Alabama; I might have to quibble with Horton on that one, nominating my own Shelby County for that honor. It certainly would be a close race for a highly dubious honor.
Horton reports that Byrne recently gave an interview to the Opelika-Auburn News. The interview quickly disappeared from the newspaper's Web site shortly after Horton had written about the apparent coordination between Republican state officials such as Riley and Byrne and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Friends helped Horton secure a PDF of the Byrne interview, and it is available at Horton's post. Very interesting stuff.
Byrne seems to have a lot in common with Queen Alice Martin. We know that Martin craves a federal judgeship, which appears to be a driving force behind her prosecution of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican. Byrne appears to be an ambitious sort, too. Horton notes that Byrne is considered a strong candidate to follow Riley as governor in 2010. Could we have a Bradley Byrne-Artur Davis showdown in our future? Can we all hope and pray that Davis lays a serious hurting on Byrne's conservative behind?
Horton also presents a fascinating piece from Joe Reed, written for the Alabama Education Journal. Reed describes the tactics that Byrne and his henchmen have used to "clean up" the two-year system. They sound remarkably like the tactics Judy White (Gary White's wife) described in an affidavit about the pressure her husband received from federal law-enforcement officials to present false evidence against Don Siegelman.
Finally, Horton spotlights what has to be the early favorite for most ironic quote of 2007. I know it's only February, but somebody is really going to have to stretch to top this quote from Alice Martin, which she uttered in announcing a guilty plea from Joanne Jordan, president of Southern Union State Community College. Part of the charges against Jordan included perjury. Here is what Martin said:
"Lesson for the day--do not lie to a federal grand jury."
Talk about tone deaf! Nowhere in news reports does it note that Martin herself is under investigation for perjury.
Is that the kind of arrogance that could help bring down a public official? We will be following the story here at Legal Schnauzer. And we intend to add considerable information to the story.
Speaking of irony, consider this: One of the reasons Alice Martin is doing her best to sweep my Legal Schnauzer case under the carpet is because she wants to protect William E. Swatek, a Pelham, Alabama, attorney who is the father of Dax Swatek, former campaign manager for both Martin and Riley. Bill Swatek and a host of Republican judges in Alabama state courts have committed a cornucopia of federal crimes, and I have made Queen Alice quite aware of this--as you will see when I present a most interesting e-mail exchange I had a while back with the Queen. Of course, the Queen is not interested in the crimes I've witnessed because Bill and Dax Swatek are members of the GOP "home team."
Bill Swatek, it turns out, has a remarkably seedy history in the legal profession, with ethical problems dating back almost 30 years. His problems even have crossed over the line from ethical to criminal. And what crime was Mr. Swatek charged with back in the 1980s? Why, perjury.
Maybe Bill Swatek can give the Queen some pointers on how to beat a perjury rap, no matter how damning the evidence is against you. Sounds like she could use some pointers.
So when Joanne Jordan supposedly presents false testimony in a legal proceeding, it's a highly serious matter. But Bill Swatek, and his history of sleaze, are to be protected at all costs.
More details are coming on Alice Martin's ties to the Swatek clan.
Could Big News Come Before November Elections?
For those who hope to see the Bush Justice Department unmasked, news seems to be moving at a snail's pace. But a recent report offers some encouraging news.
Manu Raju, of The Hill, reports that major news on the investigation could come before the November elections. Raju writes:
The federal investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys could jolt the political landscape ahead of the November elections, according to several people close to the inquiry.
Washington’s attention has been diverted from the scandal since the August resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, and has focused instead on Democrats’ efforts to hold White House officials in contempt for ignoring congressional subpoenas to testify on Capitol Hill about the firings.
But recent behind-the-scenes activity in several investigations suggests that the issue that roiled Congress in 2007 could re-emerge in the heat of the election year. Two inquiries by the House and Senate ethics committees are examining whether several congressional Republicans, including one running for the Senate this year, improperly interfered with investigations.
Congressional investigations appear to be far narrower than a sprawling inquiry launched by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), Raju reports:
Investigators from these offices have been questioning whether senior officials lied to Congress, violated the criminal provisions in the Hatch Act, tampered with witnesses preparing to testify to Congress, obstructed justice, took improper political considerations into account during the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and created widespread problems in the department’s Civil Rights Division, according to several people familiar with the investigation.
The internal Justice Department probe cannot bring charges but can refer findings to a U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia or a special prosecutor, who could then pursue a criminal investigation. One source close to the investigation expects the offices to issue a scathing report within the next three months, but they have not announced a timeline for their joint inquiry.
What could it all mean? Raju provides perspective:
“I think it could be historic,” said David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who was one of the nine ordered to resign by the Bush administration. “Arguably it’s the most significant investigation OPR and OIG have done in a generation, or maybe ever.”
Manu Raju, of The Hill, reports that major news on the investigation could come before the November elections. Raju writes:
The federal investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys could jolt the political landscape ahead of the November elections, according to several people close to the inquiry.
Washington’s attention has been diverted from the scandal since the August resignation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general, and has focused instead on Democrats’ efforts to hold White House officials in contempt for ignoring congressional subpoenas to testify on Capitol Hill about the firings.
But recent behind-the-scenes activity in several investigations suggests that the issue that roiled Congress in 2007 could re-emerge in the heat of the election year. Two inquiries by the House and Senate ethics committees are examining whether several congressional Republicans, including one running for the Senate this year, improperly interfered with investigations.
Congressional investigations appear to be far narrower than a sprawling inquiry launched by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), Raju reports:
Investigators from these offices have been questioning whether senior officials lied to Congress, violated the criminal provisions in the Hatch Act, tampered with witnesses preparing to testify to Congress, obstructed justice, took improper political considerations into account during the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys and created widespread problems in the department’s Civil Rights Division, according to several people familiar with the investigation.
The internal Justice Department probe cannot bring charges but can refer findings to a U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia or a special prosecutor, who could then pursue a criminal investigation. One source close to the investigation expects the offices to issue a scathing report within the next three months, but they have not announced a timeline for their joint inquiry.
What could it all mean? Raju provides perspective:
“I think it could be historic,” said David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, who was one of the nine ordered to resign by the Bush administration. “Arguably it’s the most significant investigation OPR and OIG have done in a generation, or maybe ever.”
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Did Siegelman Connection Lead to Conviction?
The Rev. Gregory Clarke reported to federal prison in Atlanta yesterday, but the former pastor of New Hope Baptist Church in Birmingham did not go quietly.
Clarke was convicted last July of income-tax evasion. He was charged with underreporting $110,000 in earned income and concocting schemes to deceive the government about the money.
As Clarke was preparing to begin serving his sentence, he had a serious parting shot for the Bush Justice Department, as reported in The Birmingham News:
Clarke said he believes he was prosecuted because of his friendship with former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is serving a prison sentence after he was convicted on seven corruption-related counts by a federal jury in Montgomery in 2006.
"He's visited my church on many occasions even when he wasn't running for office," Clarke said. The New Hope Baptist Church choir appeared on one of Siegelman's Christmas cards, and Clarke supported Siegelman during his trial, he said. "Those ties have a lot to do with my circumstances," he said.
And then there was this information, which sounded quite familiar:
On Monday, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Greene denied Clarke's request to remain free on bond, saying there were no substantial legal questions about the case that could lead to Clarke's conviction being overturned or the sentence reduced.
Clarke said he would continue to appeal his conviction.
"We'll be vindicated in the appeal process," Clarke said. "I will go to prison but I'm not going quietly. We're going to stand against what has been perpetrated. It's against the body of Christ."
Clarke was convicted last July of income-tax evasion. He was charged with underreporting $110,000 in earned income and concocting schemes to deceive the government about the money.
As Clarke was preparing to begin serving his sentence, he had a serious parting shot for the Bush Justice Department, as reported in The Birmingham News:
Clarke said he believes he was prosecuted because of his friendship with former Gov. Don Siegelman, who is serving a prison sentence after he was convicted on seven corruption-related counts by a federal jury in Montgomery in 2006.
"He's visited my church on many occasions even when he wasn't running for office," Clarke said. The New Hope Baptist Church choir appeared on one of Siegelman's Christmas cards, and Clarke supported Siegelman during his trial, he said. "Those ties have a lot to do with my circumstances," he said.
And then there was this information, which sounded quite familiar:
On Monday, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Greene denied Clarke's request to remain free on bond, saying there were no substantial legal questions about the case that could lead to Clarke's conviction being overturned or the sentence reduced.
Clarke said he would continue to appeal his conviction.
"We'll be vindicated in the appeal process," Clarke said. "I will go to prison but I'm not going quietly. We're going to stand against what has been perpetrated. It's against the body of Christ."
I must admit that, had I read this story about a year ago, I probably would have thought that Clarke was a crook dealing in sour grapes as he heads to the big house. But after studying the Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and experiencing corruption in our justice system firsthand, I take folks like Rev. Clarke much more seriously now.
I would not be at all surprised if he was right on target.
Also, this case makes you wonder about the number of African-American Democrats who have been targeted by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. It gets hard to keep up with them all--Rev. Clarke, Chris McNair, Jeff Germany, probably Larry Langford . . .
You really wonder if someone like Jesse Jackson should take notice of this.
Will Queen Alice Sacrifice a Republican?
Scott Horton, of Harper's reported recently that U.S. Attorney Alice Martin was desperate to find a Republican she could indict. The goal, Horton noted, was to sacrifice a GOPer in order to partially offset all of the Democrats she has targeted. This strategy is designed to hoodwink the public into believing that Queen Alice performs her duties in a nonpartisan way.
"According to recent reports, Martin has grown so apprehensive that the public will grow wise to her schemes that now she has launched an effort to identify a Republican to charge, too."
Well, looks like Queen Alice has found her man. Doc's Political Parlor is reporting that the office of Alabama Rep. Todd Greeson (R-Ider) was raided this week by federal agents. Greeson works at Northeast Alabama Community College, and it looks like he is becoming part of the investigation into Alabama's two-year college system.
How did Greeson get on the wrong side of the Republican power structure in Alabama? The following Associated Press story from 2005 provides plenty of insight:
----------------------------------------
Republican lawmakers threaten to censure GOP member
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala.--Leaders of the House Republican Caucus have threatened to censure a Republican lawmaker who had said he planned to vote with Democrats on a procedural vote that GOP members had hoped to use to block consideration of a funding bill.
Rep. Todd Greeson, R-Ider, said he'd told Republican Caucus leaders that it's important to the people in his working-class northeast Alabama district for the Legislature to pass spending plans for state government during the current session."There are 16 public schools in my district. It's important to get the budgets passed for them," Greeson said.
Twelve members of the caucus steering committee signed a letter telling Beeson the Caucus had taken a position to protest concerns about the budgets through procedural votes."Please be advised another violation of caucus by-laws will result in more serious action being taken. That action could include a public resolution of censure against you," the letter said. It went on to state that the resolution would be sent to Republican leaders in Greeson's home county, DeKalb.
Greeson said he was offended by the letter and intends to vote on issues based on what his conscience, and not the Republican Caucus, tells him. He said he has not paid dues to the caucus and does not plan to attend future meetings, but he said he has no intention of leaving the Republican Party."I am a Republican. I am pro-life and pro-gun. Most people in my county consider me to be to the right of Attila the Hun," Greeson said.
House Minority Leader Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, said the caucus does not try to tell members how to vote on issues. But he said when the caucus takes an official position members are expected to vote together on some procedural votes. At times, he said, that method is the only weapon Republicans have in the House where Democrats have a 62-41 majority.
---------------------------------------
Here's a link to a Montgomery Advertiser story that provides more background:
April 24, 2005
Republican Lawmaker Will Not Walk Lockstep with GOP
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specialreports/legislature/storyV5CAPINSIDE24.htm
--------------------------------------
So it looks like Rep. Greeson is the Republican who will be "thrown under the bus." And we have a good idea why he is the chosen one.
How's this for a heavy dose of irony? If Alice Martin needed a Republican to prosecute, I've given her detailed information about federal crimes committed by 16 Republican public officials (trial and appellate judges) and at least one attorney with strong ties to the state GOP.
That attorney is Bill Swatek, the father of Dax Swatek, Queen Alice's campaign manager for her failed 2000 run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
Something tells me Queen Alice didn't want to go after her former campaign manager's daddy--and said daddy's criminal cronies in Alabama state courts. After all, they are all obedient members of the "home team," something Todd Greeson evidently is not.
Gosh, Rep. Greeson actually has the best interests of his constituents at heart! What in the world is wrong with him?
Guess Rep. Greeson will just have to pay the price for such truculence, whether he did anything wrong or not.
"According to recent reports, Martin has grown so apprehensive that the public will grow wise to her schemes that now she has launched an effort to identify a Republican to charge, too."
Well, looks like Queen Alice has found her man. Doc's Political Parlor is reporting that the office of Alabama Rep. Todd Greeson (R-Ider) was raided this week by federal agents. Greeson works at Northeast Alabama Community College, and it looks like he is becoming part of the investigation into Alabama's two-year college system.
How did Greeson get on the wrong side of the Republican power structure in Alabama? The following Associated Press story from 2005 provides plenty of insight:
----------------------------------------
Republican lawmakers threaten to censure GOP member
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala.--Leaders of the House Republican Caucus have threatened to censure a Republican lawmaker who had said he planned to vote with Democrats on a procedural vote that GOP members had hoped to use to block consideration of a funding bill.
Rep. Todd Greeson, R-Ider, said he'd told Republican Caucus leaders that it's important to the people in his working-class northeast Alabama district for the Legislature to pass spending plans for state government during the current session."There are 16 public schools in my district. It's important to get the budgets passed for them," Greeson said.
Twelve members of the caucus steering committee signed a letter telling Beeson the Caucus had taken a position to protest concerns about the budgets through procedural votes."Please be advised another violation of caucus by-laws will result in more serious action being taken. That action could include a public resolution of censure against you," the letter said. It went on to state that the resolution would be sent to Republican leaders in Greeson's home county, DeKalb.
Greeson said he was offended by the letter and intends to vote on issues based on what his conscience, and not the Republican Caucus, tells him. He said he has not paid dues to the caucus and does not plan to attend future meetings, but he said he has no intention of leaving the Republican Party."I am a Republican. I am pro-life and pro-gun. Most people in my county consider me to be to the right of Attila the Hun," Greeson said.
House Minority Leader Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, said the caucus does not try to tell members how to vote on issues. But he said when the caucus takes an official position members are expected to vote together on some procedural votes. At times, he said, that method is the only weapon Republicans have in the House where Democrats have a 62-41 majority.
---------------------------------------
Here's a link to a Montgomery Advertiser story that provides more background:
April 24, 2005
Republican Lawmaker Will Not Walk Lockstep with GOP
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specialreports/legislature/storyV5CAPINSIDE24.htm
--------------------------------------
So it looks like Rep. Greeson is the Republican who will be "thrown under the bus." And we have a good idea why he is the chosen one.
How's this for a heavy dose of irony? If Alice Martin needed a Republican to prosecute, I've given her detailed information about federal crimes committed by 16 Republican public officials (trial and appellate judges) and at least one attorney with strong ties to the state GOP.
That attorney is Bill Swatek, the father of Dax Swatek, Queen Alice's campaign manager for her failed 2000 run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
Something tells me Queen Alice didn't want to go after her former campaign manager's daddy--and said daddy's criminal cronies in Alabama state courts. After all, they are all obedient members of the "home team," something Todd Greeson evidently is not.
Gosh, Rep. Greeson actually has the best interests of his constituents at heart! What in the world is wrong with him?
Guess Rep. Greeson will just have to pay the price for such truculence, whether he did anything wrong or not.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Postmodernism and the GOP
I've long been intrigued by the notion of postmodernism, a subject that most of us have a hard time grasping.
Definitions of postmodernism abound, some of them quite complex. Here is one definition that is fairly straightforward.
I might not be on target with my definition, but I tend to think of postmodernism as a worldview where common standards for effective social interaction are ignored and treated with hostility.
I think of postmodernism whenever I'm in a movie theater and someone decides they just have to carrry on a cell-phone conversation while the film is playing. Or I think of postmodernism when I see a driver weaving in and out of traffic, violating multiple traffic laws and endangering numerous lives, all because said driver apparently has an appointment somewhere that trumps all else.
Perhaps my view of postmodernism is overly simplistic, but I think of it as primarily a lack of courtesy or deceny, a lack of concern for the rights of others.
Postmodernism--or at least my definition of it--seems to run rampant through today's Republican Party. And we've had two glaring examples in recent days.
First, was the Congressional hearing on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. This one involved future Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee, a trainer who says he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone. The New York Times opined on what is left of Clemens' rapidly fading credibility. And the Times noted that the whole affair turned into a partisan sideshow, with Republicans clearly favoring Clemens and Democrats trying to give McNamee a fair shake and appearing to be interested in getting at the truth.
Why would a hearing about the use of performance-enhancing drugs turn into a partisan squabble? Well, news reports have stated that Clemens, a native of Texas, is a longtime friend of the Bush family. In fact, McNamee's attorney says he expects Clemens to receive a pardon from George W. Bush if the pitcher is found to have committed perjury, an increasingly likely possibility, given the pitcher's shaky performance at the hearing and the fact that at least two other players have admitted that McNamee's statements about them were true. Some reports have indicated that McNamee has physical evidence to support his claims about Clemens use of steroids and HGH.
So here you have a Congressional hearing, with people testifying under oath, and Republicans don't appear to be remotely interested in getting at the truth. Postmodern, indeed.
And then you have Thursday's walk out by House Republicans, incensed that Democrats wanted to vote on a resolution to hold one current and one former White House official in contempt of Congress for failing to answer questions regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys.
Are Republicans remotely interested in getting at the truth regarding the possible politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice? Evidently not. And evidently they do not mind looking like a group of petulant third graders in the process.
