Reading today about travel restrictions placed on former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman made this schnauzer want to scratch his beard and shake his head.
It reminded me of so many events I've seen in my own story of dealing with a justice system controlled by Republicans.
First, we learned that Siegelman has been classified a "special offender" for travel purposes and is no longer able to travel without receiving prior approval. Then a Justice Department official says, "Oh no, nothing has changed. Siegelman's under the same travel restrictions that applied when he was awaiting sentencing." Then Siegelman fired back with the following statement:
In this afternoon's Associated Press story, a representative of the federal probation office in Montgomery, Alabama, stated in effect that my travel conditions had not changed form what they were before sentencing.
Here's what happened. On April 29 I was informed by my parole officer that he had received instructions from his superior in Montgomery that I was to be considered a "Special Offender" for travel purposes. I am now required to have permission to travel to any place out side of the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama. Also, that additional information will be required of me before I travel. For example, I will now have to fill out and file a formal written detailed request to travel with my PO two weeks in advance of travel even if I want to travel to see my lawyers who live in Mobile, Alabama. That request, then has to be forwarded to the federal district into which I seek to travel. Some districts, require an additional 30 day notice before they will even consider my request to come there.
This is contrary to what I had previously been required to do, and, seems to be in contradiction of the 11th Circuit's order for release on bond pending appeal. (See attached order of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.)
Probation restrictions from conviction to incarceration were that I could travel anywhere within the state of Alabama without requesting permission and traveling outside the state did not require that I request travel any specific number of days in advance.
Examples:
* Mobile trips to see attorneys, and numerous trips outside of the districts but within Alabama, were permitted without any oral or written requests;
* A family vacation to the Virgin Island trip;
* Washington DC trip;
* A trip to California were all handled by an oral or email request to my PO who then emailed the Judge and he responded to the PO.
There is a vast difference in the conditions for travel, as of yesterday, and the conditions that I was under before sentencing and for over one month after I was released on March 28th by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
1. I am now classified as a"Special Offender", placed in the category of a" Potential Terrorist" or member of "The Mafia" requiring additional scrutiny by the district into which I seek to travel. The definition of "Special Offender " that I was given reads as follows: "Individuals identified or associated with . . . organized crime such as the Mafia . . . persons identified as potential terrorists, kidnappers, members of a supremacy group . . . offenders of high notoriety, or cases of similar nature." The only reason my case is of "high notoriety" is because of misconduct of the government which the U.S. Congress and the Inspector General of the DOJ are now investigating. It is not my behavior that gave this case notoriety; it was that of the government.
2. I have been given a new form that I have not been required to fill out previously, that I must now fill out and give to my PO at least two weeks in advance for any trip, including requirements of criminal registration and reporting in the district into which I seek to travel.
3. I must seek written permission weeks in advance even to travel into the Southern District of Alabama if I want to see my lawyers.
4. If I am seeking out of state travel, in addition to the two weeks notice I must give my PO, some districts require an additional 30 days notice, however, there is no way for me to know what the rules are in any particular district before I make my request to my PO.
This all sounds so familiar. Let's examine some of the themes we've addressed in our Legal Schnauzer tale, themes that also seem to be playing out in the Siegelman case. In a justice system dominated by GOPers . . .
* If you don't happily accept their abuse, they will try to make you pay--In my case, I start blogging about corrupt Republican judges in Alabama, and next thing I know, the Shelby County Sheriff's Department is threatening to unlawfully seize my house. While I was quiet about my experiences for three-plus years, all was well. But within a few months of starting this blog, by golly, someone wanted to "collect" on a bogus judgment against me (in the grand sum of $1,525)--and they wanted to do it by seizing my house. Same thing seems to be happening with Siegelman. As his national media appearances piled up, someone decided suddenly that he needed travel restrictions. The folks at Left in Alabama put it nicely.
* They'll make you think you are Eddie Murphy in Trading Places--You remember the scene where the old dudes explain to Murphy what goes into a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich? (Think I'm channeling Chris Farley here.) That's evidently the way GOP justice folks see normal people--they think we are all stupid. In my case, they never dreamed I could figure out that a properly supported motion for summary judgment has to be granted when the other party does not respond. It's "black letter" law, and common sense would tell you that is the case, but I guess the GOPers never dreamed a member of the "great unwashed" could actually look it up. And that's only one of dozens of such examples I could cite. I've lost track of how many times my wife and I have received some ridiculous motion or ruling in the mail and looked at each other saying, "How dumb do they think we are?" In fact, we just had several new examples, and I'll be writing about those soon. It's heartening, in a macabre way, to know that a former governor gets the same treatment. These people don't think Don Siegelman knows what his own probation conditions were?
* Lying, or at least highly creative spinning, is second nature--Of the voluminous lies I've been told, perhaps my favorite came from Shelby County Circuit Judge Dan Reeves. It's well settled Alabama law that when a plaintiff is claiming malicious prosecution, any of his prior wrongs (criminal convictions etc.) are admissible as evidence. It's common sense. By definition, such a plaintiff is claiming his reputation was stained by being prosecuted for a crime. The defendant is entitled to show that the plaintiff's reputation already sucked because he had been convicted of crimes umpteen times before. But Reeves would not allow evidence that my troublesome neighbor Mike McGarity had been convicted of at least eight crimes previously, including one involving violence and one of a sexual nature. I printed out the case law and handed it to Reeves, with the pertinent stuff underlined. "Nice research," he said, and excluded the evidence. Jurors, I'm sure, couldn't figure out why I was having problems with such a nice man as Mike McGarity--a veritable suburban soccer dad (but with a far more colorful past than most soccer dads). Reeves didn't want the jury to stray from an outcome that probably was preordained, thanks to creative jury striking, iffy jury instructions, and evidentiary decisions like this one. Siegelman is facing the same thing. Who are we to believe: this justice official quoted by Associated Press or a former governor who ought to know a thing or two about his own probation conditions?
* Incompetence is second nature to these folks--I'm aware of a recent case where a defendant in small-claims court showed up to contest a lawsuit that had been brought against her. The plaintiff, the party who brought the lawsuit, didn't bother to show. The judge dismissed the case against the defendant, finding for her on the merits (duh!). But when she got the order in the mail, it said the case was dismissed on a motion by the plaintiff. Turns out the plaintiff had filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice (meaning they could bring it again later) five days after the case was over--and the judge granted it! The defendant had to write a motion asking that the court pull its head out of its you-know-what and get the order correct. After a couple of followup phone calls, the court seemingly got it right. The probation officer's statements about the Siegelman case sound so familiar. "Well, some of our officers do this and others don't, blah, blah, blah." Sweet Jehovah, have I heard that kind of stuff before?
* Law? What law?--These people have utter disdain for the actual law. They would rather make it up as they go along. We already have presented examples of this at Legal Schnauzer, and many more are coming. But what about the Siegelman case? His order for release pending appeal couldn't be more clear: "Siegelman shall be released on the same terms and conditions as those governing his release pending sentencing."
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Birmingham News: Stupid, Lazy, or Both
The Birmingham News is coming off one of the worst weeks in the history of American journalism. And that's saying something because the News has had a lot of bad weeks since connections started to form about a year ago between the Don Siegelman prosecution and the firings of U.S. attorneys by the Bush Justice Department.
I didn't think the News could sink any lower after Brett Blackledge's reporting on a motion to dismiss in the Sue Schmitz case. Blackledge was in such a rush to cover Karl Rove's back side, and to trash Jill Simpson, that he completely ignored the main point in Schmitz motion that federal charges against her should be dropped. Blackledge also screwed up several clear facts, which the News had to address with corrections.
In Sunday's paper, editorial writer Robin DeMonia follows up the Blackledge debacle with an editorial that . . . says . . . absolutely nothing.
Actually, DeMonia's column says something, just nothing of any substance. Her main point seems to be: "We don't want prosecutors to go after public officials for political reasons, but we also don't want public officials to cheat us."
Gee, that's profound.
DeMonia also seems to be saying that Alabamians targeted in the two-year colleges scandal are following Siegelman's lead by claiming they are the victims of political prosecutions.
But she gives the impression that Siegelman, and the two-year colleges targets, are merely engaged in public-relations efforts to safe face after cheating the people who elected them.
If DeMonia had bothered to do a little legwork, she would have found that Siegelman's claims of political prosecution are supported by substantial issues of fact and law. Simply reading U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's memorandum opinion of a few months back would have shown her that the jury instructions in the Siegelman case almost certainly were unlawful.
And had DeMonia bothered to read the Huntsville Times and Associated Press accounts of the Schmitz motion, she would have learned that federal prosecutors are being accused of bullying and harassing grand-jury witnesses. And these allegations are supported with examples from transcripts. And all of this lends support to the idea that the federal investigation of Alabama's two-year colleges has not been handled properly.
So we are left to ask this question about both Blackledge and DeMonia: Are they stupid, lazy, or both? Either way, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for Alabama's largest newspaper.
I didn't think the News could sink any lower after Brett Blackledge's reporting on a motion to dismiss in the Sue Schmitz case. Blackledge was in such a rush to cover Karl Rove's back side, and to trash Jill Simpson, that he completely ignored the main point in Schmitz motion that federal charges against her should be dropped. Blackledge also screwed up several clear facts, which the News had to address with corrections.
In Sunday's paper, editorial writer Robin DeMonia follows up the Blackledge debacle with an editorial that . . . says . . . absolutely nothing.
Actually, DeMonia's column says something, just nothing of any substance. Her main point seems to be: "We don't want prosecutors to go after public officials for political reasons, but we also don't want public officials to cheat us."
Gee, that's profound.
DeMonia also seems to be saying that Alabamians targeted in the two-year colleges scandal are following Siegelman's lead by claiming they are the victims of political prosecutions.
But she gives the impression that Siegelman, and the two-year colleges targets, are merely engaged in public-relations efforts to safe face after cheating the people who elected them.
If DeMonia had bothered to do a little legwork, she would have found that Siegelman's claims of political prosecution are supported by substantial issues of fact and law. Simply reading U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's memorandum opinion of a few months back would have shown her that the jury instructions in the Siegelman case almost certainly were unlawful.
And had DeMonia bothered to read the Huntsville Times and Associated Press accounts of the Schmitz motion, she would have learned that federal prosecutors are being accused of bullying and harassing grand-jury witnesses. And these allegations are supported with examples from transcripts. And all of this lends support to the idea that the federal investigation of Alabama's two-year colleges has not been handled properly.
So we are left to ask this question about both Blackledge and DeMonia: Are they stupid, lazy, or both? Either way, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for Alabama's largest newspaper.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Are Alabama Voters Ignorant?
I cringe every time I see one of these polls of Alabama voters regarding the 2008 presidential race.
I like a lot of things about my adopted home state--I wouldn't have stayed here for almost 30 years if I didn't. In fact, I'm finishing up a post about some of the many things I like about Alabama in general and Birmingham in particular. But every time someone does a voter survey in Alabama, at least lately, we come off looking like a bunch of dolts.
The latest poll, by the Capital Survey Research Center, shows that Republican John McCain would beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama by 19 percentage points in Alabama if the election were held today.
The same poll shows that 49 percent of Alabamians say the war in Iraq was a mistake, and almost 45 percent of them want to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. McCain, of course, is the candidate among the remaining three who steadfastly supports keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.
And get this? By a 2-1 margin, Alabama voters said McCain would do the best job of protecting and restoring U.S. jobs lost as a result of passage in the mid 1990s of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Voters support McCain on this issue even though he voted for NAFTA and has been a strong supporter of free trade.
Birmingham News reporter Charles J. Dean says the survey produces "puzzling" results. The results aren't puzzling, they are stupid.
We can see only one conclusion to reach from this poll: Large numbers of Alabama voters are ignorant.
Actually, they aren't ignorant across the board. But on politics, large numbers of white middle-class Americans have become what I would call Dead Armadillo Republicans. They would vote Republican if the GOP candidate was a dead armadillo that had been scooped up off the road.
Why is this? Well, as we reported the last time one of these surveys came out, Republicans have been reaping an electoral windfall ever since Ronald Reagan so slyly played the race card in 1980. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has stated, the race card touches voters across the country. But its impact is particularly strong in the Deep South.
A recent Leonard Pitts column makes me think something else might be at work. I have a feeling that many white Americans go to church on Sunday morning and hear all manner of toxic garbage coming from pulpits--stuff that has nothing to do with the New Testament.
Pitts addresses this in his column, "Modern Christianity out of step with Jesus' teaching." Pitts notes a Naples, Florida preacher who addressed the issue of gay marriage. "This is a tremendous social crisis," Rev. Hayes Wicker said, "greater even than the issue of slavery."