This all might be a good sign, though, for those interested in the cause of justice, according to Scott Horton of Harper's. He says that House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers might patiently be exhausting all remedies before moving forward with impeachment proceedings--in which case, the White House claims of executive privilege will not apply.
Writes Horton:
"My guess is that the chess players are thinking several steps ahead of the game. It may or may not come to the sort of inquiry I am envisioning—that will depend in the first instance on the Justice Department’s own internal conclusions, and the pressure for the Justice Department to simply whitewash the matter may prove irresistible. But if it does come to a pointed inquiry into criminal conduct in the Oval Office relating to the dismissals, Conyers and his Committee want to be in a position to demonstrate that they have exhausted the other remedies—subpoenas and contempt citations—and have been stymied by the White House. In a sense, the White House will be forcing the opening of an impeachment inquiry by its own intransigence."
Definitions of postmodernism abound, some of them quite complex. Here is one definition that is fairly straightforward.
I might not be on target with my definition, but I tend to think of postmodernism as a worldview where common standards for effective social interaction are ignored and treated with hostility.
I think of postmodernism whenever I'm in a movie theater and someone decides they just have to carrry on a cell-phone conversation while the film is playing. Or I think of postmodernism when I see a driver weaving in and out of traffic, violating multiple traffic laws and endangering numerous lives, all because said driver apparently has an appointment somewhere that trumps all else.
Perhaps my view of postmodernism is overly simplistic, but I think of it as primarily a lack of courtesy or deceny, a lack of concern for the rights of others.
Postmodernism--or at least my definition of it--seems to run rampant through today's Republican Party. And we've had two glaring examples in recent days.
First, was the Congressional hearing on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. This one involved future Hall of Fame pitcher Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee, a trainer who says he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone. The New York Times opined on what is left of Clemens' rapidly fading credibility. And the Times noted that the whole affair turned into a partisan sideshow, with Republicans clearly favoring Clemens and Democrats trying to give McNamee a fair shake and appearing to be interested in getting at the truth.
Why would a hearing about the use of performance-enhancing drugs turn into a partisan squabble? Well, news reports have stated that Clemens, a native of Texas, is a longtime friend of the Bush family. In fact, McNamee's attorney says he expects Clemens to receive a pardon from George W. Bush if the pitcher is found to have committed perjury, an increasingly likely possibility, given the pitcher's shaky performance at the hearing and the fact that at least two other players have admitted that McNamee's statements about them were true. Some reports have indicated that McNamee has physical evidence to support his claims about Clemens use of steroids and HGH.
So here you have a Congressional hearing, with people testifying under oath, and Republicans don't appear to be remotely interested in getting at the truth. Postmodern, indeed.
And then you have Thursday's walk out by House Republicans, incensed that Democrats wanted to vote on a resolution to hold one current and one former White House official in contempt of Congress for failing to answer questions regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys.
Are Republicans remotely interested in getting at the truth regarding the possible politicization of the U.S. Department of Justice? Evidently not. And evidently they do not mind looking like a group of petulant third graders in the process.
This all might be a good sign, though, for those interested in the cause of justice, according to Scott Horton of Harper's. He says that House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers might patiently be exhausting all remedies before moving forward with impeachment proceedings--in which case, the White House claims of executive privilege will not apply.
Writes Horton:
"My guess is that the chess players are thinking several steps ahead of the game. It may or may not come to the sort of inquiry I am envisioning—that will depend in the first instance on the Justice Department’s own internal conclusions, and the pressure for the Justice Department to simply whitewash the matter may prove irresistible. But if it does come to a pointed inquiry into criminal conduct in the Oval Office relating to the dismissals, Conyers and his Committee want to be in a position to demonstrate that they have exhausted the other remedies—subpoenas and contempt citations—and have been stymied by the White House. In a sense, the White House will be forcing the opening of an impeachment inquiry by its own intransigence."
Bad Judges and Cockroaches, Part III
Let's return for a moment to our journey into the murky world of bankruptcy and legal malpractice. In our previous installments, I've pointed to evidence that makes me think another Republican judge, this time Allwin Horn of Jefferson County, Alabama, is blowing some serious smoke up my fanny. Let's take a look at some more evidence that backs up that argument.
As I noted in my first post on this subject, I'm hardly an expert on bankruptcy law. Heck, most lawyers in this country aren't experts in the labyrinthine procedures of the bankruptcy code, so I don't feel so bad. But I have become somewhat of an expert at detecting bad judges, particularly when they are Republicans and seem to want to provide zero information to explain their rulings.
Experience has taught me that's usually because there is no law to support their rulings. And I suspect that's what is going on in my legal malpractice case against Richard Poff, my second attorney. (My first attorney was Jesse P. Evans III, then of the Birmingham firm Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson. An associate, Michael Odom, did most of the work on my case. Much more about these two gentlemen, and their handling of my case, in future posts.)
As I've noted, Judge Horn has ruled that my professional-malpractice lawsuit is a claim that requires me to seek permission from the bankruptcy court in order to proceed in state court. He made this ruling even though Poff's bankruptcy case was concluded more than two years ago, and Poff never mentioned me or my lawsuit in his papers filed in bankruptcy court.
I contend that a lawsuit for professional malpractice does not entail a "right to payment" or an "enforceable obligation" that would constitute a claim under bankruptcy law. Horn has not offered one sentence, not one word, to indicate what law he is basing his ruling upon. (This, unfortunately, is common practice for trial-court judges--one of many things that need to be changed about our court system.)
The fundamental question is this: Is my lawsuit for professional malpractice dischargeable under the bankruptcy code? If it is dischargeable, then Poff is free and clear, as I understand the law.
But my research indicates that, even if my lawsuit is considered a claim, it still is not dischargeable. Section 14.4.2 of Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice states that the bankruptcy code presents two categories of "exceptions to discharge."
The first category consists of debts that are excepted from discharge regardless of whether the issue is raised during the bankruptcy case. The second category of exceptions consists of debts that are excluded from the discharge only if their nondischargeability is raised and determined during the bankruptcy case.
Among exceptions in the first category are "debts not listed by the debtor." Well, my lawsuit was not listed by Richard Poff. My name is not listed anywhere in his papers. I never received a Notice of Bankruptcy, which I understand normally goes out to creditors.
I did receive a Suggestion of Bankruptcy, notifying me that my case in state court was stayed pending a resolution on Poff's bankruptcy case. That's all it said. Did not say I was a creditor and gave no information about what I was to do, or any deadlines for doing it, other than to cease all action in state court until the bankruptcy case was concluded--which I did.
The Suggestion of Bankruptcy was dated August 5, 2005, and Poff's debts were discharged on August 17, 2005. The hay pretty much was already in the barn before I ever heard about the bankruptcy case.
What if my lawsuit had been listed and fell in the second category noted above? According to Section 14.4.2 of Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice, I would have been required to raise my nondischargeability issues by filing an adversary proceeding. "The deadline for commencing such a proceeding is sixty days after the first date set for the section 341 meeting of creditors. The court gives at least thirty days notice of this deadline . . . "
I received no notice of a 341 meeting or any deadline. The court evidently did not consider me a creditor with a "claim." At the time, Richard Poff evidently did not consider me a creditor with a claim. And most importantly, Poff's own bankruptcy attorney, a fellow named Jonathan S. Wesson, evidently did not consider me a creditor with a claim.
If Mr. Wesson thought I had a "claim" under bankruptcy law, it seems that he would have included me in Poff's papers and made sure I received proper notice. He didn't do that. I suspect that's because he knew I wasn't a creditor.
As I noted in my previous post on this subject, I asked Judge Horn in a hearing what he based his finding on. He said it was "his impression" that the law required me to get permission from the bankruptcy law.
Funny, I've never read that language in the judicial oath: "I swear to uphold my impressions of the law, so help me God." (I guess you would lay your hand on a copy of a Rich Little video to take that oath.)
So far, though, I've found nothing terribly amusing, or accurate, about Judge Horn's impressions. If there's anything in the bankruptcy code, or case law, that requires someone in my situation to seek permission of the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state court, I sure haven't found it.
Update: A reader who seems to be knowledgeable on such matters has alerted me to a case involving a legal-malpractice lawsuit and a defendant attorney who had gone through bankruptcy. I haven't had a chance to fully digest the case yet, but it appears to have numerous similarities to my situation. Will follow up with more details soon.
As I noted in my first post on this subject, I'm hardly an expert on bankruptcy law. Heck, most lawyers in this country aren't experts in the labyrinthine procedures of the bankruptcy code, so I don't feel so bad. But I have become somewhat of an expert at detecting bad judges, particularly when they are Republicans and seem to want to provide zero information to explain their rulings.
Experience has taught me that's usually because there is no law to support their rulings. And I suspect that's what is going on in my legal malpractice case against Richard Poff, my second attorney. (My first attorney was Jesse P. Evans III, then of the Birmingham firm Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson. An associate, Michael Odom, did most of the work on my case. Much more about these two gentlemen, and their handling of my case, in future posts.)
As I've noted, Judge Horn has ruled that my professional-malpractice lawsuit is a claim that requires me to seek permission from the bankruptcy court in order to proceed in state court. He made this ruling even though Poff's bankruptcy case was concluded more than two years ago, and Poff never mentioned me or my lawsuit in his papers filed in bankruptcy court.
I contend that a lawsuit for professional malpractice does not entail a "right to payment" or an "enforceable obligation" that would constitute a claim under bankruptcy law. Horn has not offered one sentence, not one word, to indicate what law he is basing his ruling upon. (This, unfortunately, is common practice for trial-court judges--one of many things that need to be changed about our court system.)
The fundamental question is this: Is my lawsuit for professional malpractice dischargeable under the bankruptcy code? If it is dischargeable, then Poff is free and clear, as I understand the law.
But my research indicates that, even if my lawsuit is considered a claim, it still is not dischargeable. Section 14.4.2 of Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice states that the bankruptcy code presents two categories of "exceptions to discharge."
The first category consists of debts that are excepted from discharge regardless of whether the issue is raised during the bankruptcy case. The second category of exceptions consists of debts that are excluded from the discharge only if their nondischargeability is raised and determined during the bankruptcy case.
Among exceptions in the first category are "debts not listed by the debtor." Well, my lawsuit was not listed by Richard Poff. My name is not listed anywhere in his papers. I never received a Notice of Bankruptcy, which I understand normally goes out to creditors.
I did receive a Suggestion of Bankruptcy, notifying me that my case in state court was stayed pending a resolution on Poff's bankruptcy case. That's all it said. Did not say I was a creditor and gave no information about what I was to do, or any deadlines for doing it, other than to cease all action in state court until the bankruptcy case was concluded--which I did.
The Suggestion of Bankruptcy was dated August 5, 2005, and Poff's debts were discharged on August 17, 2005. The hay pretty much was already in the barn before I ever heard about the bankruptcy case.
What if my lawsuit had been listed and fell in the second category noted above? According to Section 14.4.2 of Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice, I would have been required to raise my nondischargeability issues by filing an adversary proceeding. "The deadline for commencing such a proceeding is sixty days after the first date set for the section 341 meeting of creditors. The court gives at least thirty days notice of this deadline . . . "
I received no notice of a 341 meeting or any deadline. The court evidently did not consider me a creditor with a "claim." At the time, Richard Poff evidently did not consider me a creditor with a claim. And most importantly, Poff's own bankruptcy attorney, a fellow named Jonathan S. Wesson, evidently did not consider me a creditor with a claim.
If Mr. Wesson thought I had a "claim" under bankruptcy law, it seems that he would have included me in Poff's papers and made sure I received proper notice. He didn't do that. I suspect that's because he knew I wasn't a creditor.
As I noted in my previous post on this subject, I asked Judge Horn in a hearing what he based his finding on. He said it was "his impression" that the law required me to get permission from the bankruptcy law.
Funny, I've never read that language in the judicial oath: "I swear to uphold my impressions of the law, so help me God." (I guess you would lay your hand on a copy of a Rich Little video to take that oath.)
So far, though, I've found nothing terribly amusing, or accurate, about Judge Horn's impressions. If there's anything in the bankruptcy code, or case law, that requires someone in my situation to seek permission of the bankruptcy court before proceeding in state court, I sure haven't found it.
Update: A reader who seems to be knowledgeable on such matters has alerted me to a case involving a legal-malpractice lawsuit and a defendant attorney who had gone through bankruptcy. I haven't had a chance to fully digest the case yet, but it appears to have numerous similarities to my situation. Will follow up with more details soon.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Alice Martin's Political Pipeline
A U.S. attorney, in theory, is above politics. It is supposed to be a person who administers the law without regard to political considerations.
But is that how it works in the Northern District of Alabama? Not with Alice Martin in charge.
You don't have to dig real deep to see just what a political animal we have in Ms. Martin. In fact, her political connections jumped off the page at me recently when I perused the initial issue of Thicket magazine.
The cover story is about Bob Riley, Alabama's Republican governor. And it features a photo of Riley wearing his trademark suit and cowboy boots. The story focuses mainly on Riley's efforts to clean up Alabama's two-year college system and stop the practice of "double dipping"--where employees of the two-year system also serve as members of the Alabama Legislature, usually as Democrats.
A stunning sentence appears on page 54 of Thicket: "For years, even within the college systems, critics questioned the propriety of legislators being paid by the very institutions they funded, sometimes, Riley argues, for jobs that never required them to show any tangible product."
That word "product" sure is curious in that context. It appears that writer Atticus Rominger meant to say "work product."
And why is that interesting? Well, the first issue of Thicket evidently came out in early January 2008. And on January 31, Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) was arrested on corruption charges that centered on her status as both an employee of the two-year system and a member of the legislature.
In announcing the indictment, Martin said a central part of the charges involved Schmitz' failure to product sufficient "work product."
Well, what do you know? Seems Bob Riley and Alice Martin talk the same language.
Let's say Bob Riley was interviewed for the Thicket article in early December 2007, and we have him using the term "(work) product" in reference to problems with the two-year college system. Then roughly two months later, we have Alice Martin using the same term--hardly an everday term, and in fact, a term that is not appropriate for what is being alleged in the Schmitz case--in announcing an indictment.
Kind of makes you think Bob Riley and Alice Martin are on the same wavelength doesn't it? Almost as if they were on the same "home team."
I know of someone else who is on that "home team," and he ties Riley and Martin together like a neat Christmas bow. Interestingly, this person bears a name that is central to our Legal Schnauzer case.
More on that political connection coming up.
But is that how it works in the Northern District of Alabama? Not with Alice Martin in charge.
You don't have to dig real deep to see just what a political animal we have in Ms. Martin. In fact, her political connections jumped off the page at me recently when I perused the initial issue of Thicket magazine.
The cover story is about Bob Riley, Alabama's Republican governor. And it features a photo of Riley wearing his trademark suit and cowboy boots. The story focuses mainly on Riley's efforts to clean up Alabama's two-year college system and stop the practice of "double dipping"--where employees of the two-year system also serve as members of the Alabama Legislature, usually as Democrats.
A stunning sentence appears on page 54 of Thicket: "For years, even within the college systems, critics questioned the propriety of legislators being paid by the very institutions they funded, sometimes, Riley argues, for jobs that never required them to show any tangible product."
That word "product" sure is curious in that context. It appears that writer Atticus Rominger meant to say "work product."
And why is that interesting? Well, the first issue of Thicket evidently came out in early January 2008. And on January 31, Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) was arrested on corruption charges that centered on her status as both an employee of the two-year system and a member of the legislature.
In announcing the indictment, Martin said a central part of the charges involved Schmitz' failure to product sufficient "work product."
Well, what do you know? Seems Bob Riley and Alice Martin talk the same language.
Let's say Bob Riley was interviewed for the Thicket article in early December 2007, and we have him using the term "(work) product" in reference to problems with the two-year college system. Then roughly two months later, we have Alice Martin using the same term--hardly an everday term, and in fact, a term that is not appropriate for what is being alleged in the Schmitz case--in announcing an indictment.
Kind of makes you think Bob Riley and Alice Martin are on the same wavelength doesn't it? Almost as if they were on the same "home team."
I know of someone else who is on that "home team," and he ties Riley and Martin together like a neat Christmas bow. Interestingly, this person bears a name that is central to our Legal Schnauzer case.
More on that political connection coming up.
Judges and Lawyers as Targets
Here's a kind of story I'm surprised we don't see more often.
It involves three guys who apparently decided to order a hit on a judge and an attorney. And it all happened close to home, in the south Alabama town of Ozark, not far from Dothan.
A father and son, and one other individual, were arrested on felony counts of conspiracy to commit murder. The plot went awry when the suspects attempted to hire an undercover police officer to carry out the hit.
The targeted judge and attorney were taking part in domestic-relations cases involving two of the suspects.
Since I started this blog, I've heard from a number of readers who said they felt they were being mistreated in family courts. From the details they shared with me, in most cases it sounded as if my readers had valid reasons to be concerned. All of my correspondents have been women, but it's easy to find sites on the Web devoted to men who feel they have received unfair treatment in divorce or child-custody cases.
Fortunately, I've never been involved in a domestic-relations case, and I know very little about that area of law. But I can imagine that emotions tend to run high in such cases. And I'm sure it doesn't help when a judge appears to be playing favorites with one party or another, perhaps out of friendship with an attorney in the case.
I don't know what was going on in the case from Ozark, Alabama. It's possible that the judge and the attorney were doing everything in a proper and lawful manner. It's possible that the suspects in the hit decided to blame someone else for problems they had largely caused themselves.
So why do I say I'm surprised we don't read about these kinds of stories more often? Well, based on my own experiences in Alabama, and from what I've read about judicial corruption in other states, we have a whole lot of unethical judges--and attorneys--out there.
And unethical judges and attorneys are not just irritating, but benign, presences. They have victims--innocent people who are vulnerable and afraid, who have a right under our constitution to expect fair treatment under the law.
What can these victims lose as a result of actions by a corrupt judge or attorney? Well, just about everything that matters to them--their families, their homes, their money, their possessions, their freedom. Victims also can lose their health--both physical and mental.