Yes, a man of the cloth actually said that. And Pitts goes to the Rev. James Lawson for a response. Lawson has long been involved in human rights issue, and here is his response to Wicker's remarks:
"Obviously," said Lawson, "he does not know anything about the 250 years of slavery or the 143 years since slavery as the nation has largely failed to deal with the issue of slavery and its consequences. ... And he knows even less about the gospel of Jesus. ... Jesus broke all the social etiquette in terms of relating to people and bringing people into relationship with himself. He acknowledged no barriers or human divisions ... no category of sinners from who he would isolate himself."
I like a lot of things about my adopted home state--I wouldn't have stayed here for almost 30 years if I didn't. In fact, I'm finishing up a post about some of the many things I like about Alabama in general and Birmingham in particular. But every time someone does a voter survey in Alabama, at least lately, we come off looking like a bunch of dolts.
The latest poll, by the Capital Survey Research Center, shows that Republican John McCain would beat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama by 19 percentage points in Alabama if the election were held today.
The same poll shows that 49 percent of Alabamians say the war in Iraq was a mistake, and almost 45 percent of them want to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. McCain, of course, is the candidate among the remaining three who steadfastly supports keeping U.S. troops in Iraq.
And get this? By a 2-1 margin, Alabama voters said McCain would do the best job of protecting and restoring U.S. jobs lost as a result of passage in the mid 1990s of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Voters support McCain on this issue even though he voted for NAFTA and has been a strong supporter of free trade.
Birmingham News reporter Charles J. Dean says the survey produces "puzzling" results. The results aren't puzzling, they are stupid.
We can see only one conclusion to reach from this poll: Large numbers of Alabama voters are ignorant.
Actually, they aren't ignorant across the board. But on politics, large numbers of white middle-class Americans have become what I would call Dead Armadillo Republicans. They would vote Republican if the GOP candidate was a dead armadillo that had been scooped up off the road.
Why is this? Well, as we reported the last time one of these surveys came out, Republicans have been reaping an electoral windfall ever since Ronald Reagan so slyly played the race card in 1980. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has stated, the race card touches voters across the country. But its impact is particularly strong in the Deep South.
A recent Leonard Pitts column makes me think something else might be at work. I have a feeling that many white Americans go to church on Sunday morning and hear all manner of toxic garbage coming from pulpits--stuff that has nothing to do with the New Testament.
Pitts addresses this in his column, "Modern Christianity out of step with Jesus' teaching." Pitts notes a Naples, Florida preacher who addressed the issue of gay marriage. "This is a tremendous social crisis," Rev. Hayes Wicker said, "greater even than the issue of slavery."
Yes, a man of the cloth actually said that. And Pitts goes to the Rev. James Lawson for a response. Lawson has long been involved in human rights issue, and here is his response to Wicker's remarks:
"Obviously," said Lawson, "he does not know anything about the 250 years of slavery or the 143 years since slavery as the nation has largely failed to deal with the issue of slavery and its consequences. ... And he knows even less about the gospel of Jesus. ... Jesus broke all the social etiquette in terms of relating to people and bringing people into relationship with himself. He acknowledged no barriers or human divisions ... no category of sinners from who he would isolate himself."
Did "Friendlies" Have Impact on Siegelman and Minor Prosecutions?
We now know that former Justice Department official Robert Coughlin has pled guilty to criminal conflict of interest for improperly assisting the lobbying team of disgraced Republican booster Jack Abramoff. What we don't know is this: Just how important will this story become and what light might it shine on the prosecutions of Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi?
Much is still to be learned about the Coughlin case. As part of his plea deal, Coughlin has agreed to cooperate with an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General. That makes me think a number of Republicans, some in Alabama and Mississippi, might be doing serious squirming right about now. It also makes me think that a massive coverup effort is probably in the works.
Republicans have done a masterful job, so far, of limiting damage from the Abramoff affair. But will their luck hold out? That probably depends, to a great extent on First Assistant U.S. Attorney Stuart Goldberg, a 19-year Justice Department veteran who is leading the investigation. If Goldberg is a tough and honorable public servant (and press reports indicate that he might be just that) and if Congress girds its loins to look into the matter, the Coughlin story could prove to be huge.
It's also encouraging that the press, so far, is doing big-time work on this story. Marisa Taylor, of McClatchy Newspapers, broke the story. Susan Schmidt, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote an expansive piece (not available online). James Grimaldi of the Washington Post followed with a major story. And perhaps the most comprehensive report so far comes from reporters Joe Palazzolo and Pedro Ruz Gutierrez at Legal Times.
The Legal Times story is a splendid piece of journalism. It says that Coughlin and at least two other unnamed Justice officials helped secure a $16.3 million grant for a jail for an Abramoff client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
And here is what's really disturbing from the article:
Court documents filed in Coughlin's case and e-mails released through congressional investigations are explicit about Team Abramoff's line into the Justice Department: Coughlin was one of many "friendlies," as they are identified in Coughlin's statement of offense.
The article states that attention, till now, had focused primarily on Abramoff's influence in Congress. "Little attention, however, focused on Team Abramoff's sway in the Justice Department," Palazzolo and Gutierrez write.
And then there is this regarding Abramoff's lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig:
A review of e-mails released by Greenberg Traurig to congressional investigators four years ago shows that (Kevin) Ring, (Tony) Rudy and other Abramoff associates had friends throughout the (justice) department.
Try to wrap your minds around that, folks. One of the most corrupt political figures in modern American history had a direct pipeline into our justice department. And he was seeking political favors.
What could this mean for the Siegelman and Minor prosecutions in Alabama and Mississippi, respectively? Hard to answer that question definitely at this point. But let's consider some of the issues the Coughlin case raises in our neck of the woods:
* National press reports have said Coughlin resigned recently as deputy chief of staff in the Justice Department's criminal division. He also worked in the department's legislative-affairs office in 2001-02. It's unclear what role Coughlin might have played in prosecutions. But the Jackson Free Press, an independent weekly in Mississippi, has reported that Coughlin served in the Public Integrity Section and was part of the prosecution team in the Paul Minor case. The Free Press quotes Bill Minor, a longtime Mississippi journalist and father of Paul Minor, saying that Coughlin was among the prosecutors in his son's case.
* E-mails referred to in the Legal Times story show a clear pattern of communication between Abramoff and Karl Rove. Does that lend support to the idea that Rove was involved in pushing the Siegelman prosecution, and perhaps the Minor prosecution, too?
* What would it mean if Coughlin, an Abramoff "friendly," was serving on the prosecution team against Paul Minor, a well-known supporter of Democratic candidates and causes? What does that say about the political nature of the Minor prosecution?
* Was Coughlin involved, in any way, in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama? What would that mean, given that it has been reported that Abramoff funneled huge amounts of campaign dollars to Siegelman's opponent, Bob Riley, in the 2002 governor's race?
* Speaking of Bob Riley, his name always comes to mind when you hear the words "Abramoff," "Mississippi Choctaws," and "cash." Did Riley and his Alabama compadres (Bill Canary, Dax Swatek, Rob Riley, Steve Windom, others) have involvement with Coughlin?
* What became of that $16.3 million that was supposed to go for a jail for the Mississippi Choctaws? Isn't that an awful lot of money for a jail? Hasn't Abramoff confessed to taking Choctaw money and deflecting it to political purposes? What did he do with that jail money? Did anyone from Justice follow up to make sure the grant was used for its intended purposes? Is it possible that folks at Justice knew all along the money was going to be used for political purposes?
As you can see the questions are voluminous and dense. But Robert Coughlin could provide a major window into the world of "justice" in the Age of Rove.
Much is still to be learned about the Coughlin case. As part of his plea deal, Coughlin has agreed to cooperate with an investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General. That makes me think a number of Republicans, some in Alabama and Mississippi, might be doing serious squirming right about now. It also makes me think that a massive coverup effort is probably in the works.
Republicans have done a masterful job, so far, of limiting damage from the Abramoff affair. But will their luck hold out? That probably depends, to a great extent on First Assistant U.S. Attorney Stuart Goldberg, a 19-year Justice Department veteran who is leading the investigation. If Goldberg is a tough and honorable public servant (and press reports indicate that he might be just that) and if Congress girds its loins to look into the matter, the Coughlin story could prove to be huge.
It's also encouraging that the press, so far, is doing big-time work on this story. Marisa Taylor, of McClatchy Newspapers, broke the story. Susan Schmidt, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote an expansive piece (not available online). James Grimaldi of the Washington Post followed with a major story. And perhaps the most comprehensive report so far comes from reporters Joe Palazzolo and Pedro Ruz Gutierrez at Legal Times.
The Legal Times story is a splendid piece of journalism. It says that Coughlin and at least two other unnamed Justice officials helped secure a $16.3 million grant for a jail for an Abramoff client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.
And here is what's really disturbing from the article:
Court documents filed in Coughlin's case and e-mails released through congressional investigations are explicit about Team Abramoff's line into the Justice Department: Coughlin was one of many "friendlies," as they are identified in Coughlin's statement of offense.
The article states that attention, till now, had focused primarily on Abramoff's influence in Congress. "Little attention, however, focused on Team Abramoff's sway in the Justice Department," Palazzolo and Gutierrez write.
And then there is this regarding Abramoff's lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig:
A review of e-mails released by Greenberg Traurig to congressional investigators four years ago shows that (Kevin) Ring, (Tony) Rudy and other Abramoff associates had friends throughout the (justice) department.
Try to wrap your minds around that, folks. One of the most corrupt political figures in modern American history had a direct pipeline into our justice department. And he was seeking political favors.
What could this mean for the Siegelman and Minor prosecutions in Alabama and Mississippi, respectively? Hard to answer that question definitely at this point. But let's consider some of the issues the Coughlin case raises in our neck of the woods:
* National press reports have said Coughlin resigned recently as deputy chief of staff in the Justice Department's criminal division. He also worked in the department's legislative-affairs office in 2001-02. It's unclear what role Coughlin might have played in prosecutions. But the Jackson Free Press, an independent weekly in Mississippi, has reported that Coughlin served in the Public Integrity Section and was part of the prosecution team in the Paul Minor case. The Free Press quotes Bill Minor, a longtime Mississippi journalist and father of Paul Minor, saying that Coughlin was among the prosecutors in his son's case.
* E-mails referred to in the Legal Times story show a clear pattern of communication between Abramoff and Karl Rove. Does that lend support to the idea that Rove was involved in pushing the Siegelman prosecution, and perhaps the Minor prosecution, too?
* What would it mean if Coughlin, an Abramoff "friendly," was serving on the prosecution team against Paul Minor, a well-known supporter of Democratic candidates and causes? What does that say about the political nature of the Minor prosecution?
* Was Coughlin involved, in any way, in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama? What would that mean, given that it has been reported that Abramoff funneled huge amounts of campaign dollars to Siegelman's opponent, Bob Riley, in the 2002 governor's race?
* Speaking of Bob Riley, his name always comes to mind when you hear the words "Abramoff," "Mississippi Choctaws," and "cash." Did Riley and his Alabama compadres (Bill Canary, Dax Swatek, Rob Riley, Steve Windom, others) have involvement with Coughlin?
* What became of that $16.3 million that was supposed to go for a jail for the Mississippi Choctaws? Isn't that an awful lot of money for a jail? Hasn't Abramoff confessed to taking Choctaw money and deflecting it to political purposes? What did he do with that jail money? Did anyone from Justice follow up to make sure the grant was used for its intended purposes? Is it possible that folks at Justice knew all along the money was going to be used for political purposes?
As you can see the questions are voluminous and dense. But Robert Coughlin could provide a major window into the world of "justice" in the Age of Rove.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Brett Blackledge and a Strange New Form of Journalism
Let's return to the subject of WHNT reporter Greg Privett and his Sunday night report on coverage of the Don Siegelman case.
Privett produced three solid, balanced pieces last week, all generated from a lecture by Harper's Scott Horton at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Privett's Sunday night piece can be viewed here, by scrolling down to "NewsChannel 19 Special Report: Don Siegelman and the News Media."
It's refreshing to see an Alabama journalist taking a serious look at issues connected to the Siegelman case. As Horton correctly points out, the story has been driven so far by national journalists. But with Privett's help, perhaps that is about to change.
Privett's first two pieces centered on Horton's criticisms of the Alabama press, particularly the ink-stained wretches at The Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register. In his Sunday piece, Privett gave the News' Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Brett Blackledge a chance to fire back at Horton.
I was expecting Blackledge to come out with both barrels blazing. Instead, he's like one of those cartoon characters who fires a gun only to have a little flag pop out, with the word "bang" on it.
Privett reports that Blackledge contacted NewsChannel 19 and asked for a chance to respond to Horton's criticisms. That's an act from the Eddie Curran School of Journalism, so I was expecting Blackledge to be all slobber and spit and foam.
Instead, Blackledge is strangely subdued. In fact, he evidently would not submit to an on-camera interview; WHNT didn't use one anyway. What the viewer gets is a written statement from Blackledge, focusing mainly on the Jill Simpson component of the Siegelman story:
"The Alabama media and many other national media approached by Simpson, Siegelman, and others are challenging the more fantastic, and as yet unproven, claims of White House interference in Siegelman's case and asking for proof to substantiate such claims. It may exist, and if it does, it should be offered to help everyone understand the issue."
Regular readers know that I enjoy playing dime-store psychology from time to time (OK, almost every day), so allow me to engage in a little analysis of our guy Brett. I propose that Blackledge is engaged in some serious passive-aggressive behavior. Or in his case, maybe it would more accurately be called aggressive-passive. He aggressively seeks an opportunity to respond to Horton's critiques. But then he goes all soft and passive, delivering up a prepared statement that has all the consistency of mush.
What message is Blackledge sending? I can think of a few:
* He says Simpson, Siegelman, and "others" have approached the Alabama and national press, apparently in an effort to "sell" their stories. How does Blackledge know this? Given that 60 Minutes, The New York Times, Time magazine, and others have covered the story, Simpson and company must have done quite a selling job. But how does Blackledge know that these news outlets did not approach Simpson & Co.? That's the way it usually works--reporters go after news, not the other way around. By the way, how would Siegelman approach anybody about the story? He just spent most of the past 10 months in federal prison?
* Blackledge says the press is challenging the more "fantastic" claims made by Simpson/Siegelman? Don't know what "press" Blackledge is talking about, but consider 60 Minutes. That august news outfit evidently "challenged" the claims by doing something called "reporting"--conducting research, interviewing subjects, checking facts, etc. The folks at 60 Minutes, who have participated in a few big stories in their day, found the claims compelling enough to devote one long piece and one shorter piece to the subject. How is Blackledge challenging the Simpson/Siegelman claims? How does he know the claims are "fantastic?" Has he done any reporting? Has he done anything, other than call Karl Rove on speed dial?
* I thought newspaper reporters, especially those who win Pulitzer Prizes, were supposed to be aggressive cusses. Blackledge seems to want stories dumped at his feet. Is that the way he approaches all stories? Or just the ones that don't fit his desired ideological profile?
* Isn't it interesting that Blackledge never actually addresses Horton's criticism at all? Instead, his entire statement revolves around Jill Simpson. From Karl Rove's recent interview with GQ, we know the former White House adviser is borderline obsessed with Simpson. Isn't it interesting that Blackledge is obsessed with Simpson, as well?
* And isn't it interesting that Blackledge seems blissfully unaware that there is a Don Siegelman story out there, beyond anything involving Jill Simpson and Karl Rove? A little legwork regarding the backgrounds and actions of the prosecutors and the judge in the case would reveal volumes of information that point to political and unlawful prosecution. Heck, just checking the jury instructions alone, along with Judge Mark Fuller's pathetic memorandum opinion regarding Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal, would clearly show the political machinations going on in the case. While Simpson certainly is a key player, her story goes way beyond Karl Rove. In fact, her story would be important, and compelling, even if she had never mentioned "Karl." The crux of her story is this: That Alabama Republican operative Bill Canary said he was working with two U.S. attorneys, his "girls" Leura Canary and Alice Martin, to ensure that Don Siegelman would be taken care of. If Blackledge can't see a story in that, one worth digging for, he needs to turn in his press badge and start selling insurance.
Privett produced three solid, balanced pieces last week, all generated from a lecture by Harper's Scott Horton at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Privett's Sunday night piece can be viewed here, by scrolling down to "NewsChannel 19 Special Report: Don Siegelman and the News Media."
It's refreshing to see an Alabama journalist taking a serious look at issues connected to the Siegelman case. As Horton correctly points out, the story has been driven so far by national journalists. But with Privett's help, perhaps that is about to change.
Privett's first two pieces centered on Horton's criticisms of the Alabama press, particularly the ink-stained wretches at The Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register. In his Sunday piece, Privett gave the News' Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Brett Blackledge a chance to fire back at Horton.
I was expecting Blackledge to come out with both barrels blazing. Instead, he's like one of those cartoon characters who fires a gun only to have a little flag pop out, with the word "bang" on it.
Privett reports that Blackledge contacted NewsChannel 19 and asked for a chance to respond to Horton's criticisms. That's an act from the Eddie Curran School of Journalism, so I was expecting Blackledge to be all slobber and spit and foam.
Instead, Blackledge is strangely subdued. In fact, he evidently would not submit to an on-camera interview; WHNT didn't use one anyway. What the viewer gets is a written statement from Blackledge, focusing mainly on the Jill Simpson component of the Siegelman story:
"The Alabama media and many other national media approached by Simpson, Siegelman, and others are challenging the more fantastic, and as yet unproven, claims of White House interference in Siegelman's case and asking for proof to substantiate such claims. It may exist, and if it does, it should be offered to help everyone understand the issue."
Regular readers know that I enjoy playing dime-store psychology from time to time (OK, almost every day), so allow me to engage in a little analysis of our guy Brett. I propose that Blackledge is engaged in some serious passive-aggressive behavior. Or in his case, maybe it would more accurately be called aggressive-passive. He aggressively seeks an opportunity to respond to Horton's critiques. But then he goes all soft and passive, delivering up a prepared statement that has all the consistency of mush.
What message is Blackledge sending? I can think of a few:
* He says Simpson, Siegelman, and "others" have approached the Alabama and national press, apparently in an effort to "sell" their stories. How does Blackledge know this? Given that 60 Minutes, The New York Times, Time magazine, and others have covered the story, Simpson and company must have done quite a selling job. But how does Blackledge know that these news outlets did not approach Simpson & Co.? That's the way it usually works--reporters go after news, not the other way around. By the way, how would Siegelman approach anybody about the story? He just spent most of the past 10 months in federal prison?
* Blackledge says the press is challenging the more "fantastic" claims made by Simpson/Siegelman? Don't know what "press" Blackledge is talking about, but consider 60 Minutes. That august news outfit evidently "challenged" the claims by doing something called "reporting"--conducting research, interviewing subjects, checking facts, etc. The folks at 60 Minutes, who have participated in a few big stories in their day, found the claims compelling enough to devote one long piece and one shorter piece to the subject. How is Blackledge challenging the Simpson/Siegelman claims? How does he know the claims are "fantastic?" Has he done any reporting? Has he done anything, other than call Karl Rove on speed dial?
* I thought newspaper reporters, especially those who win Pulitzer Prizes, were supposed to be aggressive cusses. Blackledge seems to want stories dumped at his feet. Is that the way he approaches all stories? Or just the ones that don't fit his desired ideological profile?
* Isn't it interesting that Blackledge never actually addresses Horton's criticism at all? Instead, his entire statement revolves around Jill Simpson. From Karl Rove's recent interview with GQ, we know the former White House adviser is borderline obsessed with Simpson. Isn't it interesting that Blackledge is obsessed with Simpson, as well?
* And isn't it interesting that Blackledge seems blissfully unaware that there is a Don Siegelman story out there, beyond anything involving Jill Simpson and Karl Rove? A little legwork regarding the backgrounds and actions of the prosecutors and the judge in the case would reveal volumes of information that point to political and unlawful prosecution. Heck, just checking the jury instructions alone, along with Judge Mark Fuller's pathetic memorandum opinion regarding Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal, would clearly show the political machinations going on in the case. While Simpson certainly is a key player, her story goes way beyond Karl Rove. In fact, her story would be important, and compelling, even if she had never mentioned "Karl." The crux of her story is this: That Alabama Republican operative Bill Canary said he was working with two U.S. attorneys, his "girls" Leura Canary and Alice Martin, to ensure that Don Siegelman would be taken care of. If Blackledge can't see a story in that, one worth digging for, he needs to turn in his press badge and start selling insurance.
McCain, Alabama, and Hypocrisy
Does Republican presidential candidate John McCain have a hypocrisy problem? If you read the pages of Alabama newspapers last week, you saw the answer is yes.
On page B1 of Thursday's Birmingham News, we learn that McCain remains opposed to spending federal tax dollars to repair Vulcan, the statue that sits atop Red Mountain and is perhaps Birmingham's most famed landmark. So McCain is opposed to so-called pork spending on public facilities such as Vulcan.
But maybe public facilities wouldn't need so much federal support if well-heeled customers paid their fair share when using those facilities--customers like the John McCain for President Campaign.
On page A1 of that same day's paper, we learn that the McCain campaign received a cut rate for use of a public facility in the Birmingham suburb of Homewood. The McCain campaign received a discount of about 80 percent for use of Rosewood Hall last week. Jefferson County Democrats used the same facility in September 2007 and were charged the full rate.
McCain's campaign was charged $250 for two rooms in the hall, which normally would book for $1,200 for a weeknight. The campaign also was provided free labor from Homewood City Jail inmates.
Homewood Mayor Barry McCulley clearly has stepped in some serious doo-doo with this one, but he continues to try to spin it so as to appear to be fair to all comers. So far, McCulley's efforts seem to be falling flat.
"I think it's outrageous," said Robert Yarbrough, chair of the Jefferson County Democratic Party and a Homewood resident. Members of the Homewood City Council also are questioning McCulley's handling of the matter.
But I'm more interested in what this says about McCain and his followers. On the one hand, McCain is opposed to spending federal dollars on public facilities. But he has no problem with stiffing a public facility.
Of course, McCain leads either Democratic presidential candidate by 20 percent in polls of Alabama voters. So why should he care if he screws Alabama cities out of much needed income?
As for McCulley, I understand he issued a statement today, saying that he would ask the McCain campaign to pay what should have been the regular rate. If the McCain campaign refuses, McCulley says he will reimburse the city himself.
Seems like an honorable thing for the mayor to do. Will be interesting to see how the McCainites respond.
On page B1 of Thursday's Birmingham News, we learn that McCain remains opposed to spending federal tax dollars to repair Vulcan, the statue that sits atop Red Mountain and is perhaps Birmingham's most famed landmark. So McCain is opposed to so-called pork spending on public facilities such as Vulcan.
But maybe public facilities wouldn't need so much federal support if well-heeled customers paid their fair share when using those facilities--customers like the John McCain for President Campaign.
On page A1 of that same day's paper, we learn that the McCain campaign received a cut rate for use of a public facility in the Birmingham suburb of Homewood. The McCain campaign received a discount of about 80 percent for use of Rosewood Hall last week. Jefferson County Democrats used the same facility in September 2007 and were charged the full rate.
McCain's campaign was charged $250 for two rooms in the hall, which normally would book for $1,200 for a weeknight. The campaign also was provided free labor from Homewood City Jail inmates.
Homewood Mayor Barry McCulley clearly has stepped in some serious doo-doo with this one, but he continues to try to spin it so as to appear to be fair to all comers. So far, McCulley's efforts seem to be falling flat.
"I think it's outrageous," said Robert Yarbrough, chair of the Jefferson County Democratic Party and a Homewood resident. Members of the Homewood City Council also are questioning McCulley's handling of the matter.
But I'm more interested in what this says about McCain and his followers. On the one hand, McCain is opposed to spending federal dollars on public facilities. But he has no problem with stiffing a public facility.
Of course, McCain leads either Democratic presidential candidate by 20 percent in polls of Alabama voters. So why should he care if he screws Alabama cities out of much needed income?
As for McCulley, I understand he issued a statement today, saying that he would ask the McCain campaign to pay what should have been the regular rate. If the McCain campaign refuses, McCulley says he will reimburse the city himself.
Seems like an honorable thing for the mayor to do. Will be interesting to see how the McCainites respond.
Horton and Blackledge Tussle
Your humble blogger jumped the gun a bit when I posted this item on Saturday. Scott Horton had not intended for his comments to be published until after WHNT had been able to run its report on Sunday night. WHNT has run its report--and it was interesting, by the way--so let's put this baby back up. More coming on WHNT's Sunday evening piece from reporter Greg Privett.
------------------------------------------
I miss the heck out of Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's. The blogosphere without Horton is kind of like the Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger. (Don't know that Horton has ever been compared to Mick Jagger before; I wanted to be the first to do it.)