And that's why I'm surprised more victims don't lash out. No one is advocating that people do that. But I think officials in our justice system need to ponder the notion that corrupt judges can push their victims to the point of snapping.
The situation is made worse by the fact that judges are held almost totally unaccountable in our society. A victim who complains to a bar association, a judicial inquiry commission, or law enforcement is likely to be ignored or laughed off.
So no one should be shocked when violence is directed at judges, and it has happened in recent years. In 2005, we had a case in Chicago where the husband and mother of a federal judge were murdered by a man who had been a party in several civil cases. Also in 2005, a judge, court reporter, and deputy were shot and killed inside an Atlanta courtroom by the defendant in a criminal case.
Stories about attorneys being the targets of violence are fairly common. Perhaps the most recent came last week when attorney Gregory Clark was fatally shot while shoveling snow outside his Rockford, Illinois, home. Police believe Clark might have been shot by a former client.
A key point: I've seen no indication that the judges in the Chicago or Atlanta cases--or the attorney in Chicago--were doing anything improperly. And even if they were, nothing justifies the actions of parties who already were emotionally unstable.
But take it from someone who has seen it firsthand: The justice system is remarkably cavalier about the wrongdoing of judges and lawyers.
Just consider two cases that have been the subject of many posts here at Legal Schnauzer. I'm talking about the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. In the two cases combined, four men are imprisoned, and we (along with other journalists and bloggers) have shown that their convictions were unlawful.
So you have four men being held political prisoner in what is supposed to be the greatest democracy on earth. And does anybody seem to be in any hurry to do anything about it? Not that I can see. Heck, there isn't even a transcript in the Siegelman case so that his attorneys can file an appeal. I've seen a transcript in the Minor case, and the actions of federal judge Henry Wingate were so corrupt as to be mind-boggling.
Does anybody in authority care? Congress is making some effort to look into the issue of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, but it sure seems to be taking its sweet time. And it doesn't help, of course, that Republicans are putting up roadblocks at every step, including today's walkout in the House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, try to put yourself in the shoes (and prison cells) of Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. Can you imagine what that must be like? Can you imagine what it's like to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 years old and to know you are facing a prison sentence that is going to take a big chunk of your remaining natural life--for something you didn't do?
Now consider this: If you were in the shoes of Siegelman & Co., and it appeared that justice was not going to be done, and you had the resources to fight back, would you think about doing what these fellows in Ozark, Alabama allegedly did? Would you consider taking out a "hit" on somebody?
While Congress and others dither, here is something that people in authority do not seem to consider when it comes to corrupt judges: For every corrupt judge, there are multiple victims. And those victims are real people--they bleed, they cry, they sweat, they laugh, they feel. They can also snap, whether they were once powerful public officials or just regular folks.
As for the corrupt judges and attorneys themselves, here is a question they never seem to ask themselves: Is it possible someday that I could push somebody too far?
It involves three guys who apparently decided to order a hit on a judge and an attorney. And it all happened close to home, in the south Alabama town of Ozark, not far from Dothan.
A father and son, and one other individual, were arrested on felony counts of conspiracy to commit murder. The plot went awry when the suspects attempted to hire an undercover police officer to carry out the hit.
The targeted judge and attorney were taking part in domestic-relations cases involving two of the suspects.
Since I started this blog, I've heard from a number of readers who said they felt they were being mistreated in family courts. From the details they shared with me, in most cases it sounded as if my readers had valid reasons to be concerned. All of my correspondents have been women, but it's easy to find sites on the Web devoted to men who feel they have received unfair treatment in divorce or child-custody cases.
Fortunately, I've never been involved in a domestic-relations case, and I know very little about that area of law. But I can imagine that emotions tend to run high in such cases. And I'm sure it doesn't help when a judge appears to be playing favorites with one party or another, perhaps out of friendship with an attorney in the case.
I don't know what was going on in the case from Ozark, Alabama. It's possible that the judge and the attorney were doing everything in a proper and lawful manner. It's possible that the suspects in the hit decided to blame someone else for problems they had largely caused themselves.
So why do I say I'm surprised we don't read about these kinds of stories more often? Well, based on my own experiences in Alabama, and from what I've read about judicial corruption in other states, we have a whole lot of unethical judges--and attorneys--out there.
And unethical judges and attorneys are not just irritating, but benign, presences. They have victims--innocent people who are vulnerable and afraid, who have a right under our constitution to expect fair treatment under the law.
What can these victims lose as a result of actions by a corrupt judge or attorney? Well, just about everything that matters to them--their families, their homes, their money, their possessions, their freedom. Victims also can lose their health--both physical and mental.
And that's why I'm surprised more victims don't lash out. No one is advocating that people do that. But I think officials in our justice system need to ponder the notion that corrupt judges can push their victims to the point of snapping.
The situation is made worse by the fact that judges are held almost totally unaccountable in our society. A victim who complains to a bar association, a judicial inquiry commission, or law enforcement is likely to be ignored or laughed off.
So no one should be shocked when violence is directed at judges, and it has happened in recent years. In 2005, we had a case in Chicago where the husband and mother of a federal judge were murdered by a man who had been a party in several civil cases. Also in 2005, a judge, court reporter, and deputy were shot and killed inside an Atlanta courtroom by the defendant in a criminal case.
Stories about attorneys being the targets of violence are fairly common. Perhaps the most recent came last week when attorney Gregory Clark was fatally shot while shoveling snow outside his Rockford, Illinois, home. Police believe Clark might have been shot by a former client.
A key point: I've seen no indication that the judges in the Chicago or Atlanta cases--or the attorney in Chicago--were doing anything improperly. And even if they were, nothing justifies the actions of parties who already were emotionally unstable.
But take it from someone who has seen it firsthand: The justice system is remarkably cavalier about the wrongdoing of judges and lawyers.
Just consider two cases that have been the subject of many posts here at Legal Schnauzer. I'm talking about the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. In the two cases combined, four men are imprisoned, and we (along with other journalists and bloggers) have shown that their convictions were unlawful.
So you have four men being held political prisoner in what is supposed to be the greatest democracy on earth. And does anybody seem to be in any hurry to do anything about it? Not that I can see. Heck, there isn't even a transcript in the Siegelman case so that his attorneys can file an appeal. I've seen a transcript in the Minor case, and the actions of federal judge Henry Wingate were so corrupt as to be mind-boggling.
Does anybody in authority care? Congress is making some effort to look into the issue of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, but it sure seems to be taking its sweet time. And it doesn't help, of course, that Republicans are putting up roadblocks at every step, including today's walkout in the House of Representatives.
Meanwhile, try to put yourself in the shoes (and prison cells) of Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. Can you imagine what that must be like? Can you imagine what it's like to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 years old and to know you are facing a prison sentence that is going to take a big chunk of your remaining natural life--for something you didn't do?
Now consider this: If you were in the shoes of Siegelman & Co., and it appeared that justice was not going to be done, and you had the resources to fight back, would you think about doing what these fellows in Ozark, Alabama allegedly did? Would you consider taking out a "hit" on somebody?
While Congress and others dither, here is something that people in authority do not seem to consider when it comes to corrupt judges: For every corrupt judge, there are multiple victims. And those victims are real people--they bleed, they cry, they sweat, they laugh, they feel. They can also snap, whether they were once powerful public officials or just regular folks.
As for the corrupt judges and attorneys themselves, here is a question they never seem to ask themselves: Is it possible someday that I could push somebody too far?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Jack-Booted Thugs Visit the Schnauzer
Remember the early 1990s when right wingers popularized the term "jack-booted thugs?"
The phrase came into popular usage to describe federal agents after firearms-related raids at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992, and Waco, Texas, in 1993. Some right wingers celebrated Randy Weaver and David Koresh as victims of intrusive government officials run amok.
I never thought of myself having much in common with Randy Weaver or David Koresh. But I'm starting to know what it feels like to be a target of "jack-booted thugs." And in my case, the thugs are part of the right-wing establishment that has come to rule in Bob Riley's Alabama.
In other words, right wingers used to condemn jack-booted thugs. Now, they are the jack-booted thugs.
The term "jack-booted thugs" came to mind recently when I read about the case of Alabama legislator Sue Schmitz, a 63-year-old retired social studies teacher who was dragged out of her bathroom while trying to take a shower and arrested on federal corruption charges that seem flimsy at best. Like most anybody with a conscience, I was horrified that Ms. Schmitz would be treated this way. That's especially the case since her lawyer, anticipating that his client might be a target, had told authorities that Ms. Schmitz was willing to turn herself in.
Well, my own Legal Schnauzer tale is starting to turn into a civil version of the Sue Schmitz case. And I strongly suspect that the same bad actors who are driving the Sue Schmitz case are behind my recent experiences.
Here's how the notice reads:
"You will take notice that I have levied upon all your rights, interest and title, if any, in and to the following described property to satisfy a Fieri Facias in my hands in the above stated cause, and that said property will be advertised and sold according to law, to-Wit . . . "
The notice then describes our lot and house.
You might have a question: What in the heck is a Fieri Facias? That's just a fancy term for a writ of execution, which I've written about several times in recent posts.
In those earlier posts, I noted that a couple of Shelby County deputies, Eddie Moore and Bubba Caldwell, had repeatedly harrassed my wife and me over a writ of execution that is invalid under the law. In fact, the judgment against me, upon which the writ of execution is based, came as the result of a legal proceeding in which my 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection were butchered. But as we have shown repeatedly on this blog, the actual law means nothing to the corrupt Republicans who run Shelby County like a banana republic.
I will explain in detail why the judgment is unconstitutional and the writ is invalid. But for now, suffice to say that Deputies Eddie and Bubba didn't care about legalities. They were threatening to come and take one of our cars.
Evidently that didn't sufficiently scare us, so now the Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama--Chris Curry himself--is claiming that he is going to advertise our house and sell it.
And why is this being done. To satisfy an unconstitutional writ of execution, based on a void court judgment in the amount of $1,525.
You heard that right: State officials in Alabama are going to essentially steal our house because of a $1,525 "judgment" that, under the law, I do not owe. And never mind that my wife, who was not a party to the lawsuit against me, is joint owner of the house. State officials clearly don't care about my rights, so why should they care about my wife's rights?
In upcoming posts, we are going to examine this "Notice of Levy" and show you just how absurd it really is. But first, let's make three critical points:
* The harrassment my wife and I are experiencing isn't just about a little case in Shelby County, Alabama. It is about Bob Riley, our GOP governor who is hell bent on placing the Alabama Legislature in Republican control. I suspect it's also about Republicans in Mississippi who I imagine are none too pleased about my reporting on the Paul Minor case.
* The harrassment my wife and I are experiencing is all about this blog. If I hadn't started this blog in June 2007, the Alabama GOP hierarchy would not care less about the bogus $1,525 judgment I supposedly owe. But since I've decided to shine a light on the judicial corruption I've witnessed in Alabama--and also spotlight the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor fiascos orchestrated by the Bush Justice Department--the GOP has decided I must be silenced. Their latest effort to silence me involves a threat to steal my house.
Why would the GOP hooligans threaten such drastic action? I can think of three major reasons:
A. Every word I've written on this blog is true--and the GOPers know it. They also know that I have credibility in the areas of journalism and law. If I were railing about some general injustice that I could not articulate--regarding some law and facts that I did not understand--the GOPers would not care. But Legal Schnauzer is about specifics; it's about real law, a real case, and real corruption. That's why I'm a threat to the GOPers. They know that I know what I'm talking about. And they know I've only scratched the surface of what happened in my case. They know about the details that are coming, and they don't want you to know about them.
B. Alabama Republicans already control the executive and judicial branches of state government. They are determined to take over the legislative branch. Bob Riley has started a major fundraising effort designed to accomplish that goal. And U.S. Attorney Alice Martin reportedly has 10 indictments planned--with the one of Sue Schmitz being the first--designed to target Democrats in the Legislature and help Republicans take control.
Why does Legal Schnauzer matter? Because it could throw a major wrench into those plans. My case is probably the clearest current example of Republican abuse of the justice system, and it goes all the way to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Here's what I mean by the "clearest current example:" The best known cases of Republican abuse of the justice system are the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Both have received substantial national attention, deservedly so. But both are complicated criminal cases, involving lengthy trials, mounds of evidence, numerous witnesses, and (eventually) massive transcripts. I've studied the Minor transcript, and after a lot of reading, you can clearly see the corruption of Judge Henry Wingate. If a transcript of the Siegelman case ever becomes available, I suspect similar wrongdoing by Judge Mark Fuller will become apparent. But it's hard to find the sleaze in big cases like that. It's easy to see the sleaze in the Legal Schnauzer case. The crux of it is contained in a few pages, which are public record. To unearth all of the sleaze in my case is a little more complicated than that. But the main stuff is easy to see.
And what does it prove? That Republican trial judges in Shelby County acted corruptly in my case. That our appellate courts--all Republican (on the civil side) at the time--corruptly allowed the unlawful trial-court judgment to stand. And remember this critical point: Bill Swatek, the attorney who filed the lawsuit against me and benefitted from numerous unlawful rulings, has direct family ties to Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, was campaign manager for both Riley and Martin.
What does all of this this mean? It means that my little Legal Schnauzer case can prove that our Republican-controlled judicial branch is corrupt? And it can prove that the executive branch is complicit in that corruption, with people having ties to the Riley administration receiving unlawfully favorable treatment. So if the public came to know about and understand my case, it would see that Alabama's judicial and executive branches are corrupt under Republican control. Do you think that would hurt the GOP's chances of taking over the legislative branch? I think it would, and I think that's a major reason they want this blog shut down.
C. Legal Schnauzer goes way beyond Alabama, reflecting directly on the Bush Justice Department. We will show how Alice Martin has intentionally covered up federal crimes committed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts while viciously going after Democratic legislators such as Sue Schmitz. That is classic selective prosecution. More specifically, my case illustrates the flip side of the Siegelman case, where a public official was prosecuted for political reasons. In my case, multiple public officials are not being prosecuted for political reasons--because they are Republicans, members of the "home team."
We will show in searing detail how Alice Martin goes about suppressing cases that she doesn't want to come to light. In fact, I will present an e-mail exchange I had with Ms. Martin--when she did not know I was a blogger; she clearly thought I was a troublesome citizen presenting evidence of criminal wrongdoing that she didn't want to hear about--someone she could easily brush off. Well, Ms. Martin was not able to brush me off so easily. And in the process of trying to get rid of me, she reveals exactly how she goes about conducting her official business in a partisan manner. That's coming up on this blog.
The phrase came into popular usage to describe federal agents after firearms-related raids at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992, and Waco, Texas, in 1993. Some right wingers celebrated Randy Weaver and David Koresh as victims of intrusive government officials run amok.
I never thought of myself having much in common with Randy Weaver or David Koresh. But I'm starting to know what it feels like to be a target of "jack-booted thugs." And in my case, the thugs are part of the right-wing establishment that has come to rule in Bob Riley's Alabama.
In other words, right wingers used to condemn jack-booted thugs. Now, they are the jack-booted thugs.
The term "jack-booted thugs" came to mind recently when I read about the case of Alabama legislator Sue Schmitz, a 63-year-old retired social studies teacher who was dragged out of her bathroom while trying to take a shower and arrested on federal corruption charges that seem flimsy at best. Like most anybody with a conscience, I was horrified that Ms. Schmitz would be treated this way. That's especially the case since her lawyer, anticipating that his client might be a target, had told authorities that Ms. Schmitz was willing to turn herself in.
Well, my own Legal Schnauzer tale is starting to turn into a civil version of the Sue Schmitz case. And I strongly suspect that the same bad actors who are driving the Sue Schmitz case are behind my recent experiences.
My wife and I returned home on a recent evening to find a piece of paper taped to our garage door. When we pulled it off and got it in the light, we saw that it was titled "Sheriff's Notice of Levy." It was executed by one William Moore on Feb. 8, 2008, at the direction of Chris Curry, sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama.
The notice was addressed to me and referenced Mike McGarity v. Roger Shuler (CV 2000-1248), the fraudulent lawsuit my neighbor filed against me, with the help of his attorney, William E. Swatek.Here's how the notice reads:
"You will take notice that I have levied upon all your rights, interest and title, if any, in and to the following described property to satisfy a Fieri Facias in my hands in the above stated cause, and that said property will be advertised and sold according to law, to-Wit . . . "
The notice then describes our lot and house.
You might have a question: What in the heck is a Fieri Facias? That's just a fancy term for a writ of execution, which I've written about several times in recent posts.
In those earlier posts, I noted that a couple of Shelby County deputies, Eddie Moore and Bubba Caldwell, had repeatedly harrassed my wife and me over a writ of execution that is invalid under the law. In fact, the judgment against me, upon which the writ of execution is based, came as the result of a legal proceeding in which my 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection were butchered. But as we have shown repeatedly on this blog, the actual law means nothing to the corrupt Republicans who run Shelby County like a banana republic.
I will explain in detail why the judgment is unconstitutional and the writ is invalid. But for now, suffice to say that Deputies Eddie and Bubba didn't care about legalities. They were threatening to come and take one of our cars.
Evidently that didn't sufficiently scare us, so now the Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama--Chris Curry himself--is claiming that he is going to advertise our house and sell it.
And why is this being done. To satisfy an unconstitutional writ of execution, based on a void court judgment in the amount of $1,525.
You heard that right: State officials in Alabama are going to essentially steal our house because of a $1,525 "judgment" that, under the law, I do not owe. And never mind that my wife, who was not a party to the lawsuit against me, is joint owner of the house. State officials clearly don't care about my rights, so why should they care about my wife's rights?
I wonder what women's-rights groups would think of this--a woman having her house stolen because of a lawsuit that she had nothing to do with? Sounds like it could make an episode of Oprah. The "Big O" would need to schedule an extra long episode if she were to get my wife talking.