Actually, Horton still does an occasional post at No Comment. But he is spending most of his time on longer form magazine pieces and, I hope, a book or two that will educate the American public about the Bush Department of Justice--at least those Americans who are willing to be educated.
Fortunately, thanks to Pam Miles' e-mail list, we still have access to Horton's thoughts from time to time. And today, we get his thoughts about efforts by Birmingham News hack Brett Blackledge to call Horton's professionalism into question.
This all comes because a member of the Alabama press apparently has awakened and decided its time to start covering justice-related issues in our fair state. We are talking about Greg Privett, an investigative reporter at television station WHNT in Huntsville. Privett provided excellent coverage of Horton's lecture last week at UAH--plus issues surrounding that lecture--and apparently plans an interview with Blackledge that I believe will air on Sunday evening.
Privett sought comment from Horton about Blackledge's statements, and Horton provides an update for readers of Miles' e-mail list. Here is what Horton wrote:
Interesting discussion with Greg Privett of WHNT. He asked me for a reaction to Brett Blackledge's comment on my "lack of professionalism." Brett's devastating criticism is--get this--that I write about him and never call for his reaction!
I explained to Greg that there is a difference between a news story and a media critique. I criticize Brett's reporting of a news story. This is not a news story; it's my opinion about what's wrong with his reporting. There is no rule of journalistic ethics I know of that requires a critic to call the person criticized and publish his reaction to the criticism--check Howard Kurtz, or any other media critic for that matter. (This exact point is in the news today, in fact, as Keith Olbermann complains about Rachel Sklar's coverage of a recent segment that he did with Howard Fineman and says she didn't call him for comment--as other media critics quickly pointed out, that's not the way the game is played). Moreover, this is done in blog format, and one of the distinctions between this and print format is that blog postings are done in real time, and people with comments or criticisms are welcome to put them in and have them printed (which we do, with regularity), so the opportunity for comment takes a different form. But aside from this, Brett doesn't call me for comment when he criticizes me either (as in his last piece, in which I am a "partisan blogger" that the Judiciary Committee foolishly relies on in its latest report). I'm fine with that. Nothing the matter with it, in fact.
The problem with Brett's last piece is that it's riddled with factual mistakes--in fact the News had to run a retraction on it this morning (below). But their retraction only begins to hit the mistakes in the article. Here are some others:
The whole theme of the article is that the Judiciary Committee's Majority Report on Political Prosecutions was "proof of politics in the two-year college affair." But that's like a gnat on the back of a dog imagining it's the center of the known universe. Ridiculous. Only in the mind of Brett Blackledge, for whom the two-year college probe is the universe.
He then discusses the Sue Schmitz defense motion arguing a case for political prosecution, and he grossly distorts and miscites the motion. Go look at the Legal Schnauzer on this--Roger has done a side-by-side comparison of the way the Huntsville Times and AP reported the same story. You'll see the difference between professional, responsible journalism, and crude political hackery.
And we find this gem: The House Judiciary Majority Report
"frequently cites Internet postings by partisan bloggers working with Siegelman and his allies as evidence of growing public outrage, noting one blogger's concerns about the "aggressive and ongoing prosecution effort" in the two-year college investigation."
Note: I am a "partisan blogger working with Siegelman and his allies. . ." That's interesting. Exactly what party do I work with? Can't recall having been involved with a political campaign at any point in my life. And the first time I met Don Siegelman was Tuesday night at the function in Huntsville. This is BB engaging in unfounded character assassination. Oh, and by the way, he never called me for a comment! I forgot, for BB this rule applies only when *he* is the subject of criticism.
He states:
"Former White House adviser Karl Rove's connection to the case, for example, relies on Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson's statements, which have changed at least twice."
This statement is false. It rests on a complete fraud: BB's claim to have comprehensively interviewed Simpson. He did not. He called her, spoke for 105 minutes, asking only for one thing: her comments on a particular group of lines from an affidavit. He never asked her about any of the underlying facts and he never asked her the perfectly obvious question: did she understand "Karl" as a reference to "Karl Rove." His questions were all explicitly within the confines of the affidavit and were answered on that extremely limiting premise. Of course, I, Scott Pelley of CBS, Adam Zagorin of TIME, Glynn Wilson, Larisa Alexandrovna and the House Judiciary investigator--unlike BB--had interviewed her thoroughly, which is why we know his editorial comment is a pile of crap.
He states:
"And months later, Simpson went even further in a television interview, saying Rove hired her to follow Siegelman in 2001 to find dirt on the Democrat. Simpson did not make such claims in her sworn statement or congressional testimony."
This is a false statement in multiple respects. The interview was broadcast months later; it was conducted very early in the process, so BB's chronology is twisted, as usual. And Simpson never made a statement to the effect that Rove "hired her" to do anything. Here BB is quoting that wonderful source that he seems to follow closely, the blog Powerline. (Karl Rove's blog of choice.)
He states:
"Rove again denied involvement in the Siegelman prosecution, which Simpson and bloggers argue occurred in 2001 and 2002, after Rove started work as a top adviser to President Bush. To make their point, Simpson and others have said Rove secretly worked behind the scenes to help Gov. Riley's 2002 gubernatorial campaign."
Really? As I told Dan Abrams in the broadcast that seems to have given Rove (and his favorite 'Bama scribbler, BB) a fit, Rove was involved in financing and strategizing for the financing of the Riley campaign in 2002. Was this "secretly" and "behind the scenes"? Only in the mind of BB. Just go look at the White House website. You'll find that the key event in the course of campaign fundraising for the Riley 2002 effort was a fundraiser conducted on July 15, 2002 in Birmingham. The organizers were Karl Rove and Bill Canary. The featured speaker was George Bush. There was nothing remotely "secret" about it. It netted $4 million for the Riley campaign. And what, I ask, does BB think that Karl Rove did as political director at the White House? Networking with local Republicans and using the clout of the White House to bolster the position of the president's party is an essential piece of the job description. But we forget, BB lives in an alternate universe, in which anyone who thinks Karl Rove is involved in local politics also believes in "black helicopters."
And note throughout: BB mangles, misstates and distorts the charges contained in the House report, and then presents rebuttal from prosecutors who curiously won't speak on camera to the national media, or appear and testify in Congress, but love to speak with BB. And that's the most revealing fact of all.
Corrections and Clarifications
Birmingham News, Saturday, April 26, 2008
A Page One story Tuesday stated Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson said former White House counselor Karl Rove hired her to find dirt on Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman in 2001. Simpson said she was asked by Rove to follow Siegelman, but did not use the word "hired." Rove has denied meeting or working with Simpson. The News article also stated Gov. Bob Riley's former chief of staff, Toby Roth, has said Simpson lashed out at him and other Republicans with her Rove allegations after she failed to win a state contract. Simpson was representing a client who sought a state contract.
Unlike his compadre Eddie Curran, Blackledge has been smart enough (until now) to not engage in public debate with Horton. Even Blackledge, I suspect, knows that's an intellectual mismatch.
But it looks like our guy Brett is stepping into the deep end of the pool without his flotation device. Hope the lifeguard is paying attention, because Brett is likely to be flailing about and calling for help soon enough.
Here's another thought about Curran and Blackledge: Numerous e-mailers have noted that they called the Mobile Press-Register to complain about Curran's behavior at the UAH event on Tuesday night. It seems almost all of those callers were told they were the only person who had called to complain. Hmmm.
It seems as if there is nothing Curran could do that would be so heinous as to get him fired at the Press-Register. And the same seems to hold true for Blackledge. I've known a few newspaper editors in my day, and I know more than one that would have given Blackledge his walking papers--Pulitzer Prize or not--for an article as biased, sloppy, inaccurate, and poorly reported as the one he did on the Schmitz case.
Do the Press-Register and News just have brain-dead managers who don't discipline wayward staffers and don't care about the images their reporters present to the community? Certainly possible. Or are Curran and Blackledge safe because they have well-heeled supporters who are external to the newspaper and make sure these reporters are free and safe to pursue politically slanted coverage?
It almost seems to me that Curran and Blackledge have what you might call "sugar daddies," people who provide them cover and support (financial or otherwise) to "report" in a partisan manner.
That's the only explanation I can think of for the Mobile paper to consistently turn a blind eye to Curran's bizarre and unprofessional behavior. (On most newspapers I'm familiar with, he would have been fired a long time ago.) If that's not the case, then the Mobile Press-Register has the most inept managers in the history of the newspaper industry. And the Birmingham News' managers are not far behind.
------------------------------------------
I miss the heck out of Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's. The blogosphere without Horton is kind of like the Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger. (Don't know that Horton has ever been compared to Mick Jagger before; I wanted to be the first to do it.)
Actually, Horton still does an occasional post at No Comment. But he is spending most of his time on longer form magazine pieces and, I hope, a book or two that will educate the American public about the Bush Department of Justice--at least those Americans who are willing to be educated.
Fortunately, thanks to Pam Miles' e-mail list, we still have access to Horton's thoughts from time to time. And today, we get his thoughts about efforts by Birmingham News hack Brett Blackledge to call Horton's professionalism into question.
This all comes because a member of the Alabama press apparently has awakened and decided its time to start covering justice-related issues in our fair state. We are talking about Greg Privett, an investigative reporter at television station WHNT in Huntsville. Privett provided excellent coverage of Horton's lecture last week at UAH--plus issues surrounding that lecture--and apparently plans an interview with Blackledge that I believe will air on Sunday evening.
Privett sought comment from Horton about Blackledge's statements, and Horton provides an update for readers of Miles' e-mail list. Here is what Horton wrote:
Interesting discussion with Greg Privett of WHNT. He asked me for a reaction to Brett Blackledge's comment on my "lack of professionalism." Brett's devastating criticism is--get this--that I write about him and never call for his reaction!
I explained to Greg that there is a difference between a news story and a media critique. I criticize Brett's reporting of a news story. This is not a news story; it's my opinion about what's wrong with his reporting. There is no rule of journalistic ethics I know of that requires a critic to call the person criticized and publish his reaction to the criticism--check Howard Kurtz, or any other media critic for that matter. (This exact point is in the news today, in fact, as Keith Olbermann complains about Rachel Sklar's coverage of a recent segment that he did with Howard Fineman and says she didn't call him for comment--as other media critics quickly pointed out, that's not the way the game is played). Moreover, this is done in blog format, and one of the distinctions between this and print format is that blog postings are done in real time, and people with comments or criticisms are welcome to put them in and have them printed (which we do, with regularity), so the opportunity for comment takes a different form. But aside from this, Brett doesn't call me for comment when he criticizes me either (as in his last piece, in which I am a "partisan blogger" that the Judiciary Committee foolishly relies on in its latest report). I'm fine with that. Nothing the matter with it, in fact.
The problem with Brett's last piece is that it's riddled with factual mistakes--in fact the News had to run a retraction on it this morning (below). But their retraction only begins to hit the mistakes in the article. Here are some others:
The whole theme of the article is that the Judiciary Committee's Majority Report on Political Prosecutions was "proof of politics in the two-year college affair." But that's like a gnat on the back of a dog imagining it's the center of the known universe. Ridiculous. Only in the mind of Brett Blackledge, for whom the two-year college probe is the universe.
He then discusses the Sue Schmitz defense motion arguing a case for political prosecution, and he grossly distorts and miscites the motion. Go look at the Legal Schnauzer on this--Roger has done a side-by-side comparison of the way the Huntsville Times and AP reported the same story. You'll see the difference between professional, responsible journalism, and crude political hackery.
And we find this gem: The House Judiciary Majority Report
"frequently cites Internet postings by partisan bloggers working with Siegelman and his allies as evidence of growing public outrage, noting one blogger's concerns about the "aggressive and ongoing prosecution effort" in the two-year college investigation."
Note: I am a "partisan blogger working with Siegelman and his allies. . ." That's interesting. Exactly what party do I work with? Can't recall having been involved with a political campaign at any point in my life. And the first time I met Don Siegelman was Tuesday night at the function in Huntsville. This is BB engaging in unfounded character assassination. Oh, and by the way, he never called me for a comment! I forgot, for BB this rule applies only when *he* is the subject of criticism.
He states:
"Former White House adviser Karl Rove's connection to the case, for example, relies on Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson's statements, which have changed at least twice."
This statement is false. It rests on a complete fraud: BB's claim to have comprehensively interviewed Simpson. He did not. He called her, spoke for 105 minutes, asking only for one thing: her comments on a particular group of lines from an affidavit. He never asked her about any of the underlying facts and he never asked her the perfectly obvious question: did she understand "Karl" as a reference to "Karl Rove." His questions were all explicitly within the confines of the affidavit and were answered on that extremely limiting premise. Of course, I, Scott Pelley of CBS, Adam Zagorin of TIME, Glynn Wilson, Larisa Alexandrovna and the House Judiciary investigator--unlike BB--had interviewed her thoroughly, which is why we know his editorial comment is a pile of crap.