But back to matters at hand. We've seen how a Democratic state official is treated by right-wing thugs in Bob Riley's Alabama. Now we see how a regular citizen is treated, particularly one who has the audacity to stand up and fight back against corrupt Republican judges in Alabama.
And what is my really big sin in Bob Riley's Alabama? Having the utter gall to write a blog about my experiences with corrupt Republicans in Alabama.In upcoming posts, we are going to examine this "Notice of Levy" and show you just how absurd it really is. But first, let's make three critical points:
* The harrassment my wife and I are experiencing isn't just about a little case in Shelby County, Alabama. It is about Bob Riley, our GOP governor who is hell bent on placing the Alabama Legislature in Republican control. I suspect it's also about Republicans in Mississippi who I imagine are none too pleased about my reporting on the Paul Minor case.
* The harrassment my wife and I are experiencing is all about this blog. If I hadn't started this blog in June 2007, the Alabama GOP hierarchy would not care less about the bogus $1,525 judgment I supposedly owe. But since I've decided to shine a light on the judicial corruption I've witnessed in Alabama--and also spotlight the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor fiascos orchestrated by the Bush Justice Department--the GOP has decided I must be silenced. Their latest effort to silence me involves a threat to steal my house.
Why would the GOP hooligans threaten such drastic action? I can think of three major reasons:
A. Every word I've written on this blog is true--and the GOPers know it. They also know that I have credibility in the areas of journalism and law. If I were railing about some general injustice that I could not articulate--regarding some law and facts that I did not understand--the GOPers would not care. But Legal Schnauzer is about specifics; it's about real law, a real case, and real corruption. That's why I'm a threat to the GOPers. They know that I know what I'm talking about. And they know I've only scratched the surface of what happened in my case. They know about the details that are coming, and they don't want you to know about them.
B. Alabama Republicans already control the executive and judicial branches of state government. They are determined to take over the legislative branch. Bob Riley has started a major fundraising effort designed to accomplish that goal. And U.S. Attorney Alice Martin reportedly has 10 indictments planned--with the one of Sue Schmitz being the first--designed to target Democrats in the Legislature and help Republicans take control.
Why does Legal Schnauzer matter? Because it could throw a major wrench into those plans. My case is probably the clearest current example of Republican abuse of the justice system, and it goes all the way to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Here's what I mean by the "clearest current example:" The best known cases of Republican abuse of the justice system are the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Both have received substantial national attention, deservedly so. But both are complicated criminal cases, involving lengthy trials, mounds of evidence, numerous witnesses, and (eventually) massive transcripts. I've studied the Minor transcript, and after a lot of reading, you can clearly see the corruption of Judge Henry Wingate. If a transcript of the Siegelman case ever becomes available, I suspect similar wrongdoing by Judge Mark Fuller will become apparent. But it's hard to find the sleaze in big cases like that. It's easy to see the sleaze in the Legal Schnauzer case. The crux of it is contained in a few pages, which are public record. To unearth all of the sleaze in my case is a little more complicated than that. But the main stuff is easy to see.
And what does it prove? That Republican trial judges in Shelby County acted corruptly in my case. That our appellate courts--all Republican (on the civil side) at the time--corruptly allowed the unlawful trial-court judgment to stand. And remember this critical point: Bill Swatek, the attorney who filed the lawsuit against me and benefitted from numerous unlawful rulings, has direct family ties to Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, was campaign manager for both Riley and Martin.
What does all of this this mean? It means that my little Legal Schnauzer case can prove that our Republican-controlled judicial branch is corrupt? And it can prove that the executive branch is complicit in that corruption, with people having ties to the Riley administration receiving unlawfully favorable treatment. So if the public came to know about and understand my case, it would see that Alabama's judicial and executive branches are corrupt under Republican control. Do you think that would hurt the GOP's chances of taking over the legislative branch? I think it would, and I think that's a major reason they want this blog shut down.
C. Legal Schnauzer goes way beyond Alabama, reflecting directly on the Bush Justice Department. We will show how Alice Martin has intentionally covered up federal crimes committed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts while viciously going after Democratic legislators such as Sue Schmitz. That is classic selective prosecution. More specifically, my case illustrates the flip side of the Siegelman case, where a public official was prosecuted for political reasons. In my case, multiple public officials are not being prosecuted for political reasons--because they are Republicans, members of the "home team."
We will show in searing detail how Alice Martin goes about suppressing cases that she doesn't want to come to light. In fact, I will present an e-mail exchange I had with Ms. Martin--when she did not know I was a blogger; she clearly thought I was a troublesome citizen presenting evidence of criminal wrongdoing that she didn't want to hear about--someone she could easily brush off. Well, Ms. Martin was not able to brush me off so easily. And in the process of trying to get rid of me, she reveals exactly how she goes about conducting her official business in a partisan manner. That's coming up on this blog.
But first, we will examine the political connections between Alice Martin, Bob Riley, and the people behind the fraudulent lawsuit I've been fighting.
Is it any wonder Martin, Riley, and their GOP sycophants want to shut down Legal Schnauzer?
Bob Riley's Sinister Purpose, Part II
In writing yesterday about the dark side of Alabama Governor Bob Riley, I was reminded of a story that surfaced briefly in the fall of 2006 but has mostly faded from view.
Perhaps the story needs to be re-examined in light of the fact that John McCain, a close friend of Riley, is the likely Republican presidential candidate in 2008.
In fall 2006, Birmingham talk-show hosts Russ and Dee Fine reported on Riley's membership in the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Alabama. This secret society is still governed by documents forbidding membership to "negroes or other inferior races."
Russ Fine was amazed that The Birmingham News refused to touch the story. "It is far more important and sinister than former Florida Congressman Foley's homosexual dalliances," Russ Fine said. "Why? Because a sitting Republican governor is a member of an organization that discriminates against black citizens of his state and a sitting president came to Alabama to endorse and fund raise for him the Thursday after we were fired on Monday."
Yes, you heard that right. The Fines were fired shortly after helping to bring Riley's Grand Lodge membership to public light.
We now know that Riley has quite a history of sticking his nose in other people's business--messing with other people's livelihoods.
That tendency has been most on display in the case of Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff. Goff has filed a lawsuit against Riley and others, claiming they conspired to ruin one of his businesses. Apparently as a result of the lawsuit, Goff has become a target of a Justice Department investigation.
A hearing on the lawsuit was to have been held on February 5, but that has been delayed. Riley and other defendants had moved that the lawsuit be dismissed, but Goff's lawyers moved that the suit be consolidated and transferred to Judge Eugene W. Reese. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for March.
Perhaps the story needs to be re-examined in light of the fact that John McCain, a close friend of Riley, is the likely Republican presidential candidate in 2008.
In fall 2006, Birmingham talk-show hosts Russ and Dee Fine reported on Riley's membership in the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Alabama. This secret society is still governed by documents forbidding membership to "negroes or other inferior races."
Russ Fine was amazed that The Birmingham News refused to touch the story. "It is far more important and sinister than former Florida Congressman Foley's homosexual dalliances," Russ Fine said. "Why? Because a sitting Republican governor is a member of an organization that discriminates against black citizens of his state and a sitting president came to Alabama to endorse and fund raise for him the Thursday after we were fired on Monday."
Yes, you heard that right. The Fines were fired shortly after helping to bring Riley's Grand Lodge membership to public light.
We now know that Riley has quite a history of sticking his nose in other people's business--messing with other people's livelihoods.
That tendency has been most on display in the case of Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff. Goff has filed a lawsuit against Riley and others, claiming they conspired to ruin one of his businesses. Apparently as a result of the lawsuit, Goff has become a target of a Justice Department investigation.
A hearing on the lawsuit was to have been held on February 5, but that has been delayed. Riley and other defendants had moved that the lawsuit be dismissed, but Goff's lawyers moved that the suit be consolidated and transferred to Judge Eugene W. Reese. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for March.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Could Bob Riley Grow a Spine?
A story out of West Virginia tells us what Alabama Governor Bob Riley should do in the wake of our Supreme Court's ruling in the ExxonMobil case.
But Riley won't do it because he doesn't want to embarrass his Republican cronies who overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict for the state against oil giant ExxonMobil.
And what should Riley do? Grow a spine, one like the folks at Harman Mining Company in West Virginia have.
The West Virginia Supreme Court had reversed a $76.3 milion judgment for Harman and against Richmond-based Massey Energy in a coal-contract dispute. Sound similar to the dispute between Alabama and ExxonMobil over a contract for royalty payments on natural gas? Sure does, except the Alabama case involved billions of dollars while the West Virginia case involved only millions.
Did the folks at Harman Mining just sit back and take it? Nope. Unlike Bob Riley, they decided to fight back by filing a motion for rehearing.
And guess what happened? Photos turned up of West Virginia Chief Justice Elliott Maynard vacationing with Massey chief executive Don Blankenship in Monaco.
Think that might be a conflict of interest? Well, Maynard now has recused himself from the case (and two other cases involving Massey), and the Supreme Court will rehear the case involving Harman Mining. You can read about Maynard's most recent recusal here.
Something tells me Harman Mining will wind up getting a healthy chunk of change out of the deal--all because it has a spine; something Bob Riley evidently does not have.
A few thoughts on the West Virginia imbroglio:
* Maynard is a Democrat, showing that judicial sleaze is a bipartisan problem.
* Recall that Scott Horton, of Harper's .org, reported that over the past six years, ExxonMobil interests had contributed $5.5 million to the campaigns of Republicans running for the Alabama Supreme Court. The behavior of West Virginia's chief justice is bad, but what about the GOPers on Alabama's Supreme Court. They take $5.5 million and then wipe out a $3.6 billion liability for ExxonMobil? One heck of an investment for the Exxon guys.
* This whole notion of judges vacationing and cavorting about with lawyers and executives who come before them raises serious hackles here at the Schnauzer. In my case, Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner admitted, after I had uncovered it, that he played golf regularly with opposing counsel Bill Swatek. And a source in the Birmingham legal community told me it is well known that certain Shelby County lawyers take the judges on fishing/hunting (and God knows what else) junkets to Alaska. My source tells me those lawyers tend to fare mighty well before the Shelby County judges.
* Notice what happened when Harman Mining decided not to just take being screwed by the West Virginia Supreme Court? Notice what happened when the company had the guts to seek rehearing of its case? All hell broke loose, and gobs of gooey sleaze spewed forth from the state supreme court.
That's exactly what Bob Riley does not want to happen in Alabama. And chances are, the West Virginia Supreme Court is a model of integrity compared to the Alabama Supreme Court.
But Riley won't do it because he doesn't want to embarrass his Republican cronies who overturned almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict for the state against oil giant ExxonMobil.
And what should Riley do? Grow a spine, one like the folks at Harman Mining Company in West Virginia have.
The West Virginia Supreme Court had reversed a $76.3 milion judgment for Harman and against Richmond-based Massey Energy in a coal-contract dispute. Sound similar to the dispute between Alabama and ExxonMobil over a contract for royalty payments on natural gas? Sure does, except the Alabama case involved billions of dollars while the West Virginia case involved only millions.
Did the folks at Harman Mining just sit back and take it? Nope. Unlike Bob Riley, they decided to fight back by filing a motion for rehearing.
And guess what happened? Photos turned up of West Virginia Chief Justice Elliott Maynard vacationing with Massey chief executive Don Blankenship in Monaco.
Think that might be a conflict of interest? Well, Maynard now has recused himself from the case (and two other cases involving Massey), and the Supreme Court will rehear the case involving Harman Mining. You can read about Maynard's most recent recusal here.
Something tells me Harman Mining will wind up getting a healthy chunk of change out of the deal--all because it has a spine; something Bob Riley evidently does not have.
A few thoughts on the West Virginia imbroglio:
* Maynard is a Democrat, showing that judicial sleaze is a bipartisan problem.
* Recall that Scott Horton, of Harper's .org, reported that over the past six years, ExxonMobil interests had contributed $5.5 million to the campaigns of Republicans running for the Alabama Supreme Court. The behavior of West Virginia's chief justice is bad, but what about the GOPers on Alabama's Supreme Court. They take $5.5 million and then wipe out a $3.6 billion liability for ExxonMobil? One heck of an investment for the Exxon guys.
* This whole notion of judges vacationing and cavorting about with lawyers and executives who come before them raises serious hackles here at the Schnauzer. In my case, Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner admitted, after I had uncovered it, that he played golf regularly with opposing counsel Bill Swatek. And a source in the Birmingham legal community told me it is well known that certain Shelby County lawyers take the judges on fishing/hunting (and God knows what else) junkets to Alaska. My source tells me those lawyers tend to fare mighty well before the Shelby County judges.
* Notice what happened when Harman Mining decided not to just take being screwed by the West Virginia Supreme Court? Notice what happened when the company had the guts to seek rehearing of its case? All hell broke loose, and gobs of gooey sleaze spewed forth from the state supreme court.
That's exactly what Bob Riley does not want to happen in Alabama. And chances are, the West Virginia Supreme Court is a model of integrity compared to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Bob Riley's Sinister Purpose
The more I read about Bob Riley the more I think there is something truly dark about Alabama's governor. Two recent items from the blogosphere have reinforced that feeling.
First was a post by Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering. Hill is a former state employee, and his experience under Riley is both frightening and somewhat comical.
Hill used to work at the State Lands Division and was considered a solid employee in managing the execution of public contracts. But the assessment of his work began to change in 2004 after Riley asked all state employees to submit suggestions on how to raise money for the state and the Alabama economy without further burdening the taxpayer.
Thinking Riley was serious--and ethical--Hill suggested that the state help the Cherokee People in North Alabama get casinos like those Hill had seen in New York run by the Iroquois Nation. "I had no idea that Jack Abramoff and the Mississippi Choctaws had paid Governor Riley to block any such efforts by Alabama's native tribes," Hill writes.
After Riley acknowledged Hill's suggestion, life became very difficult at the State Lands Division. "I was verbally harassed by my supervisor, attorney James Hillman Griggs, on a daily basis after Governor Riley had met with him and Conservation Department Commissioner Barnett Lawley, and I was excluded from most departmental activities."
Essentially, Hill was stripped of his responsibilities. Why? Apparently because Riley assumed that Hill's innocent suggestion meant he had insider information and intended to blackmail the governor into supporting the Cherokees. "I would have thought the same thing if I were in his shoes," Hill writes, "but honestly I knew nothing of Jack Abramoff or the Mississippi Choctaw casino campaign contributions at that time."
More recently, we have a report from the Wayne Madsen Report showing the dark side of Alabama's governor. Madsen reports that there is a very good reason for U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate the activities of Riley and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
It all has to do with one of Riley's pet projects, a $1-billion toll road around Huntsville, Alabama, called the Patriot Highway. Madsen says the project could generate huge revenues for one of Rudy Giuliani's companies, where Mukasey's son Marc is a partner.
The Patriot Highway is the reason Mukasey tried so hard to worm his way out of questioning recently by U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL). "It is apparent why Mukasey has not and will not investigate the Siegelman case," Madsen writes. "Anything that could result in a major investigation of Riley and his colleagues could sink the Patriot Highway deal, and that would cost his friend Giuliani and his son Marc dearly."
Here's where the story gets really dark. Madsen turns his attention to Bill Johnson, one of Riley's closest friends who was appointed in 2006 to head up the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). Johnson has a most peculiar history, which includes a move to Missouri, where he made a run for the U.S. Senate (as a Libertarian) against John Ashcroft.
During the course of that campaign, Madsen reports, Johnson unearthed considerable dirt about Ashcroft. Since then, Johnson has become close to Riley, Fuller, and GOP political guru Karl Rove. (Madsen reports that Fuller, the judge in the Don Siegelman case, is a principal in a number of CIA front operations and military contractors, including Doss Aviation and Oceaneering International.)
Ashcroft was U.S. attorney general when the political prosecution of Siegelman was being devised. Rove, Riley, and Fuller reportedly used their dirt to blackmail Ashcroft into remaining silent while the political hit on Siegelman was crafted in Washington, D.C., and Montgomery, Alabama.
"WMR's sources in Alabama report that the jailing of Siegelman was a warning to others not to take on the criminal syndicate that surrounds Riley and his close pals, including Rove," Madsen writes.
First was a post by Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering. Hill is a former state employee, and his experience under Riley is both frightening and somewhat comical.
Hill used to work at the State Lands Division and was considered a solid employee in managing the execution of public contracts. But the assessment of his work began to change in 2004 after Riley asked all state employees to submit suggestions on how to raise money for the state and the Alabama economy without further burdening the taxpayer.
Thinking Riley was serious--and ethical--Hill suggested that the state help the Cherokee People in North Alabama get casinos like those Hill had seen in New York run by the Iroquois Nation. "I had no idea that Jack Abramoff and the Mississippi Choctaws had paid Governor Riley to block any such efforts by Alabama's native tribes," Hill writes.
After Riley acknowledged Hill's suggestion, life became very difficult at the State Lands Division. "I was verbally harassed by my supervisor, attorney James Hillman Griggs, on a daily basis after Governor Riley had met with him and Conservation Department Commissioner Barnett Lawley, and I was excluded from most departmental activities."
Essentially, Hill was stripped of his responsibilities. Why? Apparently because Riley assumed that Hill's innocent suggestion meant he had insider information and intended to blackmail the governor into supporting the Cherokees. "I would have thought the same thing if I were in his shoes," Hill writes, "but honestly I knew nothing of Jack Abramoff or the Mississippi Choctaw casino campaign contributions at that time."
More recently, we have a report from the Wayne Madsen Report showing the dark side of Alabama's governor. Madsen reports that there is a very good reason for U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate the activities of Riley and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
It all has to do with one of Riley's pet projects, a $1-billion toll road around Huntsville, Alabama, called the Patriot Highway. Madsen says the project could generate huge revenues for one of Rudy Giuliani's companies, where Mukasey's son Marc is a partner.
The Patriot Highway is the reason Mukasey tried so hard to worm his way out of questioning recently by U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL). "It is apparent why Mukasey has not and will not investigate the Siegelman case," Madsen writes. "Anything that could result in a major investigation of Riley and his colleagues could sink the Patriot Highway deal, and that would cost his friend Giuliani and his son Marc dearly."
Here's where the story gets really dark. Madsen turns his attention to Bill Johnson, one of Riley's closest friends who was appointed in 2006 to head up the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). Johnson has a most peculiar history, which includes a move to Missouri, where he made a run for the U.S. Senate (as a Libertarian) against John Ashcroft.
During the course of that campaign, Madsen reports, Johnson unearthed considerable dirt about Ashcroft. Since then, Johnson has become close to Riley, Fuller, and GOP political guru Karl Rove. (Madsen reports that Fuller, the judge in the Don Siegelman case, is a principal in a number of CIA front operations and military contractors, including Doss Aviation and Oceaneering International.)
Ashcroft was U.S. attorney general when the political prosecution of Siegelman was being devised. Rove, Riley, and Fuller reportedly used their dirt to blackmail Ashcroft into remaining silent while the political hit on Siegelman was crafted in Washington, D.C., and Montgomery, Alabama.
"WMR's sources in Alabama report that the jailing of Siegelman was a warning to others not to take on the criminal syndicate that surrounds Riley and his close pals, including Rove," Madsen writes.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Alice Martin in the Crosshairs
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely and Raw Story, and Bob Martin, of The Montgomery Independent, have joined the chorus of folks who in recent days have shined a most unflattering spotlight on the actions of Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
This in the wake of Scott Horton's report yesterday about the political shenanigans behind Martin's prosecution of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican.
Alexandrovna says the affidavit of White's wife Judy, outlining the improper pressure that was applied to her husband in an effort to produce false testimony against Don Siegelman, was one of the scoops CBS had for its upcoming 60 Minutes report.
Of particular importance, Alexandrovna says, is the finding by U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon that the White prosecution might have been influenced by "impermissible considerations."
What does this mean? Alexandrovna has some strong thoughts on the subject. "Can you hear people wetting their pants," she writes. "There is more that CBS has, and before (the story) runs, I would suggest Ms. Martin get herself a very good attorney."
Bob Martin focuses on the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and its inquiry into perjury allegations against Alice Martin. Bob Martin says his sources tell him that the investigation is "being very consciously slow-walked." And, Bob Martin says, the underlying facts are clear enough. "Martin gave false evidence in the proceedings, and the trial officer concluded her statements were not credible."
What does this mean for Alabamians? "My sources in Washington tell me these are classic grounds for removing a prosecutor, and the only reason Martin is holding on to her post is due to powerful political connections. . . .
"The question many who are concerned about the fairness of the federal judicial process in Alabama are asking is how can someone stay on as U.S. attorney when they've been caught in a serious misrepresentation, under oath, in a legal proceeding?"
A very good question. And I plan to provide more evidence in the coming days that I believe will show that Alice Martin should be removed from office. I had a most interesting e-mail exchange with Ms. Martin a few months ago, and it speaks volumes about the way her office operates in a blatantly partisan and unprofessional manner. It also will illustrate, in Alice Martin's own words, a classic case of selective prosecution.
And by the way, my wife and I have been the target of some highly irregular and unlawful tactics in recent days, evidently designed to shut down this blog. We all know about federal justice officials in Alabama and their penchant for dramatic actions--having Don Siegelman led away in handcuffs and chains; having Sue Schmitz dragged from her bathroom and arrested.
Well, I've been the target of similarly outrageous and dramatic actions. In fact, my Legal Schnauzer case appears to be evolving into a civil version of the Sue Schmitz case. And there is evidence to suggest that the same bad actors might be behind both.
We will be laying out the facts, and you can see what you think.
This in the wake of Scott Horton's report yesterday about the political shenanigans behind Martin's prosecution of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican.
Alexandrovna says the affidavit of White's wife Judy, outlining the improper pressure that was applied to her husband in an effort to produce false testimony against Don Siegelman, was one of the scoops CBS had for its upcoming 60 Minutes report.
Of particular importance, Alexandrovna says, is the finding by U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon that the White prosecution might have been influenced by "impermissible considerations."
What does this mean? Alexandrovna has some strong thoughts on the subject. "Can you hear people wetting their pants," she writes. "There is more that CBS has, and before (the story) runs, I would suggest Ms. Martin get herself a very good attorney."
Bob Martin focuses on the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and its inquiry into perjury allegations against Alice Martin. Bob Martin says his sources tell him that the investigation is "being very consciously slow-walked." And, Bob Martin says, the underlying facts are clear enough. "Martin gave false evidence in the proceedings, and the trial officer concluded her statements were not credible."
What does this mean for Alabamians? "My sources in Washington tell me these are classic grounds for removing a prosecutor, and the only reason Martin is holding on to her post is due to powerful political connections. . . .
"The question many who are concerned about the fairness of the federal judicial process in Alabama are asking is how can someone stay on as U.S. attorney when they've been caught in a serious misrepresentation, under oath, in a legal proceeding?"
A very good question. And I plan to provide more evidence in the coming days that I believe will show that Alice Martin should be removed from office. I had a most interesting e-mail exchange with Ms. Martin a few months ago, and it speaks volumes about the way her office operates in a blatantly partisan and unprofessional manner. It also will illustrate, in Alice Martin's own words, a classic case of selective prosecution.
And by the way, my wife and I have been the target of some highly irregular and unlawful tactics in recent days, evidently designed to shut down this blog. We all know about federal justice officials in Alabama and their penchant for dramatic actions--having Don Siegelman led away in handcuffs and chains; having Sue Schmitz dragged from her bathroom and arrested.
Well, I've been the target of similarly outrageous and dramatic actions. In fact, my Legal Schnauzer case appears to be evolving into a civil version of the Sue Schmitz case. And there is evidence to suggest that the same bad actors might be behind both.
We will be laying out the facts, and you can see what you think.
On Siegelman, 60 Minutes, and Such
Will the Real John Price Please Stand Up?
One of the questions raised by Larisa Alexandrovna's report that 60 Minutes was likely to kill the Don Siegelman story is: Who the heck is John Price?
Alexandrovna closed her piece with a cryptic note, saying that citizens might want to contact U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and ask him "who John Price is, you know, just for shits and giggles."
Well, your humble blogger has an enquiring mind, so I tried to figure out who John Price is. I stumbled upon a federal court case involving a John Price, of Price Rubber Corporation in Montgomery, AL. This John Price had been convicted in a murder-for-hire scheme that reads like it's right out of a Barnaby Jones episode. (God, I'm showing my age here. I know who Barnaby Jones is!) A reader left a comment saying that he or she had found evidence of a contribution to Sessions from a John Price in Montgomery.
The folks at the Cannonfire blog have another John Price in mind. They say he is a major Bush supporter who was ambassador to Mauritius (small tropical island off the eastern coast of Africa) until he developed legal difficulties over some questionable business deals and financial transactions. This John Price evidently made his money in the Utah real-estate market.
My guess is that the Cannonfire folks have the right John Price. But I'm glad I came across my John Price. I didn't know people still did murder-for-hire schemes. And who knows, maybe Jeff Sessions does have some connection to Price Rubber.
Talk About a Real Quid Pro Quo
Speaking of the Utah John Price, it turns out he is a real champ as a fund-raiser, reportedly raising $1.3 million for George W. Bush in 2000.
What was Price's reward? Why, the ambassadorship of Mauritas.
Which raises this question: How is this different from the deal that landed Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy in federal prison. Siegelman was charged with taking money for an education-lottery fund and rewarding Scrushy with a seat on a state hospital-regulation board.
When Siegelman (a Democrat) conducts business in this way, the Bush Justice Department considers it a bribe. When George W. Bush himself conducts the same sort of business, the Justice Department evidently considers it smart politics.
All of this raises the ghost of Dan Rather and the $70-million lawsuit the former news anchor has brought against CBS and its parent company, Viacom. Rather was dismissed from the network after a 60 Minutes II story on George W. Bush's National Guard service appeared to have been based partly on inauthentic documents.
I came across two splendid stories about the Rather situation, and both shed considerable light on what might cause the network to be squeamish about the Siegelman 60 Minutes story.
The first is "Dan Rather is Right," by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters. Boehlert notes that several right-wing bloggers drove the Rather story, but they never proved that the CBS memos were forgeries or that the Bush-skipped-out-on-his-National-Guard-duty story was false. In fact, Boehlert says the CBS report could have (and should have) been broadcast without the controversial memos. "And if it had been, the results would have been exactly the same," Boehlert writes. "Meaning, the documents were irrelevant because they provided texture (the supposed frustration of Bush's commander), not new facts about Bush's service."
We also learn that CBS has caved in to political pressure before. In September 2004 it decided not to run a previously scheduled and factually solid story done by the late Ed Bradley that chronicled how the Bush administration had misled the country into war.
Boehlert notes the network's strong ties to the Bush administration. The brother of Rather's replacement, Bob Schieffer, is a longtime friend and former business partner of Bush. After instant polls showed John Kerry clobbering Bush in their first 2004 debate, CBS commentators announced it had been virtually a draw. And CBS owner Sumner Redstone announced he was voting for Bush because, from a Viacom standpoint, "the election of a Republican administration is a better deal."
The second story is "Dan Rather Stands By His Story," by Sidney Blumenthal at Salon.com. Blumental says Rather intends to show in his lawsuit that he and his producers acted responsibily in presenting information in the Bush National Guard story and that the information is true. "Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story," Blumenthal writes.
Noting that Rather has said he is not interested in a financial settlement, Blumental gets to the heart of the lawsuit: "In his effort to demonstrate his mistreatment, Rather will detail how network executives curried favor with the administration, offering him up as a human sacrifice."
Pressure from the Bush administration started with the Abu Ghraib story in 2004. CBS had the story first, including some of the damning torture photographs, but only ran it upon learning that Seymour Hersh was about to scoop them for the New Yorker. And the network ran the story only once and did no promotion for it. "CBS's self-censorship set the stage for its reaction to the Bush National Guard story," Blumenthal writes.
Why would the network be so anxious to stay in good graces with the Bush administration. Blumenthal notes Sumner Redstone's desire to have loosening of media-ownership rules. "The Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in," Redstone said, "deregulation and so on."
Murrow Turning Over in his Grave
That last quote from Sumner Redstone reminds me of a song by one of my musical heroes, a fellow who, for my money, is one of the true geniuses of the modern rock/pop era.
I'm talking about Lindsey Buckingham, who wrote a song called "Murrow Turning Over in his Grave" for Fleetwood Mac's 2003 Say You Will album. Buckingham is the singer/songwriter/guitarist/arranger who, along with Stevie Nicks, helped turn Fleetwood Mac from a relatively unknown British blues band into one of rock's mega groups of the '70s and '80s.
Buckingham is best known for his work with Fleetwood Mac, but he has done some brilliant solo work. His 1992 album, Out of the Cradle, is his masterwork, with the title coming from a Walt Whitman poem. For anyone who appreciates inventive guitar and percussion work and lush vocal arrangements (not to mention superb melodies and lyrics), Out of the Cradle is a must have. The guitar intro and opening song "Don't Look Down" are worth the price of the CD by themselves. You can hear segments of the songs here.
And then we have Buckingham's 2006 release, Under the Skin. This is an almost all-acoustic album, with very little drum or bass. It's pretty much Buckingham and his guitar, and his fretwork is stunning. The album is superb from start to finish, with "Down on Rodeo," "Cast Away Dreams," and the title song being particular highlights.
The wife and I were fortunate enough to see Buckingham perform on his Under the Skin tour at the Davis Theatre in Montgomery. It was as good as any concert I've ever seen, better than the two Fleetwood Mac shows I was fortunate enough to see years ago. By the way, the Davis Theatre is an excellent venue, a spot I was not familiar with until I heard about the Buckingham concert. It's in downtown Montgomery, not far from the state capitol, and is part of the Troy University at Montgomery campus. Very nice.
But back to "Murrow Turning Over in His Grave." It is a scathing indictment of corporate media, set to a rip-snorting rock track with several dashes of the vocal quirkiness for which Buckingham is known. Great stuff, and I suspect Buckingham had folks like Sumner Redstone in mind when he wrote it.
Was hoping to find a video of Buckingham performing "Murrow." But one doesn't seem to be available on the Web. You can hear a segment of the song, along with other cuts from Say You Will, here.
And you can read the lyrics to "Murrow" here. Pretty clear our guy Lindsey is not real pleased with the corporate media. Join the crowd, LB.
One of the questions raised by Larisa Alexandrovna's report that 60 Minutes was likely to kill the Don Siegelman story is: Who the heck is John Price?
Alexandrovna closed her piece with a cryptic note, saying that citizens might want to contact U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and ask him "who John Price is, you know, just for shits and giggles."
Well, your humble blogger has an enquiring mind, so I tried to figure out who John Price is. I stumbled upon a federal court case involving a John Price, of Price Rubber Corporation in Montgomery, AL. This John Price had been convicted in a murder-for-hire scheme that reads like it's right out of a Barnaby Jones episode. (God, I'm showing my age here. I know who Barnaby Jones is!) A reader left a comment saying that he or she had found evidence of a contribution to Sessions from a John Price in Montgomery.
The folks at the Cannonfire blog have another John Price in mind. They say he is a major Bush supporter who was ambassador to Mauritius (small tropical island off the eastern coast of Africa) until he developed legal difficulties over some questionable business deals and financial transactions. This John Price evidently made his money in the Utah real-estate market.
My guess is that the Cannonfire folks have the right John Price. But I'm glad I came across my John Price. I didn't know people still did murder-for-hire schemes. And who knows, maybe Jeff Sessions does have some connection to Price Rubber.
Talk About a Real Quid Pro Quo
Speaking of the Utah John Price, it turns out he is a real champ as a fund-raiser, reportedly raising $1.3 million for George W. Bush in 2000.
What was Price's reward? Why, the ambassadorship of Mauritas.
Which raises this question: How is this different from the deal that landed Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy in federal prison. Siegelman was charged with taking money for an education-lottery fund and rewarding Scrushy with a seat on a state hospital-regulation board.
When Siegelman (a Democrat) conducts business in this way, the Bush Justice Department considers it a bribe. When George W. Bush himself conducts the same sort of business, the Justice Department evidently considers it smart politics.
That's what we mean by selective prosecution.
Focusing on America's Corporate Media
Even if 60 Minutes winds up running the Siegelman story, one still has to wonder about the integrity of our modern, corporate-owned press.
In fact, the only question is not: Will 60 Minutes run the story or not? There is also this question: Could CBS run the story, but do it in such a watered-down fashion that it is pretty much worthless? Could we wind up seeing a version that is approved by the Bush White House and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions?All of this raises the ghost of Dan Rather and the $70-million lawsuit the former news anchor has brought against CBS and its parent company, Viacom. Rather was dismissed from the network after a 60 Minutes II story on George W. Bush's National Guard service appeared to have been based partly on inauthentic documents.
I came across two splendid stories about the Rather situation, and both shed considerable light on what might cause the network to be squeamish about the Siegelman 60 Minutes story.
The first is "Dan Rather is Right," by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters. Boehlert notes that several right-wing bloggers drove the Rather story, but they never proved that the CBS memos were forgeries or that the Bush-skipped-out-on-his-National-Guard-duty story was false. In fact, Boehlert says the CBS report could have (and should have) been broadcast without the controversial memos. "And if it had been, the results would have been exactly the same," Boehlert writes. "Meaning, the documents were irrelevant because they provided texture (the supposed frustration of Bush's commander), not new facts about Bush's service."
We also learn that CBS has caved in to political pressure before. In September 2004 it decided not to run a previously scheduled and factually solid story done by the late Ed Bradley that chronicled how the Bush administration had misled the country into war.
Boehlert notes the network's strong ties to the Bush administration. The brother of Rather's replacement, Bob Schieffer, is a longtime friend and former business partner of Bush. After instant polls showed John Kerry clobbering Bush in their first 2004 debate, CBS commentators announced it had been virtually a draw. And CBS owner Sumner Redstone announced he was voting for Bush because, from a Viacom standpoint, "the election of a Republican administration is a better deal."
The second story is "Dan Rather Stands By His Story," by Sidney Blumenthal at Salon.com. Blumental says Rather intends to show in his lawsuit that he and his producers acted responsibily in presenting information in the Bush National Guard story and that the information is true. "Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story," Blumenthal writes.
Noting that Rather has said he is not interested in a financial settlement, Blumental gets to the heart of the lawsuit: "In his effort to demonstrate his mistreatment, Rather will detail how network executives curried favor with the administration, offering him up as a human sacrifice."
Pressure from the Bush administration started with the Abu Ghraib story in 2004. CBS had the story first, including some of the damning torture photographs, but only ran it upon learning that Seymour Hersh was about to scoop them for the New Yorker. And the network ran the story only once and did no promotion for it. "CBS's self-censorship set the stage for its reaction to the Bush National Guard story," Blumenthal writes.
Why would the network be so anxious to stay in good graces with the Bush administration. Blumenthal notes Sumner Redstone's desire to have loosening of media-ownership rules. "The Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in," Redstone said, "deregulation and so on."
Murrow Turning Over in his Grave
That last quote from Sumner Redstone reminds me of a song by one of my musical heroes, a fellow who, for my money, is one of the true geniuses of the modern rock/pop era.
I'm talking about Lindsey Buckingham, who wrote a song called "Murrow Turning Over in his Grave" for Fleetwood Mac's 2003 Say You Will album. Buckingham is the singer/songwriter/guitarist/arranger who, along with Stevie Nicks, helped turn Fleetwood Mac from a relatively unknown British blues band into one of rock's mega groups of the '70s and '80s.