He states:
"And months later, Simpson went even further in a television interview, saying Rove hired her to follow Siegelman in 2001 to find dirt on the Democrat. Simpson did not make such claims in her sworn statement or congressional testimony."
This is a false statement in multiple respects. The interview was broadcast months later; it was conducted very early in the process, so BB's chronology is twisted, as usual. And Simpson never made a statement to the effect that Rove "hired her" to do anything. Here BB is quoting that wonderful source that he seems to follow closely, the blog Powerline. (Karl Rove's blog of choice.)
He states:
"Rove again denied involvement in the Siegelman prosecution, which Simpson and bloggers argue occurred in 2001 and 2002, after Rove started work as a top adviser to President Bush. To make their point, Simpson and others have said Rove secretly worked behind the scenes to help Gov. Riley's 2002 gubernatorial campaign."
Really? As I told Dan Abrams in the broadcast that seems to have given Rove (and his favorite 'Bama scribbler, BB) a fit, Rove was involved in financing and strategizing for the financing of the Riley campaign in 2002. Was this "secretly" and "behind the scenes"? Only in the mind of BB. Just go look at the White House website. You'll find that the key event in the course of campaign fundraising for the Riley 2002 effort was a fundraiser conducted on July 15, 2002 in Birmingham. The organizers were Karl Rove and Bill Canary. The featured speaker was George Bush. There was nothing remotely "secret" about it. It netted $4 million for the Riley campaign. And what, I ask, does BB think that Karl Rove did as political director at the White House? Networking with local Republicans and using the clout of the White House to bolster the position of the president's party is an essential piece of the job description. But we forget, BB lives in an alternate universe, in which anyone who thinks Karl Rove is involved in local politics also believes in "black helicopters."
And note throughout: BB mangles, misstates and distorts the charges contained in the House report, and then presents rebuttal from prosecutors who curiously won't speak on camera to the national media, or appear and testify in Congress, but love to speak with BB. And that's the most revealing fact of all.
Corrections and Clarifications
Birmingham News, Saturday, April 26, 2008
A Page One story Tuesday stated Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson said former White House counselor Karl Rove hired her to find dirt on Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman in 2001. Simpson said she was asked by Rove to follow Siegelman, but did not use the word "hired." Rove has denied meeting or working with Simpson. The News article also stated Gov. Bob Riley's former chief of staff, Toby Roth, has said Simpson lashed out at him and other Republicans with her Rove allegations after she failed to win a state contract. Simpson was representing a client who sought a state contract.
Unlike his compadre Eddie Curran, Blackledge has been smart enough (until now) to not engage in public debate with Horton. Even Blackledge, I suspect, knows that's an intellectual mismatch.
But it looks like our guy Brett is stepping into the deep end of the pool without his flotation device. Hope the lifeguard is paying attention, because Brett is likely to be flailing about and calling for help soon enough.
Here's another thought about Curran and Blackledge: Numerous e-mailers have noted that they called the Mobile Press-Register to complain about Curran's behavior at the UAH event on Tuesday night. It seems almost all of those callers were told they were the only person who had called to complain. Hmmm.
It seems as if there is nothing Curran could do that would be so heinous as to get him fired at the Press-Register. And the same seems to hold true for Blackledge. I've known a few newspaper editors in my day, and I know more than one that would have given Blackledge his walking papers--Pulitzer Prize or not--for an article as biased, sloppy, inaccurate, and poorly reported as the one he did on the Schmitz case.
Do the Press-Register and News just have brain-dead managers who don't discipline wayward staffers and don't care about the images their reporters present to the community? Certainly possible. Or are Curran and Blackledge safe because they have well-heeled supporters who are external to the newspaper and make sure these reporters are free and safe to pursue politically slanted coverage?
It almost seems to me that Curran and Blackledge have what you might call "sugar daddies," people who provide them cover and support (financial or otherwise) to "report" in a partisan manner.
That's the only explanation I can think of for the Mobile paper to consistently turn a blind eye to Curran's bizarre and unprofessional behavior. (On most newspapers I'm familiar with, he would have been fired a long time ago.) If that's not the case, then the Mobile Press-Register has the most inept managers in the history of the newspaper industry. And the Birmingham News' managers are not far behind.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Minor Prosecutor Had Abramoff Ties
A major story is breaking in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and it is a classic example of the alternative press' ability to piece stories together that have been largely ignored by mainstream news outlets. This story also could have major implications for the Don Siegelman case and the overall Bush Justice Department scandal.
Robert E. Coughlin II, the former deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department's criminal division, pleaded guilty last week to accepting thousands of dollars worth of meals and sports tickets in exchange for helping clients of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
What does this mean to the Minor case? We can thank the Jackson Free Press, a weekly independent paper in Mississippi, for helping to answer that question.
The Free Press took information about Coughlin's legal woes and interviewed Bill Minor, a veteran Mississippi journalist who is well known for his courageous reporting during the civil rights era. Bill Minor also happens to be the father of Paul Minor, a highly successful attorney and Democratic supporter who is in federal prison (along with two former state judges) for convictions in a trial that might be even worse than the Siegelman case when it comes to the issue of political prosecution.
We learn from the Free Press that Robert Coughlin was one of the federal prosecutors in the Paul Minor case. We also learn that while Coughlin was involved in the Minor case he was helping to cover up crimes committed by Abramoff. Consider this quote from Bill Minor:
"It is clear from recent events that the U.S. Department of Justice was corrupt. Just yesterday, the former deputy director of the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, Robert Coughlin who prosecuted Paul, was accused of taking bribes to go easy on an investigation of the notorious Jack Abramoff, the prominent Republican lobbyist who is now in jail for paying off several members of the US Congress."
Bill Minor also has some choice words for U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, who ramrodded the Minor prosecution in a grotesque example of judicial misconduct--which probably rises to the level of criminal activity. We have reported extensively here at Legal Schnauzer on Henry Wingate's butchery of the Minor case. But let's give Bill Minor the floor:
"Knowingly or not, Judge Henry Wingate became a tool for the corrupt DOJ, rejecting use of 80 percent of the evidence used in Paul’s first trial when he, along with Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted, and refusing to allow evidence from expert witnesses who could have shown that the judge’s decisions and rulings in the two earlier cases of so called bribery of judges John Whitfield and (Wes) Teel were exactly correct. I had a high regard for Wingate when he was first appointed to the bench 25 years ago, but I do not anymore. I hate to be so blunt."
Actually, Bill Minor is being polite. There is no way Wingate acted in an unknowing manner. The judge's unlawful actions, which resulted in three innocent men going to federal prison and untold grief for another (Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, who was acquitted twice), had to have been done intentionally. And the facts indicate that Wingate did it to gain favor with the Bush White House, apparently so they would appoint him to a coveted seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--a seat Wingate did not get, in spite of all his shenanigans.
Speaking of the alternative press, the Hissyspit journal at Democratic Underground has an excellent recap of the latest on the Paul Minor case.
What does this mean for the Siegelman case? That remains fuzzy. The Jackson Free Press reports that Coughlin worked in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, which means he served under Noel Hillman, former head of that section.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported extensively on Hillman's prominent role in the Siegelman case. Perhaps more importantly, Horton has noted the critical role Hillman played in keeping the Abramoff matter under control. While the Abramoff case has been a troublesome brushfire for Republicans, it could have turned into a forest fire of epic proportions. Horton has reported on Hillman's vital role in keeping the blaze to manageable size.
Now we know that one of Hillman's associates was actively helping to provide cover for Abramoff's unsavory activities. And we have known for some time that one beneficiary of Abramoff's dirty money was Bob Riley, who used it to eek out a slim victory over Siegelman in Alabama's 2002 race for governor.
When Siegelman tried to make a run at Riley in 2006, he wound up the subject of a federal investigation. And this came from a Justice Department that we now know had prosecutors actually providing cover for Jack Abramoff.
How much dirtier can all of this get? My guess is that we are only beginning to comprehend the level of sleaze that has been present in the Bush Justice Department. And before it's done, I bet we learn much more about how Jack Abramoff and his "friendlies" influenced the fate of Don Siegelman.
Folks who are interested in the Siegelman case would be wise to pay close attention to the Robert Coughlin case.
Robert E. Coughlin II, the former deputy chief of staff of the Justice Department's criminal division, pleaded guilty last week to accepting thousands of dollars worth of meals and sports tickets in exchange for helping clients of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
What does this mean to the Minor case? We can thank the Jackson Free Press, a weekly independent paper in Mississippi, for helping to answer that question.
The Free Press took information about Coughlin's legal woes and interviewed Bill Minor, a veteran Mississippi journalist who is well known for his courageous reporting during the civil rights era. Bill Minor also happens to be the father of Paul Minor, a highly successful attorney and Democratic supporter who is in federal prison (along with two former state judges) for convictions in a trial that might be even worse than the Siegelman case when it comes to the issue of political prosecution.
We learn from the Free Press that Robert Coughlin was one of the federal prosecutors in the Paul Minor case. We also learn that while Coughlin was involved in the Minor case he was helping to cover up crimes committed by Abramoff. Consider this quote from Bill Minor:
"It is clear from recent events that the U.S. Department of Justice was corrupt. Just yesterday, the former deputy director of the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, Robert Coughlin who prosecuted Paul, was accused of taking bribes to go easy on an investigation of the notorious Jack Abramoff, the prominent Republican lobbyist who is now in jail for paying off several members of the US Congress."
Bill Minor also has some choice words for U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, who ramrodded the Minor prosecution in a grotesque example of judicial misconduct--which probably rises to the level of criminal activity. We have reported extensively here at Legal Schnauzer on Henry Wingate's butchery of the Minor case. But let's give Bill Minor the floor:
"Knowingly or not, Judge Henry Wingate became a tool for the corrupt DOJ, rejecting use of 80 percent of the evidence used in Paul’s first trial when he, along with Justice Oliver Diaz was acquitted, and refusing to allow evidence from expert witnesses who could have shown that the judge’s decisions and rulings in the two earlier cases of so called bribery of judges John Whitfield and (Wes) Teel were exactly correct. I had a high regard for Wingate when he was first appointed to the bench 25 years ago, but I do not anymore. I hate to be so blunt."
Actually, Bill Minor is being polite. There is no way Wingate acted in an unknowing manner. The judge's unlawful actions, which resulted in three innocent men going to federal prison and untold grief for another (Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, who was acquitted twice), had to have been done intentionally. And the facts indicate that Wingate did it to gain favor with the Bush White House, apparently so they would appoint him to a coveted seat on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--a seat Wingate did not get, in spite of all his shenanigans.
Speaking of the alternative press, the Hissyspit journal at Democratic Underground has an excellent recap of the latest on the Paul Minor case.
What does this mean for the Siegelman case? That remains fuzzy. The Jackson Free Press reports that Coughlin worked in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, which means he served under Noel Hillman, former head of that section.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has reported extensively on Hillman's prominent role in the Siegelman case. Perhaps more importantly, Horton has noted the critical role Hillman played in keeping the Abramoff matter under control. While the Abramoff case has been a troublesome brushfire for Republicans, it could have turned into a forest fire of epic proportions. Horton has reported on Hillman's vital role in keeping the blaze to manageable size.
Now we know that one of Hillman's associates was actively helping to provide cover for Abramoff's unsavory activities. And we have known for some time that one beneficiary of Abramoff's dirty money was Bob Riley, who used it to eek out a slim victory over Siegelman in Alabama's 2002 race for governor.
When Siegelman tried to make a run at Riley in 2006, he wound up the subject of a federal investigation. And this came from a Justice Department that we now know had prosecutors actually providing cover for Jack Abramoff.
How much dirtier can all of this get? My guess is that we are only beginning to comprehend the level of sleaze that has been present in the Bush Justice Department. And before it's done, I bet we learn much more about how Jack Abramoff and his "friendlies" influenced the fate of Don Siegelman.
Folks who are interested in the Siegelman case would be wise to pay close attention to the Robert Coughlin case.
Alabama to Illinois: Rove's Tentacles are Spreading
Much has been written about Karl Rove's role in both state and federal justice-related issues in Alabama. Now, it looks like Rove's tentacles might have reached into Illinois--at the time Chicago U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.
Newsweek's Michael Isikoff is reporting that Rove's name has surfaced in the trial of Chicago developer and political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The trial has been closely watched for any mention of Rezko's onetime friend, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. But Rove's name turned up instead.