Buckingham is best known for his work with Fleetwood Mac, but he has done some brilliant solo work. His 1992 album, Out of the Cradle, is his masterwork, with the title coming from a Walt Whitman poem. For anyone who appreciates inventive guitar and percussion work and lush vocal arrangements (not to mention superb melodies and lyrics), Out of the Cradle is a must have. The guitar intro and opening song "Don't Look Down" are worth the price of the CD by themselves. You can hear segments of the songs here.
And then we have Buckingham's 2006 release, Under the Skin. This is an almost all-acoustic album, with very little drum or bass. It's pretty much Buckingham and his guitar, and his fretwork is stunning. The album is superb from start to finish, with "Down on Rodeo," "Cast Away Dreams," and the title song being particular highlights.
The wife and I were fortunate enough to see Buckingham perform on his Under the Skin tour at the Davis Theatre in Montgomery. It was as good as any concert I've ever seen, better than the two Fleetwood Mac shows I was fortunate enough to see years ago. By the way, the Davis Theatre is an excellent venue, a spot I was not familiar with until I heard about the Buckingham concert. It's in downtown Montgomery, not far from the state capitol, and is part of the Troy University at Montgomery campus. Very nice.
But back to "Murrow Turning Over in His Grave." It is a scathing indictment of corporate media, set to a rip-snorting rock track with several dashes of the vocal quirkiness for which Buckingham is known. Great stuff, and I suspect Buckingham had folks like Sumner Redstone in mind when he wrote it.
Was hoping to find a video of Buckingham performing "Murrow." But one doesn't seem to be available on the Web. You can hear a segment of the song, along with other cuts from Say You Will, here.
And you can read the lyrics to "Murrow" here. Pretty clear our guy Lindsey is not real pleased with the corporate media. Join the crowd, LB.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Inside Alice Martin's Corrupt Kingdom
We soon will be presenting a series of posts about U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and her "handling" of evidence she received about federal crimes committed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. This evidence also focused on the criminal actions of an attorney with family ties to Alabama's Republican Governor Bob Riley.
How did Martin, a Bush appointee, handle this clear evidence of wrongdoing by members of the "home team," the Republican Party? She swept it under the proverbial rug, and we will show you exactly how she did it. We also will show you additional evidence to support the notion that Martin, who currently is under investigation for perjury, has a serious problem making straightforward, truthful statements.
Our story will show you one side of selective prosecution, as practiced by the Bush Justice Department. This side involves instances where certain individuals are not prosecuted for political reasons. Our story also will reveal the blatant and outrageous actions that corrupt public officials feel free to take when they know that no one in federal law enforcement will hold them accountable. This part of our story will focus on Shelby County, Alabama, where we already have presented significant evidence regarding the corrupt actions of circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves. But in recent days, the corruption has reached a new, absurd level, and it has grown to include other public officials--particularly Sheriff Chris Curry and County Clerk Mary Harris. Joiner, Reeves, Curry, and Harris (along with attorney William E. Swatek) have concocted a long-running scheme that involves multiple instances of mail and wire fraud. And the purpose of their latest actions clearly is to shut down the blog you are now reading. Do these Republican stalwarts have to worry about their violations of federal law? Not with Alice Martin serving as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
But what about the second side of selective prosecution--where certain individuals are prosecuted for political reasons? Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides stunning new evidence of that, focusing on the bribery case of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White. And the White story is particularly compelling because he is a Republican.
Some folks have pointed to White's party affiliation as evidence that Martin performs her duties in a fair and objective way. But Horton pulls back the curtain to show that even the White prosecution was driven by political considerations--and it all has ties to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
How did White get on Alice Martin's bad side? According to an affidavit from White's wife, Judy, law-enforcement authorities sought to have White testify in the Siegelman case. But they didn't want the facts, as White knew them. They wanted him to present certain testimony that would be damaging to Siegelman. When White informed his inquisitors that he knew nothing about such events, that evidently did not please higher ups.
It was not long before White found himself the target of a federal investigation.
Partisan politics raises its ugly head in another way in the White case. Judy White's affidavit states that Alice Martin craves an appointment as a federal judge, and for that she needs the help of Bettye Fine Collins, a Jefferson County commissioner and Alabama's Republican National Committeewoman. Gary White had incurred Collins' wrath by voting for an African-American Democrat and denying Collins the role of county commission president.
According to Judy White's affidavit, Collins encouraged Martin to go after Gary White in exchange for Collins' support for a possible federal judgeship.
Horton points to The Birmingham News' role in covering up the sleazy side of the Gary White prosecution. The News performs a similar duty in covering up corruption in Shelby County.
But we at Legal Schnauzer are dedicated to uncovering the Shelby County dirt The Birmingham News does not want you to know about. We also will be filling you in on the outrageous steps Shelby County officials are taking in an effort to shut down this blog.
Now, why are they so concerned about this blog? For one, every word of it is true--and Shelby County officials know it. Second, they know I've only revealed a small portion of the wrongdoing that took place in my case--and they know much more damaging information is coming. Three, they know issues raised in this blog go way beyond Shelby County; they reflect negatively on the Alabama Supreme Court and Governor Bob Riley--at a time when Republicans are trying to take control of the Alabama Legislature, the lone branch of state government that they do not currently control. Four, they know that Alice Martin's efforts to ignore wrongdoing in my case are a classic example of selective prosecution, at a time when a Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is looking at just that issue.
Our regular readers know about underhanded steps Alabama Republicans have taken against Democratic public officials, such as Don Siegelman and Sue Schmitz. But our story shows the outrageous lengths corrupt GOPers will go to in order to harm and silence a regular citizen.
Details about that are coming in future posts.
How did Martin, a Bush appointee, handle this clear evidence of wrongdoing by members of the "home team," the Republican Party? She swept it under the proverbial rug, and we will show you exactly how she did it. We also will show you additional evidence to support the notion that Martin, who currently is under investigation for perjury, has a serious problem making straightforward, truthful statements.
Our story will show you one side of selective prosecution, as practiced by the Bush Justice Department. This side involves instances where certain individuals are not prosecuted for political reasons. Our story also will reveal the blatant and outrageous actions that corrupt public officials feel free to take when they know that no one in federal law enforcement will hold them accountable. This part of our story will focus on Shelby County, Alabama, where we already have presented significant evidence regarding the corrupt actions of circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves. But in recent days, the corruption has reached a new, absurd level, and it has grown to include other public officials--particularly Sheriff Chris Curry and County Clerk Mary Harris. Joiner, Reeves, Curry, and Harris (along with attorney William E. Swatek) have concocted a long-running scheme that involves multiple instances of mail and wire fraud. And the purpose of their latest actions clearly is to shut down the blog you are now reading. Do these Republican stalwarts have to worry about their violations of federal law? Not with Alice Martin serving as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
But what about the second side of selective prosecution--where certain individuals are prosecuted for political reasons? Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides stunning new evidence of that, focusing on the bribery case of former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White. And the White story is particularly compelling because he is a Republican.
Some folks have pointed to White's party affiliation as evidence that Martin performs her duties in a fair and objective way. But Horton pulls back the curtain to show that even the White prosecution was driven by political considerations--and it all has ties to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
How did White get on Alice Martin's bad side? According to an affidavit from White's wife, Judy, law-enforcement authorities sought to have White testify in the Siegelman case. But they didn't want the facts, as White knew them. They wanted him to present certain testimony that would be damaging to Siegelman. When White informed his inquisitors that he knew nothing about such events, that evidently did not please higher ups.
It was not long before White found himself the target of a federal investigation.
Partisan politics raises its ugly head in another way in the White case. Judy White's affidavit states that Alice Martin craves an appointment as a federal judge, and for that she needs the help of Bettye Fine Collins, a Jefferson County commissioner and Alabama's Republican National Committeewoman. Gary White had incurred Collins' wrath by voting for an African-American Democrat and denying Collins the role of county commission president.
According to Judy White's affidavit, Collins encouraged Martin to go after Gary White in exchange for Collins' support for a possible federal judgeship.
Horton points to The Birmingham News' role in covering up the sleazy side of the Gary White prosecution. The News performs a similar duty in covering up corruption in Shelby County.
But we at Legal Schnauzer are dedicated to uncovering the Shelby County dirt The Birmingham News does not want you to know about. We also will be filling you in on the outrageous steps Shelby County officials are taking in an effort to shut down this blog.
Now, why are they so concerned about this blog? For one, every word of it is true--and Shelby County officials know it. Second, they know I've only revealed a small portion of the wrongdoing that took place in my case--and they know much more damaging information is coming. Three, they know issues raised in this blog go way beyond Shelby County; they reflect negatively on the Alabama Supreme Court and Governor Bob Riley--at a time when Republicans are trying to take control of the Alabama Legislature, the lone branch of state government that they do not currently control. Four, they know that Alice Martin's efforts to ignore wrongdoing in my case are a classic example of selective prosecution, at a time when a Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is looking at just that issue.
Our regular readers know about underhanded steps Alabama Republicans have taken against Democratic public officials, such as Don Siegelman and Sue Schmitz. But our story shows the outrageous lengths corrupt GOPers will go to in order to harm and silence a regular citizen.
Details about that are coming in future posts.
Judges Gone Wild in Florida Courts
Just when you think Alabama has the worst courts in the country, Florida comes along and makes a strong effort to top us.
Lucy Morgan, of the St. Petersburg Times reports on some delightful shenanigans from the "your honors" on the First District Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from 32 Florida counties. The headline says it all: "Lust, Lies, and Disorder in the Court."
Judges on the court have accused each other of lying, having affairs with court employees, threats, and playing games of "chicken." A marshal who provides court security said he had extra officers on hand after some judges heard another judge was getting a concealed weapons permit and a handgun.
This all stems from testimony before the state's Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), which is looking into alleged misconduct against Judge Michael E. Allen. It seems Allen made disparaging comments about fellow judge Charles J. Kahn Jr. in a written opinion on a case involving former Escambia County Commissioner W. D. Childers.
Allen wrote that Kahn should have disqualified himself from Childers' appeal because the two were close associates and former law partners. "We should never perform our responsibilities in a manner that would cause the public to question the impartiality of our decisions."
Sounds like pretty straightforwad stuff to me. But the JQC decided that one judge must not question the impartiality of another judge. That kind of thing, evidently, is supposed to stay neatly swept under the carpet.
Sounds like Florida's JQC is every bit as worthless as Alabama's JIC (Judicial Inquiry Commission).
As for Kahn, his fellow judges called him a liar, given to temper tantrums. And they were just warming up. They also called him "volatile," "duplicitous," and "schizoid."
For good measure, Kahn also was having an affair with a court clerk, and one court employee produced photographs of Kahn and his girlfriend at a South Florida hotel.
And remember, Kahn is not the one in trouble with the JQC. That would be Allen, the judge who evidently committed the sin of making an honest appraisal of another judge's work.
These are the kind of people we have running our courts, folks.
And as bad as it is in Florida, we will show here at Legal Schnauzer that it's every bit as bad--maybe worse--in Alabama.
Lucy Morgan, of the St. Petersburg Times reports on some delightful shenanigans from the "your honors" on the First District Court of Appeals, which hears appeals from 32 Florida counties. The headline says it all: "Lust, Lies, and Disorder in the Court."
Judges on the court have accused each other of lying, having affairs with court employees, threats, and playing games of "chicken." A marshal who provides court security said he had extra officers on hand after some judges heard another judge was getting a concealed weapons permit and a handgun.
This all stems from testimony before the state's Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), which is looking into alleged misconduct against Judge Michael E. Allen. It seems Allen made disparaging comments about fellow judge Charles J. Kahn Jr. in a written opinion on a case involving former Escambia County Commissioner W. D. Childers.
Allen wrote that Kahn should have disqualified himself from Childers' appeal because the two were close associates and former law partners. "We should never perform our responsibilities in a manner that would cause the public to question the impartiality of our decisions."
Sounds like pretty straightforwad stuff to me. But the JQC decided that one judge must not question the impartiality of another judge. That kind of thing, evidently, is supposed to stay neatly swept under the carpet.
Sounds like Florida's JQC is every bit as worthless as Alabama's JIC (Judicial Inquiry Commission).
As for Kahn, his fellow judges called him a liar, given to temper tantrums. And they were just warming up. They also called him "volatile," "duplicitous," and "schizoid."
For good measure, Kahn also was having an affair with a court clerk, and one court employee produced photographs of Kahn and his girlfriend at a South Florida hotel.
And remember, Kahn is not the one in trouble with the JQC. That would be Allen, the judge who evidently committed the sin of making an honest appraisal of another judge's work.
These are the kind of people we have running our courts, folks.
And as bad as it is in Florida, we will show here at Legal Schnauzer that it's every bit as bad--maybe worse--in Alabama.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
More Hope for Siegelman Story on 60 Minutes
Your humble blogger has been tied up for a couple of days with work demands, plus having to deal with another interesting experience in our swell justice system. This one is somewhat connected to our main Legal Schnauzer case, but it involves an area of law that we have touched on only briefly.
Rest assured we will cover it in much more detail in future posts. If you have a credit card, you will want to stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork World News and Journal provides more hope that 60 Minutes will actually run its piece on the Don Siegelman prosecution.
Wilson quotes a source from inside CBS saying that the segment will run, probably in the next month--although that could change, based on breaking news events.
Rest assured we will cover it in much more detail in future posts. If you have a credit card, you will want to stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork World News and Journal provides more hope that 60 Minutes will actually run its piece on the Don Siegelman prosecution.
Wilson quotes a source from inside CBS saying that the segment will run, probably in the next month--although that could change, based on breaking news events.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Does the 60 Minutes Siegelman Story Live?
The 60 Minutes report on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman is not dead, according to Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork World News and Journal.
Wilson has spoken to four sources who are close to the news program, and they confirm the network has received pressure from Washington and Montgomery to dump the story. But Wilson's sources say they have no indication that such pressure will cause the network to cancel a story that has been in the works for months.
The Siegelman report did not run last Sunday because of the Super Bowl. And it will not run on February 10 because presidential politics, in the wake of Super Tuesday, figures to be the focus of that show. But Wilson's sources say the story could run any time after that, particularly on a week when it can be the lead story.
"We could run it this week," one source said, "But it would have to take the third slot. We don't want that."
Wilson raises a key point: Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, a primary source on the Siegelman story, has a verbal agreement not to talk with other TV shows on the air until 60 Minutes has had a chance to run a full story. Simpson is sticking by her agreement, for now, partly because 60 Minutes' reputation and resources make it a natural choice for the story. But if CBS caves to pressure, it appears that other news programs are waiting in the wings.
Wilson's advice to Siegelman supporters and others who want to see justice issues spotlighted? Don't start freaking out and calling the network complaining, he says. "The show has not been 'killed.' At least not yet . . . "
Wilson has spoken to four sources who are close to the news program, and they confirm the network has received pressure from Washington and Montgomery to dump the story. But Wilson's sources say they have no indication that such pressure will cause the network to cancel a story that has been in the works for months.
The Siegelman report did not run last Sunday because of the Super Bowl. And it will not run on February 10 because presidential politics, in the wake of Super Tuesday, figures to be the focus of that show. But Wilson's sources say the story could run any time after that, particularly on a week when it can be the lead story.
"We could run it this week," one source said, "But it would have to take the third slot. We don't want that."
Wilson raises a key point: Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, a primary source on the Siegelman story, has a verbal agreement not to talk with other TV shows on the air until 60 Minutes has had a chance to run a full story. Simpson is sticking by her agreement, for now, partly because 60 Minutes' reputation and resources make it a natural choice for the story. But if CBS caves to pressure, it appears that other news programs are waiting in the wings.
Wilson's advice to Siegelman supporters and others who want to see justice issues spotlighted? Don't start freaking out and calling the network complaining, he says. "The show has not been 'killed.' At least not yet . . . "
Where's the Beef in Sue Schmitz Case?
Imagine that you work for a state institution in Alabama, and one day you wake up and don't feel like going to work. You're not really sick, but you call in sick, and spend most of the day watching Montel, scratching yourself in indelicate places, napping, watching My Fair Brady reruns, scratching yourself some more and, well, you get the idea.
You might think you've taken a "mental-health day," a day to get away from the grind and be genuinely useless. But in Alice Martin's Alabama, you evidently have committed a federal crime.
At least that seems to be the lesson we take from the indictment against Sue Schmitz, a retired social studies teacher and a Democratic member of the Alabama Legislature.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, is a Columbia University law professor and says he came away "terrifically unimpressed" after taking a look at the charges and evidence in the Schmitz case. The primary charge against Schmitz seems to be that she did not generate sufficient "work product" in exchange for her salary in the Alabama two-year college system.
Horton gets more specific: "What are the charges against her? That she did not adequately perform on a contract she had with a non-governmental organization to support a civics education project."
According to Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, this amounts to theft, stealing from the public--the same kind of theft you evidently would be committing in our imaginary "sick day" scenario above.
Neither Horton nor I are condoning fake sick days or otherwise underperforming in a state job. But if such a situation exists--and we don't know if it did in the Schmitz case--what is the proper remedy?
"Is it normal to bring a federal prosecution against a school teacher who fails to perform all of her teaching plan?" Horton writes. "Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? The normal course would be for her contractor (which is not the state of Alabama) to fire her. And in fact they did. That firing was contested, and the court ruled that her firing was wrongful. It's on appeal now."
In a recent editorial, The Birmingham News all but called Schmitz a thief, never mentioning that a court has found Schmitz' termination was wrongful. "Of course, these are inconvenient facts, so The Birmingham News doesn't share any of them with you," Horton writes. "The Birmingham News is not interested in fairly presenting the facts, it's engaging in character assassination . . . of a 63-year-old retired social studies teacher."
Horton notes that employees of four-year colleges and universities in Alabama might have committed the same "crimes" as Schmitz. And people in any number of other professions also might have committed similar "crimes." But that doesn't fit with the right-wing political agenda of Martin, The Birmingham News, and Alabama Governor Bob Riley. They want to take control of the Alabama Legislature, and that's why they focus on Democrats who serve in the legislature and also work at two-year colleges.