A former Illinois state official is expected to testify that Rezko told him Rove was "working with" a top Illinois Republican to remove Fitzgerald.
This could have major implications for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and its investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys at the Justice Department in 2006--and its inquiry into Rove's role in selective prosecutions by federal prosecutors.
Why did Rove want Fitzgerald out? The Newsweek story indicates Rove wanted a new U.S. attorney who would not pursue a corruption probe in Illinois.
But the timing of the alleged conversation is curious. It came in November 2004, weeks after Fitzgerald had subpoenaed Rove to testify for the third time in the Plame matter.
Is it possible that Rove actually had a highly personal reason for wanting Fitzgerald out of office?
Perhaps the Rezko trial will provide some answers.
Newsweek's Michael Isikoff is reporting that Rove's name has surfaced in the trial of Chicago developer and political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko. The trial has been closely watched for any mention of Rezko's onetime friend, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. But Rove's name turned up instead.
A former Illinois state official is expected to testify that Rezko told him Rove was "working with" a top Illinois Republican to remove Fitzgerald.
This could have major implications for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and its investigation of the firings of U.S. attorneys at the Justice Department in 2006--and its inquiry into Rove's role in selective prosecutions by federal prosecutors.
Why did Rove want Fitzgerald out? The Newsweek story indicates Rove wanted a new U.S. attorney who would not pursue a corruption probe in Illinois.
But the timing of the alleged conversation is curious. It came in November 2004, weeks after Fitzgerald had subpoenaed Rove to testify for the third time in the Plame matter.
Is it possible that Rove actually had a highly personal reason for wanting Fitzgerald out of office?
Perhaps the Rezko trial will provide some answers.
Inside the Siegelman Appeals Process
In today's Tuscaloosa News, Tommy Stevenson presents probably the most in-depth account so far of Don Siegelman's strategy for appealing his conviction on corruption charges.
The appeal is not due to be filed until May 23, but Stevenson gives an inside account of where the Siegelman legal team is headed. No one can predict what will happen when it comes to justice in the Age of Rove. But from here, it appears that the Siegelman appeal is built on sturdy legal legs.
Stevenson notes that, by law, the appeal will deal only with matters that are part of the trial record. But the record appears to include a number of inviting targets for attack.
Vince Kilborn, Siegelman's Mobile-based lead attorney, says he thinks he can find things in that transcript--especially in what he says was evidence not allowed to be presented to the jury, evidence withheld from the defense by the prosecution in the "discovery" process, and in jury instructions by federal Judge Mark Fuller--that could get the verdict overturned or at least get Siegelman a new trial.
If an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is not successful, Kilborn says Siegelman "definitely" will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"On appeal, we can bring in some of the issues that weren't allowed in Judge Fuller's courtroom, but which are in the overall record," (Kilborn) said. "Selective prosecution, the larger plot to get Don, those sorts of things - things the jury never heard about but that are in the record because of our arguments.
"It's like cases where DNA evidence has been found that exonerates someone who has been convicted after the trial, or where someone else confesses to a murder after there has already been a conviction. We feel good about our chances both in Atlanta or in Washington, if we have to go that far."
Stevenson reports that Lanny Young, one of the witnesses who testified against Siegelman on federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act charges, will be central to Siegelman's claim that his right to equal protection under the law was violated. Siegelman was exonerated of the RICO charges, which constituted more than half the counts against him. But he was found guilty on one count of obstruction of justice involving the receipt and sale of a motorcycle, about which Young testified
"This is the government's key witness in their case against me on criminal RICO charges," Siegelman, released on bond last month after serving nine months in federal prison, said in an April 17th interview. "The jury found him not credible, but the judge also did not let us introduce evidence while Lanny was on the stand which would have shown that I was being singled out for prosecution."
Siegelman also points out the curious circumstances surrounding Young's claims that he had given possibly illegal campaign contributions not only to Siegelman but also to Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor.
Siegelman said the Young deposition was also attended by people who had worked for Sessions and Pryor.
"Lanny was questioned under oath by FBI agents, by a representative of the DOJ, by Assistant U.S. Atty. Julia Weller, who worked for to U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, who had to recuse herself from the case because her husband, Bill, had worked for Karl Rove, [Gov.] Bob Riley and other prominent Alabama Republicans," Siegelman said. "There were also FBI agents in there who had worked for Sessions when he was a U.S. attorney and moved to Montgomery to work for Bill Pryor when he was attorney general. Julia Weller is also the wife of Bill Weller, who was Pryor's campaign manager.
"Every one of those people had a conflict of interest," Siegelman insisted, slapping his hand on his desk. "They should have all said to the FBI agents present who had no conflicts, 'Excuse us, we have got to recuse ourselves, he's just implicated our bosses, our husbands or people we raised money for. We've got to walk out of here.'"
Even more curious is the matter of Young's whereabouts:
Although he was sentenced to two years in prison, Young was released last December after serving 11 months. "As soon as the Time magazine story came out, when he was naming names about Republicans, he was immediately let out of prison and hasn't been heard from since," Siegelman said. "I don't know that anybody knows where he is, but I know Time magazine has been looking for him, as well as some other people. But they can't find him."
The appeal is not due to be filed until May 23, but Stevenson gives an inside account of where the Siegelman legal team is headed. No one can predict what will happen when it comes to justice in the Age of Rove. But from here, it appears that the Siegelman appeal is built on sturdy legal legs.
Stevenson notes that, by law, the appeal will deal only with matters that are part of the trial record. But the record appears to include a number of inviting targets for attack.
Vince Kilborn, Siegelman's Mobile-based lead attorney, says he thinks he can find things in that transcript--especially in what he says was evidence not allowed to be presented to the jury, evidence withheld from the defense by the prosecution in the "discovery" process, and in jury instructions by federal Judge Mark Fuller--that could get the verdict overturned or at least get Siegelman a new trial.
If an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is not successful, Kilborn says Siegelman "definitely" will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"On appeal, we can bring in some of the issues that weren't allowed in Judge Fuller's courtroom, but which are in the overall record," (Kilborn) said. "Selective prosecution, the larger plot to get Don, those sorts of things - things the jury never heard about but that are in the record because of our arguments.
"It's like cases where DNA evidence has been found that exonerates someone who has been convicted after the trial, or where someone else confesses to a murder after there has already been a conviction. We feel good about our chances both in Atlanta or in Washington, if we have to go that far."
Stevenson reports that Lanny Young, one of the witnesses who testified against Siegelman on federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act charges, will be central to Siegelman's claim that his right to equal protection under the law was violated. Siegelman was exonerated of the RICO charges, which constituted more than half the counts against him. But he was found guilty on one count of obstruction of justice involving the receipt and sale of a motorcycle, about which Young testified
"This is the government's key witness in their case against me on criminal RICO charges," Siegelman, released on bond last month after serving nine months in federal prison, said in an April 17th interview. "The jury found him not credible, but the judge also did not let us introduce evidence while Lanny was on the stand which would have shown that I was being singled out for prosecution."
Siegelman also points out the curious circumstances surrounding Young's claims that he had given possibly illegal campaign contributions not only to Siegelman but also to Republicans Jeff Sessions and William Pryor.
Siegelman said the Young deposition was also attended by people who had worked for Sessions and Pryor.
"Lanny was questioned under oath by FBI agents, by a representative of the DOJ, by Assistant U.S. Atty. Julia Weller, who worked for to U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, who had to recuse herself from the case because her husband, Bill, had worked for Karl Rove, [Gov.] Bob Riley and other prominent Alabama Republicans," Siegelman said. "There were also FBI agents in there who had worked for Sessions when he was a U.S. attorney and moved to Montgomery to work for Bill Pryor when he was attorney general. Julia Weller is also the wife of Bill Weller, who was Pryor's campaign manager.
"Every one of those people had a conflict of interest," Siegelman insisted, slapping his hand on his desk. "They should have all said to the FBI agents present who had no conflicts, 'Excuse us, we have got to recuse ourselves, he's just implicated our bosses, our husbands or people we raised money for. We've got to walk out of here.'"
Even more curious is the matter of Young's whereabouts:
Although he was sentenced to two years in prison, Young was released last December after serving 11 months. "As soon as the Time magazine story came out, when he was naming names about Republicans, he was immediately let out of prison and hasn't been heard from since," Siegelman said. "I don't know that anybody knows where he is, but I know Time magazine has been looking for him, as well as some other people. But they can't find him."
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Alice Martin: Outlaw Woman
How would you define an outlaw? I would say it's a person who operates outside the law and gets away with it.
By that definition, Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is an outlaw. Comforting thought for those of us who live in Martin's district.
(By the way, this discussion reminds me of a great song, "Outlaw Man," from the Eagles classic Desperado album. You can read the lyrics here. That song was about a fictional character, a dude, in the old west. Alice Martin, unfortunately, is real, and she's a woman operating in the here and now.)
Let's revisit our recent post about Martin being cleared of perjury charges related to an employment case at the U.S. attorney's Huntsville office. This episode points up all kinds of things that are wrong with our justice system. It also shows what is horribly wrong with a person like Alice Martin having anything to do with justice.
As we stated in our previous post, Martin clearly made false statements under oath. But the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Bush Justice Department cleared her of the allegations. What can we learn from this?
* The Power of Perjury--Perjury is rampant in our justice system and is very rarely punished. From my own experience, I can say this: If I had known how easily people can lie under oath and get away with it, I would never have sworn out a criminal trespass complaint against my neighbor, which led to the lawsuit I am still fighting. When we get into details about both the criminal case I initiated and the lawsuit that was filed against me, I will show you numerous examples of outrageous lies under oath. Talk about having the scales fall from your eyes. When my tale of travail started back around 2000, I assumed that people swore on the Bible and told the truth in court. Of course, I also assumed that a lawyer would never lie in the middle of a deposition, and I certainly assumed that judges always ruled according to the law. Boy, what a dunce I was. Here's the ugly truth: If you are a child of the legal culture, it's probably going to become second nature for you to lie. And if you have considerable experience as a defendant in criminal courts, as my neighbor does, you are going to know how the game is played--unlike a ding dong like me, who had never been involved in a court case of any kind before.
* Another Press Cover Up--Once again, The Birmingham News provides cover for a corrupt Republican in Alabama. In it's story on Martin being cleared, nowhere does the News give any indication of the overwhelming evidence against Martin. It merely says the case was investigated, and the charges were dismissed. If you didn't know about Scott Horton's coverage at Harper's, you would think Martin was the real victim. No mention of the two written documents that proved Martin lied under oath. (By the way, since our original post on this subject, Horton has weighed in at his No Comment blog. He raises a number of troubling questions about the OPR's ruling and includes a link to an e-mail that erases all doubt about whether Martin lied under oath.)
* The GOP and Jurisdictional Issues--We drew on Scott Horton's reporting at Harper's on the Martin perjury case, and it's interesting to note that the OPR initially claimed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) should have heard the charges against Martin. Horton points out the blatant absurdity of this claim, but jurisdictional hocus-pocus is old hat for Martin and modern-day Republicans. When I filed detailed allegations of wrongdoing by Alabama GOP judges and lawyers, Martin told me she had sent my information to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Never mind that the postal inspection service does not have authority to investigate the kind of crimes (honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy) I was alleging. These GOPers are a shrewd bunch. Sending criminal allegations to an agency that has no authority to investigate them is a surefire way to make sure such allegations never see the light of day.
* The Arrogance of Alice--After being cleared, Martin went out of her way to say the claims against her had been "frivolous." And no one in the Alabama press evidently has questioned her about that claim. In fact, Martin's statement is further evidence that she lies like she breathes; it's second nature. She knows good and well the charges against her were not frivolous. The claims went to the heart of the employment matter, and the evidence was overwhelming that Martin indeed lied under oath. It's slightly possible that she was cleared on a technical defense to perjury. But more likely, she was cleared because the Bush Justice Department doesn't want further trouble for one of its "homies."
* Lawyers Overseeing Lawyers--This is a huge issue, one we will deal with in much detail later. The law is a self-regulating profession. Discipline of lawyers generally is left up to other lawyers. It's a classic example of "fox-guarding-the-henhouse" syndrome. And it's maybe the single biggest reason our justice system is so corrupt. Consider the Martin case: The OPR is a bunch of lawyers; they cleared Martin. The Alabama State Bar is a bunch of lawyers; they cleared Martin. Jethro Bodine ("I done gradjeated sixth grade, Uncah Jed!") could read Scott Horton's post on the Martin case and see she lied under oath. But a bunch of lawyers let her off. Heck, I've seen this stuff firsthand. I sent a lengthy complaint--I think it was 10 pages or so--about William E. Swatek to the Alabama State Bar. Swatek is the dirtbag who filed a bogus lawsuit against me, and he already had been "disciplined" multiple times by the Bar. By the Bar's own rules, prior discipline is supposed to be one factor in considering future discipline. In other words, if you've been a bad boy before, you are more likely to be found to be a bad boy again. But the Bar did not even investigate my complaint against Swatek. Cheryl Rankin, a Bar lawyer, pretty much admitted to me that the Bar gets so many complaints against sleazy lawyers that it can only act on cases filed by a lawyer's own client. The Rules of Professional Conduct clearly state that a lawyer owes a duty to be truthful and fair with the opposing party. But the Bar evidently does not enforce that rule. And get this: My complaint included undisputed evidence of Bill Swatek lying in a deposition! I have a transcript and a tape recording that prove it, but the Bar didn't even look at it. Now, Swatek was not under oath during the deposition--his client was. But it appears that a lawyer who lies during the course of an official legal proceeding is violating Bar rules. Does the Alabama State Bar care? Not in the least.
* Would Martin retaliate against someone--We learn from this case that the answer is yes. The EEOC found that Martin had fired Deirdra Brown-Fleming for retaliatory reasons. Which makes me wonder: Not long after I wrote on this blog about an e-mail exchange I'd had with Martin, an exchange which shows her intentionally deep-sixing my complaint and lying to me about it, I started receiving threats to unlawfully seize my house. Do I suspect Martin has something to do with what my wife and I are currently going through? You're darned right I do.
Before we go, I just discovered a video from YouTube of the Eagles performing "Outlaw Man." Think the performance is from 1976. Let's check it out.
By that definition, Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is an outlaw. Comforting thought for those of us who live in Martin's district.
(By the way, this discussion reminds me of a great song, "Outlaw Man," from the Eagles classic Desperado album. You can read the lyrics here. That song was about a fictional character, a dude, in the old west. Alice Martin, unfortunately, is real, and she's a woman operating in the here and now.)
Let's revisit our recent post about Martin being cleared of perjury charges related to an employment case at the U.S. attorney's Huntsville office. This episode points up all kinds of things that are wrong with our justice system. It also shows what is horribly wrong with a person like Alice Martin having anything to do with justice.
As we stated in our previous post, Martin clearly made false statements under oath. But the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Bush Justice Department cleared her of the allegations. What can we learn from this?
* The Power of Perjury--Perjury is rampant in our justice system and is very rarely punished. From my own experience, I can say this: If I had known how easily people can lie under oath and get away with it, I would never have sworn out a criminal trespass complaint against my neighbor, which led to the lawsuit I am still fighting. When we get into details about both the criminal case I initiated and the lawsuit that was filed against me, I will show you numerous examples of outrageous lies under oath. Talk about having the scales fall from your eyes. When my tale of travail started back around 2000, I assumed that people swore on the Bible and told the truth in court. Of course, I also assumed that a lawyer would never lie in the middle of a deposition, and I certainly assumed that judges always ruled according to the law. Boy, what a dunce I was. Here's the ugly truth: If you are a child of the legal culture, it's probably going to become second nature for you to lie. And if you have considerable experience as a defendant in criminal courts, as my neighbor does, you are going to know how the game is played--unlike a ding dong like me, who had never been involved in a court case of any kind before.
* Another Press Cover Up--Once again, The Birmingham News provides cover for a corrupt Republican in Alabama. In it's story on Martin being cleared, nowhere does the News give any indication of the overwhelming evidence against Martin. It merely says the case was investigated, and the charges were dismissed. If you didn't know about Scott Horton's coverage at Harper's, you would think Martin was the real victim. No mention of the two written documents that proved Martin lied under oath. (By the way, since our original post on this subject, Horton has weighed in at his No Comment blog. He raises a number of troubling questions about the OPR's ruling and includes a link to an e-mail that erases all doubt about whether Martin lied under oath.)
* The GOP and Jurisdictional Issues--We drew on Scott Horton's reporting at Harper's on the Martin perjury case, and it's interesting to note that the OPR initially claimed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) should have heard the charges against Martin. Horton points out the blatant absurdity of this claim, but jurisdictional hocus-pocus is old hat for Martin and modern-day Republicans. When I filed detailed allegations of wrongdoing by Alabama GOP judges and lawyers, Martin told me she had sent my information to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Never mind that the postal inspection service does not have authority to investigate the kind of crimes (honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy) I was alleging. These GOPers are a shrewd bunch. Sending criminal allegations to an agency that has no authority to investigate them is a surefire way to make sure such allegations never see the light of day.
* The Arrogance of Alice--After being cleared, Martin went out of her way to say the claims against her had been "frivolous." And no one in the Alabama press evidently has questioned her about that claim. In fact, Martin's statement is further evidence that she lies like she breathes; it's second nature. She knows good and well the charges against her were not frivolous. The claims went to the heart of the employment matter, and the evidence was overwhelming that Martin indeed lied under oath. It's slightly possible that she was cleared on a technical defense to perjury. But more likely, she was cleared because the Bush Justice Department doesn't want further trouble for one of its "homies."
* Lawyers Overseeing Lawyers--This is a huge issue, one we will deal with in much detail later. The law is a self-regulating profession. Discipline of lawyers generally is left up to other lawyers. It's a classic example of "fox-guarding-the-henhouse" syndrome. And it's maybe the single biggest reason our justice system is so corrupt. Consider the Martin case: The OPR is a bunch of lawyers; they cleared Martin. The Alabama State Bar is a bunch of lawyers; they cleared Martin. Jethro Bodine ("I done gradjeated sixth grade, Uncah Jed!") could read Scott Horton's post on the Martin case and see she lied under oath. But a bunch of lawyers let her off. Heck, I've seen this stuff firsthand. I sent a lengthy complaint--I think it was 10 pages or so--about William E. Swatek to the Alabama State Bar. Swatek is the dirtbag who filed a bogus lawsuit against me, and he already had been "disciplined" multiple times by the Bar. By the Bar's own rules, prior discipline is supposed to be one factor in considering future discipline. In other words, if you've been a bad boy before, you are more likely to be found to be a bad boy again. But the Bar did not even investigate my complaint against Swatek. Cheryl Rankin, a Bar lawyer, pretty much admitted to me that the Bar gets so many complaints against sleazy lawyers that it can only act on cases filed by a lawyer's own client. The Rules of Professional Conduct clearly state that a lawyer owes a duty to be truthful and fair with the opposing party. But the Bar evidently does not enforce that rule. And get this: My complaint included undisputed evidence of Bill Swatek lying in a deposition! I have a transcript and a tape recording that prove it, but the Bar didn't even look at it. Now, Swatek was not under oath during the deposition--his client was. But it appears that a lawyer who lies during the course of an official legal proceeding is violating Bar rules. Does the Alabama State Bar care? Not in the least.
* Would Martin retaliate against someone--We learn from this case that the answer is yes. The EEOC found that Martin had fired Deirdra Brown-Fleming for retaliatory reasons. Which makes me wonder: Not long after I wrote on this blog about an e-mail exchange I'd had with Martin, an exchange which shows her intentionally deep-sixing my complaint and lying to me about it, I started receiving threats to unlawfully seize my house. Do I suspect Martin has something to do with what my wife and I are currently going through? You're darned right I do.
Before we go, I just discovered a video from YouTube of the Eagles performing "Outlaw Man." Think the performance is from 1976. Let's check it out.
Siegelman and the Alabama press
Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, was surprised to read in the Huntsville Times yesterday that Don Siegelman has been keeping a low profile in his home state, denying interview requests from Alabama journalists.
No wonder Stevenson was surprised because last week he ran a major story on Siegelman, including video of the interview. In fact, Stevenson was the first Alabama print journalist to interview Siegelman since the former governor's release from federal prison pending appeal.
Guess that news hasn't made it to Huntsville.
But here's what is interesting. Stevenson, writing in his Time is Spherical, Not Linear blog, says the Associated Press did not pick up his story.
I've taken a journalism class or two in my time, and this one is hard to figure. The state's former governor gives his first major in-state interview since his release from prison and the AP's Montgomery bureau doesn't pick it up?
Stevenson checked with AP about why his original story was not picked up and also about why the wire service did not cover Tuesday night's event in Huntsville, featuring Harper's magazine's Scott Horton, plus an appearance by Siegelman, Jill Simpson, and other key figures in the Siegelman case. (Heck even "Bulldog" Eddie Curran was there.) AP's explanation? Well, they didn't really give Stevenson one--at least so far.
Here is what Stevenson has to say about that:
This is curious: both stories are sympathetic to Siegelman, yet they don't run the first one and then don't mention the second because, well, I guess as they say on South Park, "Nothing to see here, move along."
Stevenson notes that he has more coming on the Siegelman story in the next few days. Will AP pay attention?
Before we go, I owe an apology to bulldogs. I love bulldogs, and to compare them to Eddie Curran is uncalled for and unforgivable. So, bulldogs, please accept my apologies.
That means we need another nickname for Eddie Curran. How about "Gila Monster" Eddie Curran? Other ideas?
No wonder Stevenson was surprised because last week he ran a major story on Siegelman, including video of the interview. In fact, Stevenson was the first Alabama print journalist to interview Siegelman since the former governor's release from federal prison pending appeal.
Guess that news hasn't made it to Huntsville.
But here's what is interesting. Stevenson, writing in his Time is Spherical, Not Linear blog, says the Associated Press did not pick up his story.
I've taken a journalism class or two in my time, and this one is hard to figure. The state's former governor gives his first major in-state interview since his release from prison and the AP's Montgomery bureau doesn't pick it up?
Stevenson checked with AP about why his original story was not picked up and also about why the wire service did not cover Tuesday night's event in Huntsville, featuring Harper's magazine's Scott Horton, plus an appearance by Siegelman, Jill Simpson, and other key figures in the Siegelman case. (Heck even "Bulldog" Eddie Curran was there.) AP's explanation? Well, they didn't really give Stevenson one--at least so far.
Here is what Stevenson has to say about that:
This is curious: both stories are sympathetic to Siegelman, yet they don't run the first one and then don't mention the second because, well, I guess as they say on South Park, "Nothing to see here, move along."
Stevenson notes that he has more coming on the Siegelman story in the next few days. Will AP pay attention?
Before we go, I owe an apology to bulldogs. I love bulldogs, and to compare them to Eddie Curran is uncalled for and unforgivable. So, bulldogs, please accept my apologies.
That means we need another nickname for Eddie Curran. How about "Gila Monster" Eddie Curran? Other ideas?
The Civil Side of the Siegelman Saga, Part II
Let's ponder other possible civil issues connected to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. I suspect similar issues could be raised about the Paul Minor case in Mississippi:
* Where are Bill Pryor's records from his tenure as Alabama attorney general? Why couldn't an organization or a group of individuals bring a lawsuit to ensure that Pryor's records are brought to light? Aren't Pryor's records from his time as a state officeholder supposed to be in the State Archives, where they could be viewed by citizens? Are Pryor's records where they are supposed to be? A source tells me that Pryor's AG records are stashed away under lock and key at an improper location. Isn't this state property? It is well known that Pryor instigated an investigation of Siegelman before the former governor's fanny had barely hit his new chair. What would records from Pryor's investigation show?
* Where are the ballots from the 2002 election, particularly the ballots that produced "funny numbers" in Baldwin County, giving Bob Riley a "come-from-behind" victory over Siegelman in the governor's race? Did Bill Pryor order those ballots sealed? Why are they still sealed? Couldn't an organization or group of individuals bring a lawsuit to ensure that those ballots are unsealed and inspected?
* Why couldn't a group of concerned Alabama citizens file a lawsuit claiming that they were deprived in 2002 of the services of a duly elected governor, Don Siegelman. If that election was indeed "stolen," didn't Alabama citizens suffer damages? Seems to me probable grounds already exist for bringing such a lawsuit. And there is no telling what information might come once the discovery process in such a lawsuit started. Where exactly was Dan Gans on the night of that election? Isn't it time Democrats started getting some answers?
* Why couldn't a group of concerned Alabama citizens file a lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley, essentially claiming that he has been unlawfully serving as governor for approximately six years? Could such a lawsuit get at the source of Riley's campaign financing in 2002? Could such a lawsuit reveal exactly how much felon Jack Abramoff influenced the outcome of Alabama's election?
These are just a few questions that might be answered if the right people, with the right lawyers, filed lawsuits related to matters in the Siegelman case.
Are there legitimate reasons why such lawsuits have not been brought--and perhaps never will be brought? Perhaps, and I welcome input from knowledgeable folks on the subject.