"Legislators who teach in universities and four-year colleges arguably face the same issues," Horton writes. "And indeed, so do doctors, lawyers, accountants, insurance men--professionals who may regularly sell their services to the state--or even car dealers, like Bob Riley. Why aren't we discussing them? There's a simple anwser to that undeniably logical question: run the numbers and look at the party affiliations of those involved. You'll see that it wouldn't serve the objective of creating a Republican legislature to push the question so far."
You might think you've taken a "mental-health day," a day to get away from the grind and be genuinely useless. But in Alice Martin's Alabama, you evidently have committed a federal crime.
At least that seems to be the lesson we take from the indictment against Sue Schmitz, a retired social studies teacher and a Democratic member of the Alabama Legislature.
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, is a Columbia University law professor and says he came away "terrifically unimpressed" after taking a look at the charges and evidence in the Schmitz case. The primary charge against Schmitz seems to be that she did not generate sufficient "work product" in exchange for her salary in the Alabama two-year college system.
Horton gets more specific: "What are the charges against her? That she did not adequately perform on a contract she had with a non-governmental organization to support a civics education project."
According to Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, this amounts to theft, stealing from the public--the same kind of theft you evidently would be committing in our imaginary "sick day" scenario above.
Neither Horton nor I are condoning fake sick days or otherwise underperforming in a state job. But if such a situation exists--and we don't know if it did in the Schmitz case--what is the proper remedy?
"Is it normal to bring a federal prosecution against a school teacher who fails to perform all of her teaching plan?" Horton writes. "Has anyone ever heard of such a thing? The normal course would be for her contractor (which is not the state of Alabama) to fire her. And in fact they did. That firing was contested, and the court ruled that her firing was wrongful. It's on appeal now."
In a recent editorial, The Birmingham News all but called Schmitz a thief, never mentioning that a court has found Schmitz' termination was wrongful. "Of course, these are inconvenient facts, so The Birmingham News doesn't share any of them with you," Horton writes. "The Birmingham News is not interested in fairly presenting the facts, it's engaging in character assassination . . . of a 63-year-old retired social studies teacher."
Horton notes that employees of four-year colleges and universities in Alabama might have committed the same "crimes" as Schmitz. And people in any number of other professions also might have committed similar "crimes." But that doesn't fit with the right-wing political agenda of Martin, The Birmingham News, and Alabama Governor Bob Riley. They want to take control of the Alabama Legislature, and that's why they focus on Democrats who serve in the legislature and also work at two-year colleges.
"Legislators who teach in universities and four-year colleges arguably face the same issues," Horton writes. "And indeed, so do doctors, lawyers, accountants, insurance men--professionals who may regularly sell their services to the state--or even car dealers, like Bob Riley. Why aren't we discussing them? There's a simple anwser to that undeniably logical question: run the numbers and look at the party affiliations of those involved. You'll see that it wouldn't serve the objective of creating a Republican legislature to push the question so far."
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Is 60 Minutes Turning Into a Wimp?
It looks like 60 Minutes is postponing, and probably killing, its scheduled report on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.
That's the latest from Larisa Alexandrovna on her at-Largely blog. CBS claims to be taking additional time to conduct background research on whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson. But Alexandrovna reports that the Bush White House has launched an effort to discredit Simpson and get the Siegelman story killed.
The White House has enlisted the help of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in the effort to kill the Siegelman piece, Alexandrovna reports.
Sessions is hardly a disinterested observer in all of this. Time magazine reported that Lanny Young, a key witness against Siegelman, made illegal campaign contributions to Sessions and fellow Republican Bill Pryor (now a federal judge, then Alabama attorney general). The Bush Justice Department, of course, went after Siegelman and ignored the allegations against Sessions and Pryor.
A few questions come to mind upon reading Alexandrovna's report:
* Why would the Bush White House be so interested in a 60 Minutes report on the prosecution of a former governor in Alabama? Why would they care?
* Wouldn't 60 Minutes' news people check Jill Simpson's credibility on the front end of the story? Answer: Yes. And if they had serious concerns, they would not have moved forward with interviewing numerous other subjects for the story.
* Don't 60 Minutes' news people have ample public documents upon which to make judgment calls about Ms. Simpson's credibility? Answer: Yes. She has signed a sworn affidavit, and she has answered questions under oath before Congressional lawyers. She has spoken to a number of reporters. And I suspect her life was pretty much an open book for the 60 Minutes news people.
* So what's the Schnauzer take on this? I've got about 30 years of experience in the journalism business, and this looks like a case where the CBS news folks are ready to go with a story, but the corporate side is putting a halt to it. If a news program of 60 Minutes stature caves on a story like this, our democracy is in serious trouble. Conservatives might think this is good news. But I have a word of caution for them: Be careful what you wish for. This kind of pressure to cover up the truth--if successful--puts cracks in the very foundation of our country. And that doesn't just hurt progressives, liberals, and Siegelman supporters. That hurts all of us.
* At the end of her piece, Alexandrovna encourages her readers to contact CBS and Congress to voice concerns. (I second that.) Then she offers this: "You may also wish to contact Senator Jeff Sessions and ask him who John Price is, you know, just for shits and giggles."
Alexandrovna vows that she will report the material that CBS is apparently afraid to run with. And to that, I say, "You go, girl!" But John Price? That is certainly interesting.
Wonder if it could be the John Price referred to in this ugly criminal case a few years back, one that involved Price Rubber Corporation of Montgomery, Alabama? Does Jeff Sessions have connections to this case or this Price fellow, who apparently planned "hits" on a number of perceived enemies? Enquiring minds want to know.
Even if this isn't the Price referred to in Alexandrovna's report, the case is worth a look. Check out the history section near the top of the opinion. It will curl your hair, if it isn't curly already.
That's the latest from Larisa Alexandrovna on her at-Largely blog. CBS claims to be taking additional time to conduct background research on whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson. But Alexandrovna reports that the Bush White House has launched an effort to discredit Simpson and get the Siegelman story killed.
The White House has enlisted the help of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in the effort to kill the Siegelman piece, Alexandrovna reports.
Sessions is hardly a disinterested observer in all of this. Time magazine reported that Lanny Young, a key witness against Siegelman, made illegal campaign contributions to Sessions and fellow Republican Bill Pryor (now a federal judge, then Alabama attorney general). The Bush Justice Department, of course, went after Siegelman and ignored the allegations against Sessions and Pryor.
A few questions come to mind upon reading Alexandrovna's report:
* Why would the Bush White House be so interested in a 60 Minutes report on the prosecution of a former governor in Alabama? Why would they care?
* Wouldn't 60 Minutes' news people check Jill Simpson's credibility on the front end of the story? Answer: Yes. And if they had serious concerns, they would not have moved forward with interviewing numerous other subjects for the story.
* Don't 60 Minutes' news people have ample public documents upon which to make judgment calls about Ms. Simpson's credibility? Answer: Yes. She has signed a sworn affidavit, and she has answered questions under oath before Congressional lawyers. She has spoken to a number of reporters. And I suspect her life was pretty much an open book for the 60 Minutes news people.
* So what's the Schnauzer take on this? I've got about 30 years of experience in the journalism business, and this looks like a case where the CBS news folks are ready to go with a story, but the corporate side is putting a halt to it. If a news program of 60 Minutes stature caves on a story like this, our democracy is in serious trouble. Conservatives might think this is good news. But I have a word of caution for them: Be careful what you wish for. This kind of pressure to cover up the truth--if successful--puts cracks in the very foundation of our country. And that doesn't just hurt progressives, liberals, and Siegelman supporters. That hurts all of us.
* At the end of her piece, Alexandrovna encourages her readers to contact CBS and Congress to voice concerns. (I second that.) Then she offers this: "You may also wish to contact Senator Jeff Sessions and ask him who John Price is, you know, just for shits and giggles."
Alexandrovna vows that she will report the material that CBS is apparently afraid to run with. And to that, I say, "You go, girl!" But John Price? That is certainly interesting.
Wonder if it could be the John Price referred to in this ugly criminal case a few years back, one that involved Price Rubber Corporation of Montgomery, Alabama? Does Jeff Sessions have connections to this case or this Price fellow, who apparently planned "hits" on a number of perceived enemies? Enquiring minds want to know.
Even if this isn't the Price referred to in Alexandrovna's report, the case is worth a look. Check out the history section near the top of the opinion. It will curl your hair, if it isn't curly already.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Another Right-Wing Rag for Alabama?
You might think the last thing Alabama needs is another publication that applies a rightward slant to its political coverage. But that's what we appear to have received with the arrival of Thicket, a new glossy magazine that debuted in January 2008.
Who is the cover boy for Thicket's debut issue? Why, none other than Republican Governor Bob Riley, resplendent in suit and cowboy boots.
(Schnauzer Life Lesson No. 1: Never trust a man who wears cowboy boots with suits. It just screams out, "I'm insecure about something--my masculinity perhaps.")
Actually, Thicket appears to have a lot of potential. It looks sharp, with first-rate photography and design. It is produced by Thicket media, and it appears that somebody on board knows a thing or two about putting out a good-looking magazine. I like the magazine's motto: "Alabama Redefined."
But the debut cover story, written by Atticus Rominger, hardly lives up to that high-minded mission. It's just more of the unquestioning right-wing pap that we already get from The Birmingham News and its Newhouse cousins in Huntsville and Mobile.
One of the things that makes the story so disappointing is that it comes with a compelling headline on the cover: "What is this man's agenda? Getting inside the governor's head."
Hey, that sounds pretty intriguing. If Rominger managed to get inside Riley's head, he evidently found nothing there but empty space.
Actually the space is not totally empty. Rominger presents Riley as pretty much a one-trick pony: A man obsessed in his second term with cleaning up what he considers to be a mess in the Alabama two-year college system. Riley seems particularly concerned about people who work in the two-year system and also serve as members of the Alabama Legislature.
"Double dipping is a moral issue as far as I'm concerned," Riley says. "When you appropriate tax payer money to certain entities that in turn pay your salary, there is a conflict of interest."
To Rominger's credit, he points out that some observers, particularly Paul Hubbert of the Alabama Education Association, view Riley's efforts as political gamesmanship. Noting that the governor's proposals target mostly Democrats, Hubbert calls it an "if you can't beat them, ban them" approach.
Rominger also quotes Birmingham News reporter Brett Blackledge, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the two-year system. "[Riley] has advocated for this before there was great public interest," Blackledge says. "There is a great public interest (now), so why not strike?" You can almost hear Brett breaking out his cheerleading outfit.
Rominger touches on some interesting stuff, but in the end, he portrays Riley as having an "aw-shucks earnestness." Even in private, Rominger writes, "Riley is not ruffled by issues of pure politics."
Bob Riley isn't interested in pure politics? I would invite Rominger to read Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Or better yet, give Horton a call and interview him about the political realities in Bob Riley's Alabama.
Or how about calling Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, who filed a lawsuit against Riley and others for allegedly ruining one of Goff's companies and wound up the subject of a federal investigation as a result? Ask Mr. Goff if Bob Riley plays political games.
And Rominger makes no mention of some of the unsavory characters--Michael Scanlon, Dan Gans, Jack Abramoff--who have strong ties to Bob Riley. No mention of Mississippi Choctaw gaming money that fueled Riley's campaign or the funny numbers that appeared to be electronically manipulated in Baldwin County, giving Riley a victory over Don Siegelman in the 2002 governor's race. No mention of no-bid state contracts that appear to go to Riley friends and family members.
The big question is this: Does Bob Riley have the moral standing to be telling anyone about ethical government? Rominger never seems to ask that question in a serious way.
If Thicket magazine truly wants to "redefine Alabama," and wants to make a valuable contribution to Alabama journalism, those are the kinds of questions it needs to be asking.
Who is the cover boy for Thicket's debut issue? Why, none other than Republican Governor Bob Riley, resplendent in suit and cowboy boots.
(Schnauzer Life Lesson No. 1: Never trust a man who wears cowboy boots with suits. It just screams out, "I'm insecure about something--my masculinity perhaps.")
Actually, Thicket appears to have a lot of potential. It looks sharp, with first-rate photography and design. It is produced by Thicket media, and it appears that somebody on board knows a thing or two about putting out a good-looking magazine. I like the magazine's motto: "Alabama Redefined."
But the debut cover story, written by Atticus Rominger, hardly lives up to that high-minded mission. It's just more of the unquestioning right-wing pap that we already get from The Birmingham News and its Newhouse cousins in Huntsville and Mobile.
One of the things that makes the story so disappointing is that it comes with a compelling headline on the cover: "What is this man's agenda? Getting inside the governor's head."
Hey, that sounds pretty intriguing. If Rominger managed to get inside Riley's head, he evidently found nothing there but empty space.
Actually the space is not totally empty. Rominger presents Riley as pretty much a one-trick pony: A man obsessed in his second term with cleaning up what he considers to be a mess in the Alabama two-year college system. Riley seems particularly concerned about people who work in the two-year system and also serve as members of the Alabama Legislature.
"Double dipping is a moral issue as far as I'm concerned," Riley says. "When you appropriate tax payer money to certain entities that in turn pay your salary, there is a conflict of interest."
To Rominger's credit, he points out that some observers, particularly Paul Hubbert of the Alabama Education Association, view Riley's efforts as political gamesmanship. Noting that the governor's proposals target mostly Democrats, Hubbert calls it an "if you can't beat them, ban them" approach.
Rominger also quotes Birmingham News reporter Brett Blackledge, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the two-year system. "[Riley] has advocated for this before there was great public interest," Blackledge says. "There is a great public interest (now), so why not strike?" You can almost hear Brett breaking out his cheerleading outfit.
Rominger touches on some interesting stuff, but in the end, he portrays Riley as having an "aw-shucks earnestness." Even in private, Rominger writes, "Riley is not ruffled by issues of pure politics."
Bob Riley isn't interested in pure politics? I would invite Rominger to read Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Or better yet, give Horton a call and interview him about the political realities in Bob Riley's Alabama.
Or how about calling Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff, who filed a lawsuit against Riley and others for allegedly ruining one of Goff's companies and wound up the subject of a federal investigation as a result? Ask Mr. Goff if Bob Riley plays political games.
And Rominger makes no mention of some of the unsavory characters--Michael Scanlon, Dan Gans, Jack Abramoff--who have strong ties to Bob Riley. No mention of Mississippi Choctaw gaming money that fueled Riley's campaign or the funny numbers that appeared to be electronically manipulated in Baldwin County, giving Riley a victory over Don Siegelman in the 2002 governor's race. No mention of no-bid state contracts that appear to go to Riley friends and family members.
The big question is this: Does Bob Riley have the moral standing to be telling anyone about ethical government? Rominger never seems to ask that question in a serious way.
If Thicket magazine truly wants to "redefine Alabama," and wants to make a valuable contribution to Alabama journalism, those are the kinds of questions it needs to be asking.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Alice Martin's Political Campaign Unveiled
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has lined up 10 indictments of prominent Democrats, or figures close to Democrats, as part of an effort to help Republicans gain control of the Alabama Legislature by 2010.
That is the most stunning news in two critically important posts this weekend from Scott Horton, of Harper's.org.
In the first of the two posts, Horton reports that Martin plans to release her indictments in a "drip-by-drip" fashion in order to provide maximum benefit for her Republican allies. The indictment of Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney), for example, was released so as to draw attention away from a historic victory by African American James Fields in a special election for a seat representing overwhelmingly white Cullman County in the state legislature.
Horton notes that Alabama Republicans might have a number of concerns on the highly-charged racial front. Horton predicts that Barack Obama will prevail in Tuesday's Alabama Democratic primary, and he notes that U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, a black former prosecutor and an Obama supporter, is emerging as the leader of Alabama Democrats.
So what to make of Alice Martin? U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has promised that any prosecutor caught using his or her office for political manipulation would be immediately fired. Martin, who has been the subject of a perjury investigation for some time now, is still ensconced in Birmingham.
A recently retired Justice Department figure has told Horton that the department is "mortified" at the actions of Martin and her compadre Leura Canary in Montgomery. Mukasey, however, does not want to look into it.
He might not have a choice though, with an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee looming in the distance. Horton reports that chairman John Conyers has indicated that he plans to make the Don Siegelman case in Alabama a key subject in the inquiry.
In his second key post of the weekend, Horton says the investigation into Justice Department wrongdoing under Alberto Gonzalez could lead to consideration of impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
How could this play out? Horton notes that it could start with the conclusion of the Justice Department's internal investigation, by the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in December 2006. This investigation must stay within the boundaries of the DOJ, so it will not directly implicate Bush, Cheney, or Karl Rove. But Horton expects the report to look very bad for Gonzalez.
The key question is: Were the U.S. attorneys fired for an "improper reason." And Horton says corruptly influencing a criminal investigation would violate the legal standard under federal law. The David Iglesias case in New Mexico might be the most likely to present a clearly "improper reason" for a firing.
This, Horton reports, could lead to a finding that Gonzalez failed to apprise Bush, Cheney, and Rove that their meddling in criminal investigations constituted a federal crime.
At this point, it would be up to the House Judiciary Committee to scrutinize the activities of the White House. It is well settled under federal law that manipulating a criminal investigation for political benefit amounts to "corrupt influencing." This, Horton reports, is a felony. And under the language of the Constitution would be a "high crime and misdemeanor" required for impeachment.
Horton says this scenario creates a question that is being examined like never before in Washington: How do we handle the supervision of misbehaving prosecutors? What do we do when those who are supposed to be in charge of initiating criminal investigations are themselves behaving in criminal ways?
Under Horton's scenario, this could start as a general inquiry and turn into a question of impeachment. And that is where Congress holds the aces if the White House continues to invoke its executive-privilege defense. This defense would fail in an impeachment investigation, Horton says, because such an inquiry is outside the separation-of-powers framework.
The weeks and months ahead figure to be very interesting for justice-related issues in the United States--and it will come in the midst of a presidential election. If efforts to unmask the corrupt Bush Justice Department gain serious traction, it seems likely that Alabama will be front and center.
That is the most stunning news in two critically important posts this weekend from Scott Horton, of Harper's.org.
In the first of the two posts, Horton reports that Martin plans to release her indictments in a "drip-by-drip" fashion in order to provide maximum benefit for her Republican allies. The indictment of Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney), for example, was released so as to draw attention away from a historic victory by African American James Fields in a special election for a seat representing overwhelmingly white Cullman County in the state legislature.
Horton notes that Alabama Republicans might have a number of concerns on the highly-charged racial front. Horton predicts that Barack Obama will prevail in Tuesday's Alabama Democratic primary, and he notes that U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, a black former prosecutor and an Obama supporter, is emerging as the leader of Alabama Democrats.
So what to make of Alice Martin? U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has promised that any prosecutor caught using his or her office for political manipulation would be immediately fired. Martin, who has been the subject of a perjury investigation for some time now, is still ensconced in Birmingham.
A recently retired Justice Department figure has told Horton that the department is "mortified" at the actions of Martin and her compadre Leura Canary in Montgomery. Mukasey, however, does not want to look into it.
He might not have a choice though, with an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee looming in the distance. Horton reports that chairman John Conyers has indicated that he plans to make the Don Siegelman case in Alabama a key subject in the inquiry.
In his second key post of the weekend, Horton says the investigation into Justice Department wrongdoing under Alberto Gonzalez could lead to consideration of impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
How could this play out? Horton notes that it could start with the conclusion of the Justice Department's internal investigation, by the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility, into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys in December 2006. This investigation must stay within the boundaries of the DOJ, so it will not directly implicate Bush, Cheney, or Karl Rove. But Horton expects the report to look very bad for Gonzalez.
The key question is: Were the U.S. attorneys fired for an "improper reason." And Horton says corruptly influencing a criminal investigation would violate the legal standard under federal law. The David Iglesias case in New Mexico might be the most likely to present a clearly "improper reason" for a firing.
This, Horton reports, could lead to a finding that Gonzalez failed to apprise Bush, Cheney, and Rove that their meddling in criminal investigations constituted a federal crime.
At this point, it would be up to the House Judiciary Committee to scrutinize the activities of the White House. It is well settled under federal law that manipulating a criminal investigation for political benefit amounts to "corrupt influencing." This, Horton reports, is a felony. And under the language of the Constitution would be a "high crime and misdemeanor" required for impeachment.
Horton says this scenario creates a question that is being examined like never before in Washington: How do we handle the supervision of misbehaving prosecutors? What do we do when those who are supposed to be in charge of initiating criminal investigations are themselves behaving in criminal ways?
Under Horton's scenario, this could start as a general inquiry and turn into a question of impeachment. And that is where Congress holds the aces if the White House continues to invoke its executive-privilege defense. This defense would fail in an impeachment investigation, Horton says, because such an inquiry is outside the separation-of-powers framework.
The weeks and months ahead figure to be very interesting for justice-related issues in the United States--and it will come in the midst of a presidential election. If efforts to unmask the corrupt Bush Justice Department gain serious traction, it seems likely that Alabama will be front and center.
Has Alice Martin Finally Stepped In It?
Have Republicans finally gone too far in their use of the Justice Department for political purposes? Is it possible that going after Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney), a 63-year-old retired social studies teacher, was not such a good idea? Is it possible that U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who ramrodded the indictment of Schmitz this week, is leading the GOP into some deep doo-doo that won't be easy to rub off?
These thoughts come to mind after reading Scott Horton's insightful post on the Schmitz case at Harper's.org.
I'm wondering if the Schmitz case might finally cause average folks in Alabama, and elsewhere, to wake up and realize that the Bush Justice Department has become an ugly hammer, one that folks like Alice Martin use to brutalize people who have the audacity to serve in public office as Democrats.
When average folks read about the Don Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, or the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania, their emotions might not be stirred. The defendants in those cases might have been wronged, but they perhaps don't seem sympathetic. All are high powered men--Siegelman a governor, Minor a very successful attorney, Minor's co-defendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield were judges, and Wecht is famous for his many appearances on national television shows.
Average folks might say, "Hey, those guys can handle themselves." And for some citizens, it might be fairly easy to believe that a man in a position of authority could pull a few fast ones in the rough- and-tumble world of politics.
But Sue Schmitz? She's a woman, a 63-year-old retired social-studies teacher. From all reports I've read, she is respected and loved in her community. And yet, the other day, she was dragged out of her bathroom, where she was taking a shower, put in handcuffs, and hauled off to prison.
Ms. Schmitz might be tougher than Siegelman, Minor, Teel, Whitfield, and Wecht combined. But something tells me she might make the most sympathetic defendant yet among those who appear to have been targeted by the Bush DOJ for political reasons.
Let's examine a few of the key points Horton makes about the Schmitz case:
* Horton notes that taxpayer expense for pursuing the Schmitz case will be in excess of $2 million. And for what? To show that a social-studies teacher, on the basis of sharply disputed evidence, was not putting in as many hours as she should have in teaching her classes, which were part of the Alabama two-year college system. "This has to count as one of the more absurd (if not malicious) cases I've seen in recent years," Horton writes.
* Horton notes the DOJ's varying approaches to cases of alleged "feather bedding." Sue Schmitz is indicted. But an affidavit by Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks alleged that current federal judge Mark Fuller (who oversaw the Don Siegelman case) was an absentee district attorney in Coffee and Pike Counties, Alabama. He drew a salary for his state job, but spent much of his time in Colorado, attending to a business he owned and operated. The affidavit was submitted to federal authorities, but nothing happened. Perhaps that's because Fuller is a Republican, a member of the "home team".
* Horton notes the central role of an investigation into the two-year college system by The Birmingham News and reporter Brett Blackledge. News' coverage has focused almost entirely on wrongdoing by Democrats. But Horton says his sources indicate possible wrongdoing is bipartisan in nature. "Mind you, there's probably no shortage of corruption in this college system, feather bedding and the like," Horton writes. "No shortage of allegations have come to me, Blackledge, and the U.S. Attorney's office concerning corruption. A great many of them involve figures connected to Governor (Bob) Riley and the GOP. But, alas, there doesn't seem to be enough ink or newsprint to allow Blackledge to write about those cases. Or perhaps there's another reason. It would be what my politico friends call 'off message.'"
* Another funny thing about Brett Blackledge's reporting. "Strange that his investigation of the two-year college system neglects to mention that Governor Riley ran it."
* And then there is this: "The last several years have seen an explosion of no-bid state contracts in Alabama in which cronies of Governor Bob Riley are involved. What happens when newspaper reporters in Montgomery submit stories about these scandals to the three Newhouse papers (Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile). . . . The stories don't run, and the reporters get chided."
At this point, we have little information about the charges against Sue Schmitz. The indictment includes four counts each for mail fraud and fraud. Her attorney says she intends to fight the charges.
Substantial evidence points to problems in the two-year college system. Rep. Bryant Melton (D-Tuscaloosa) resigned his elected position in 2006 after pleading guilty to corruption charges. More recently, prosecutors announced a plea agreement with former Chancellor Roy Johnson, who pled guilty to corruption charges and agreed to assist prosecutors in their investigation.
Schmitz might be the first official to challenge charges brought in the investigation. "Whether (the charges) are meritorious or not, Schmitz will be put to hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal expenses and is having her reputation tarnished, all courtesy of the taxpayers," Horton writes. "Whether the charges stand or fall, all of this activity has one clear-cut beneficiary: the Alabama GOP and its plans to "take control of" the state legislature. Funny, but the ballot box doesn't figure very prominently in that effort."
These thoughts come to mind after reading Scott Horton's insightful post on the Schmitz case at Harper's.org.
I'm wondering if the Schmitz case might finally cause average folks in Alabama, and elsewhere, to wake up and realize that the Bush Justice Department has become an ugly hammer, one that folks like Alice Martin use to brutalize people who have the audacity to serve in public office as Democrats.
When average folks read about the Don Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, or the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania, their emotions might not be stirred. The defendants in those cases might have been wronged, but they perhaps don't seem sympathetic. All are high powered men--Siegelman a governor, Minor a very successful attorney, Minor's co-defendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield were judges, and Wecht is famous for his many appearances on national television shows.
Average folks might say, "Hey, those guys can handle themselves." And for some citizens, it might be fairly easy to believe that a man in a position of authority could pull a few fast ones in the rough- and-tumble world of politics.
But Sue Schmitz? She's a woman, a 63-year-old retired social-studies teacher. From all reports I've read, she is respected and loved in her community. And yet, the other day, she was dragged out of her bathroom, where she was taking a shower, put in handcuffs, and hauled off to prison.
Ms. Schmitz might be tougher than Siegelman, Minor, Teel, Whitfield, and Wecht combined. But something tells me she might make the most sympathetic defendant yet among those who appear to have been targeted by the Bush DOJ for political reasons.
Let's examine a few of the key points Horton makes about the Schmitz case:
* Horton notes that taxpayer expense for pursuing the Schmitz case will be in excess of $2 million. And for what? To show that a social-studies teacher, on the basis of sharply disputed evidence, was not putting in as many hours as she should have in teaching her classes, which were part of the Alabama two-year college system. "This has to count as one of the more absurd (if not malicious) cases I've seen in recent years," Horton writes.
* Horton notes the DOJ's varying approaches to cases of alleged "feather bedding." Sue Schmitz is indicted. But an affidavit by Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks alleged that current federal judge Mark Fuller (who oversaw the Don Siegelman case) was an absentee district attorney in Coffee and Pike Counties, Alabama. He drew a salary for his state job, but spent much of his time in Colorado, attending to a business he owned and operated. The affidavit was submitted to federal authorities, but nothing happened. Perhaps that's because Fuller is a Republican, a member of the "home team".
* Horton notes the central role of an investigation into the two-year college system by The Birmingham News and reporter Brett Blackledge. News' coverage has focused almost entirely on wrongdoing by Democrats. But Horton says his sources indicate possible wrongdoing is bipartisan in nature. "Mind you, there's probably no shortage of corruption in this college system, feather bedding and the like," Horton writes. "No shortage of allegations have come to me, Blackledge, and the U.S. Attorney's office concerning corruption. A great many of them involve figures connected to Governor (Bob) Riley and the GOP. But, alas, there doesn't seem to be enough ink or newsprint to allow Blackledge to write about those cases. Or perhaps there's another reason. It would be what my politico friends call 'off message.'"
* Another funny thing about Brett Blackledge's reporting. "Strange that his investigation of the two-year college system neglects to mention that Governor Riley ran it."
* And then there is this: "The last several years have seen an explosion of no-bid state contracts in Alabama in which cronies of Governor Bob Riley are involved. What happens when newspaper reporters in Montgomery submit stories about these scandals to the three Newhouse papers (Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile). . . . The stories don't run, and the reporters get chided."
At this point, we have little information about the charges against Sue Schmitz. The indictment includes four counts each for mail fraud and fraud. Her attorney says she intends to fight the charges.
Substantial evidence points to problems in the two-year college system. Rep. Bryant Melton (D-Tuscaloosa) resigned his elected position in 2006 after pleading guilty to corruption charges. More recently, prosecutors announced a plea agreement with former Chancellor Roy Johnson, who pled guilty to corruption charges and agreed to assist prosecutors in their investigation.
Schmitz might be the first official to challenge charges brought in the investigation. "Whether (the charges) are meritorious or not, Schmitz will be put to hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal expenses and is having her reputation tarnished, all courtesy of the taxpayers," Horton writes. "Whether the charges stand or fall, all of this activity has one clear-cut beneficiary: the Alabama GOP and its plans to "take control of" the state legislature. Funny, but the ballot box doesn't figure very prominently in that effort."
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Alice Martin provides a Touch of Humor
Normally it's hard to find anything amusing about Republican use of the Justice Department as a political tool.
But U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, a Bush appointee, provided a comical moment with her indictment released this week of Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney).
I haven't seen the full indictment, and I look forward to checking it out so I can better understand what could make a 63-year-old retired social-studies teacher a federal criminal. But according to a quote from Martin in one news report, the indictment is based partly on the fact that Schmitz allegedly "generated virtually no work product."
Don't know about you, but I know all kinds of people who generate virtually no work product. They are called managers. If we are going to indict all of them, we'd better start a serious program to build more courthouses and prisons.
As Scott Horton of Harper's.org has noted, Martin seems to have a problem with the truth. She also evidently has a problem with the language.
According to every definition I've seen, "work product" has a very definite meaning. It refers to work that an attorney does in preparing to represent a client, and as such, is not discoverable. I've also heard it used in reference to other legal professionals, such as court reporters.
But I'm not sure how Sue Schmitz, a teacher, is supposed to generate work product. Perhaps I'm nitpicking at Martin's use of the language. But when you bring criminal charges against someone, is it too much to expect that you speak of them with some clarity?
By the way, this is not the first time I've found something comical in this serious business of following a corrupt justice department. For example, in researching the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, I was stunned to see the jury instructions regarding bribery from U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, another Republican appointee. Here's how Wingate's instructions read, in part:
"You may find specific criminal intent even though you may find that the rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable or beneficial to the public welfare."
You don't need a Harvard law degree to understand the absurdity in these instructions. Essentially, Wingate told the jurors: "You may find the defendants engaged in criminal activity even if you determine that their actions were legal--in fact, even if you find their actions were required by law." Gee, no wonder the defendants were found guilty.
That's like saying, "You may find Herman Blokes guilty of theft even though the $100 he picked up off the desk belonged to him, and therefore, it was legal for him to pick up the $100 and walk away with it."
I understand that jurors tend to be obedient creatures and probably are a little bit in awe of a judge and the trappings of legal authority. But you would think someone on the Minor jury would have said, "You know, this part about being able to find someone guilty even though their actions were legal . . . somehow that doesn't sound right to me."
But so far, Henry Wingate has gotten away with it. And perhaps Alice Martin will get away with claiming Sue Schmitz failed to generate "work product" when Ms. Schmitz had no legal duty to produce "work product."
Ah, justice in the Age of Rove. Isn't it grand?
But U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, a Bush appointee, provided a comical moment with her indictment released this week of Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney).
I haven't seen the full indictment, and I look forward to checking it out so I can better understand what could make a 63-year-old retired social-studies teacher a federal criminal. But according to a quote from Martin in one news report, the indictment is based partly on the fact that Schmitz allegedly "generated virtually no work product."
Don't know about you, but I know all kinds of people who generate virtually no work product. They are called managers. If we are going to indict all of them, we'd better start a serious program to build more courthouses and prisons.
As Scott Horton of Harper's.org has noted, Martin seems to have a problem with the truth. She also evidently has a problem with the language.
According to every definition I've seen, "work product" has a very definite meaning. It refers to work that an attorney does in preparing to represent a client, and as such, is not discoverable. I've also heard it used in reference to other legal professionals, such as court reporters.
But I'm not sure how Sue Schmitz, a teacher, is supposed to generate work product. Perhaps I'm nitpicking at Martin's use of the language. But when you bring criminal charges against someone, is it too much to expect that you speak of them with some clarity?
By the way, this is not the first time I've found something comical in this serious business of following a corrupt justice department. For example, in researching the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, I was stunned to see the jury instructions regarding bribery from U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, another Republican appointee. Here's how Wingate's instructions read, in part:
"You may find specific criminal intent even though you may find that the rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable or beneficial to the public welfare."
You don't need a Harvard law degree to understand the absurdity in these instructions. Essentially, Wingate told the jurors: "You may find the defendants engaged in criminal activity even if you determine that their actions were legal--in fact, even if you find their actions were required by law." Gee, no wonder the defendants were found guilty.
That's like saying, "You may find Herman Blokes guilty of theft even though the $100 he picked up off the desk belonged to him, and therefore, it was legal for him to pick up the $100 and walk away with it."
I understand that jurors tend to be obedient creatures and probably are a little bit in awe of a judge and the trappings of legal authority. But you would think someone on the Minor jury would have said, "You know, this part about being able to find someone guilty even though their actions were legal . . . somehow that doesn't sound right to me."
But so far, Henry Wingate has gotten away with it. And perhaps Alice Martin will get away with claiming Sue Schmitz failed to generate "work product" when Ms. Schmitz had no legal duty to produce "work product."
Ah, justice in the Age of Rove. Isn't it grand?
ExxonMobil Wins, Alabama Loses
Alabamians should have been heartened to hear the news this week that ExxonMobil posted the largest annual profit--$40.6 billion--by a U.S. company.
Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007.
This news probably is of interest to all consumers who have been paying big time when they put gasoline in their vehicles. But it is particularly significant in Alabama, where ExxonMobil recently saw the state supreme court overturn almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against the company for underpaying the state in natural-gas royalties.
An Alabama jury found that ExxonMobil had committed fraud in shortchanging the state for natural-gas royalties, justifying the large verdict. But Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court, who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil and other oil interests, voted to overturn the verdict.
We will show here at Legal Schnauzer that the ExxonMobil ruling was unlawful and that, in fact, the GOPers on the Alabama Supreme Court perpetrated a fraud upon the public.
But isn't it nice to know that, even if the verdict had been upheld, it would have amounted to only a fraction of ExxonMobil's record annual profit?
Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007.
This news probably is of interest to all consumers who have been paying big time when they put gasoline in their vehicles. But it is particularly significant in Alabama, where ExxonMobil recently saw the state supreme court overturn almost all of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against the company for underpaying the state in natural-gas royalties.
An Alabama jury found that ExxonMobil had committed fraud in shortchanging the state for natural-gas royalties, justifying the large verdict. But Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court, who took hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil and other oil interests, voted to overturn the verdict.
We will show here at Legal Schnauzer that the ExxonMobil ruling was unlawful and that, in fact, the GOPers on the Alabama Supreme Court perpetrated a fraud upon the public.
But isn't it nice to know that, even if the verdict had been upheld, it would have amounted to only a fraction of ExxonMobil's record annual profit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)