But here is one reason I suspect these lawsuits have not been brought? Democrats simply do not know how to fight like Republicans do. If a Republican candidate had appeared to be the victim of a stolen election in 2002, I suspect a lawsuit would have been filed pronto. Do Democrats not have the will? Do they not have the resources?
Isn't it interesting that Republican operatives had the audacity to file a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, while he was sitting president, over a relatively minor matter that allegedly occurred long before he was president? Meanwhile, think of all the matters involving George W. Bush, many of great importance, that could be the subject of lawsuits. And yet, not one has been brought.
Think of all the support someone like Paula Jones received from right-wing organizations. How much support have Don Siegelman and the Paul Minor defendants received from left-wing organizations? How much support has Jill Simpson received from progressive groups? I hope the answer is some. But is it enough?
Seems to me Democrats have many fronts upon which they could wage war against the Republican crooks who have hijacked our justice system. But for the most part, I haven't seen Democrats take any substantive action.
I thought Democrats were supposed to be the ones with the support of trial lawyers. If that's the case, why haven't trial lawyers filed some lawsuits to get at the civil side of the Siegelman saga?
* Where are Bill Pryor's records from his tenure as Alabama attorney general? Why couldn't an organization or a group of individuals bring a lawsuit to ensure that Pryor's records are brought to light? Aren't Pryor's records from his time as a state officeholder supposed to be in the State Archives, where they could be viewed by citizens? Are Pryor's records where they are supposed to be? A source tells me that Pryor's AG records are stashed away under lock and key at an improper location. Isn't this state property? It is well known that Pryor instigated an investigation of Siegelman before the former governor's fanny had barely hit his new chair. What would records from Pryor's investigation show?
* Where are the ballots from the 2002 election, particularly the ballots that produced "funny numbers" in Baldwin County, giving Bob Riley a "come-from-behind" victory over Siegelman in the governor's race? Did Bill Pryor order those ballots sealed? Why are they still sealed? Couldn't an organization or group of individuals bring a lawsuit to ensure that those ballots are unsealed and inspected?
* Why couldn't a group of concerned Alabama citizens file a lawsuit claiming that they were deprived in 2002 of the services of a duly elected governor, Don Siegelman. If that election was indeed "stolen," didn't Alabama citizens suffer damages? Seems to me probable grounds already exist for bringing such a lawsuit. And there is no telling what information might come once the discovery process in such a lawsuit started. Where exactly was Dan Gans on the night of that election? Isn't it time Democrats started getting some answers?
* Why couldn't a group of concerned Alabama citizens file a lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley, essentially claiming that he has been unlawfully serving as governor for approximately six years? Could such a lawsuit get at the source of Riley's campaign financing in 2002? Could such a lawsuit reveal exactly how much felon Jack Abramoff influenced the outcome of Alabama's election?
These are just a few questions that might be answered if the right people, with the right lawyers, filed lawsuits related to matters in the Siegelman case.
Are there legitimate reasons why such lawsuits have not been brought--and perhaps never will be brought? Perhaps, and I welcome input from knowledgeable folks on the subject.
But here is one reason I suspect these lawsuits have not been brought? Democrats simply do not know how to fight like Republicans do. If a Republican candidate had appeared to be the victim of a stolen election in 2002, I suspect a lawsuit would have been filed pronto. Do Democrats not have the will? Do they not have the resources?
Isn't it interesting that Republican operatives had the audacity to file a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, while he was sitting president, over a relatively minor matter that allegedly occurred long before he was president? Meanwhile, think of all the matters involving George W. Bush, many of great importance, that could be the subject of lawsuits. And yet, not one has been brought.
Think of all the support someone like Paula Jones received from right-wing organizations. How much support have Don Siegelman and the Paul Minor defendants received from left-wing organizations? How much support has Jill Simpson received from progressive groups? I hope the answer is some. But is it enough?
Seems to me Democrats have many fronts upon which they could wage war against the Republican crooks who have hijacked our justice system. But for the most part, I haven't seen Democrats take any substantive action.
I thought Democrats were supposed to be the ones with the support of trial lawyers. If that's the case, why haven't trial lawyers filed some lawsuits to get at the civil side of the Siegelman saga?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Deconstructing Brett Blackledge
An alert Legal Schnauzer reader had an excellent idea today: He suggested that I compare certain press reports on the Sue Schmitz case to those we spotlighted yesterday by Brett Blackledge of The Birmingham News.
And what do we learn? That Blackledge's reporting is even more biased and fishy than we thought.
How did Bob Lowry of the Huntsville Times handle the story of a motion to dismiss in the Schmitz case? And what about Bob Johnson of the Associated Press?
Both Lowry and Johnson tell us up top that the motion to dismiss is based largely on claims of misconduct by prosecutors in grand-jury proceedings. Blackledge never mentions this.
Hmmm, wonder why Blackledge would ignore what clearly was the main point of the Schmitz motion in favor of trashing last week's U.S. House Judiciary Committee report on selective prosecution? That was the report, of course, that called for sworn testimony from former White House adviser Karl Rove.
Isn't it interesting that Blackledge would write his story in such a "Rove-centric" way, ignoring the main point of the Schmitz motion? It was almost as if a certain bespectacled and doughy "birdie" was whispering in Brett's ear as he knocked out his "objective" report.
When I said Blackledge's story sounded like it was written by the Republican National Committee, I was semi joking. Heck, I might have understated things! Maybe Turd Blossom himself was behind it.
But back to Lowry and Johnson. Both provide examples from transcripts of prosecutors badgering and harassing witnesses in the grand jury. Lowry's story is particularly illuminating--and downright frightening.
Here is where all of this hits close to home for your humble blogger. Read Lowry's account of the bullying tactics by prosecutors who work for Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Then read this recent account of my suspicions about who might be behind efforts to unlawfully seize and auction my house.
Pick up the "police state" tone in one? Pick up the "police state" tone in the other? I sure do.
And here's another interesting point. A central character in Lowry's story is Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Hart, who sounds like a glorified thug as he tries to pound the "truth" out of witnesses.
Well, Mr. Hart has played a bit part in our Legal Schnauzer story. You can read the entire post involving Mr. Hart here. But here is the key part:
I sent an e-mail to Matt Hart, white-collar crime director in U.S. Attorney's office in Birmingham. No reply. So I called one day and managed to catch Hart on the telephone. He blew me off. Said he "kicks" cases all the time, and he was "kicking" mine. Funny he would "kick" it when I wasn't even aware he had looked at it yet.
Compare Hart's handling of alleged wrongdoing by Schmitz, a Democrat, to his handling of my allegations of wrongdoing by state judges in Alabama, almost all Republicans.
When the "bad guy" is a Democrat, Hart is aggressive to the point of bullying and intimidating witnesses. When the "bad guys" are Republicans, Hart kicks the case, evidently without even looking at it. This came, by the way, after Hart had blown copious amounts of smoke up my fanny about honest-services mail fraud, the primary crime in the material I had sent. When I made it clear that I had researched the relevant law--and that his efforts to "snow" me weren't going to work--Hart just cavalierly kicked my case. Didn't matter whether a crime had actually been committed or not. So much for justice in the Age of Rove.
By the way, which is a more serious matter? Alleged wrongdoing by a retired school teacher who represents one district in the Alabama Legislature? Or wrongdoing by multiple judges, including about a dozen who hold statewide offices on our highest courts?
I'm assuming Matt Hart is a career justice department employee. And it's possible that, under normal circumstances, he is a fine and noble public servant. But we have considerable evidence to suggest that there is nothing normal about working under Alice Martin.
So what do we learn from comparing the Schmitz case to the Schnauzer case? We learn that Matt Hart's boss is extremely interested in one and not remotely interested in the other. What's the difference in the two cases? The political affiliations of the alleged "bad guys."
That's why they call it political prosecution. And that's why, when the book is written on this ugly chapter in American history, Alice Martin will be front and center.
And what do we learn? That Blackledge's reporting is even more biased and fishy than we thought.
How did Bob Lowry of the Huntsville Times handle the story of a motion to dismiss in the Schmitz case? And what about Bob Johnson of the Associated Press?
Both Lowry and Johnson tell us up top that the motion to dismiss is based largely on claims of misconduct by prosecutors in grand-jury proceedings. Blackledge never mentions this.
Hmmm, wonder why Blackledge would ignore what clearly was the main point of the Schmitz motion in favor of trashing last week's U.S. House Judiciary Committee report on selective prosecution? That was the report, of course, that called for sworn testimony from former White House adviser Karl Rove.
Isn't it interesting that Blackledge would write his story in such a "Rove-centric" way, ignoring the main point of the Schmitz motion? It was almost as if a certain bespectacled and doughy "birdie" was whispering in Brett's ear as he knocked out his "objective" report.
When I said Blackledge's story sounded like it was written by the Republican National Committee, I was semi joking. Heck, I might have understated things! Maybe Turd Blossom himself was behind it.
But back to Lowry and Johnson. Both provide examples from transcripts of prosecutors badgering and harassing witnesses in the grand jury. Lowry's story is particularly illuminating--and downright frightening.
Here is where all of this hits close to home for your humble blogger. Read Lowry's account of the bullying tactics by prosecutors who work for Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Then read this recent account of my suspicions about who might be behind efforts to unlawfully seize and auction my house.
Pick up the "police state" tone in one? Pick up the "police state" tone in the other? I sure do.
And here's another interesting point. A central character in Lowry's story is Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Hart, who sounds like a glorified thug as he tries to pound the "truth" out of witnesses.
Well, Mr. Hart has played a bit part in our Legal Schnauzer story. You can read the entire post involving Mr. Hart here. But here is the key part:
I sent an e-mail to Matt Hart, white-collar crime director in U.S. Attorney's office in Birmingham. No reply. So I called one day and managed to catch Hart on the telephone. He blew me off. Said he "kicks" cases all the time, and he was "kicking" mine. Funny he would "kick" it when I wasn't even aware he had looked at it yet.
Compare Hart's handling of alleged wrongdoing by Schmitz, a Democrat, to his handling of my allegations of wrongdoing by state judges in Alabama, almost all Republicans.
When the "bad guy" is a Democrat, Hart is aggressive to the point of bullying and intimidating witnesses. When the "bad guys" are Republicans, Hart kicks the case, evidently without even looking at it. This came, by the way, after Hart had blown copious amounts of smoke up my fanny about honest-services mail fraud, the primary crime in the material I had sent. When I made it clear that I had researched the relevant law--and that his efforts to "snow" me weren't going to work--Hart just cavalierly kicked my case. Didn't matter whether a crime had actually been committed or not. So much for justice in the Age of Rove.
By the way, which is a more serious matter? Alleged wrongdoing by a retired school teacher who represents one district in the Alabama Legislature? Or wrongdoing by multiple judges, including about a dozen who hold statewide offices on our highest courts?
I'm assuming Matt Hart is a career justice department employee. And it's possible that, under normal circumstances, he is a fine and noble public servant. But we have considerable evidence to suggest that there is nothing normal about working under Alice Martin.
So what do we learn from comparing the Schmitz case to the Schnauzer case? We learn that Matt Hart's boss is extremely interested in one and not remotely interested in the other. What's the difference in the two cases? The political affiliations of the alleged "bad guys."
That's why they call it political prosecution. And that's why, when the book is written on this ugly chapter in American history, Alice Martin will be front and center.
Horton and History in Huntsville
A slice of Alabama history took place in Huntsville last night. Let's hope that slice turns into a huge tasty pie, filled with heaping gobs of justice.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, spoke at a meeting of North Alabama Media Reform on the campus of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
I hate that I was not able to attend. But that makes me extra grateful to the fine folks at Left in Alabama, who provided outstanding coverage.
You can check out a clip from Horton's lecture here. You can check out comments by former Governor Don Siegelman here. And the evening would not have been complete without an appearance by Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran. Our guy Eddie was in full rude, bull-headed mode, and you can get an eyeful of his act here.
What made this rather intimate gathering historic? We are on the verge of learning about what might prove to be the worst scandal in American history. If the scandal truly is unearthed, and the whole story told, its origins will be placed in Alabama. And the Paul Revere of this tale--the guy who sounded the alarm on the national stage long before anyone else did--will be Horton.
I'm not aware of any coverage of the event in the Birmingham press. The Huntsville Times did have a reporter on hand, and you can read her story here.
Horton took issue with The Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register and their coverage of Siegelman's administration and subsequent prosecution. Horton noted that prosecutors might have committed crimes by feeding confidential information to those papers.
Here's an interesting quote from Press-Register Editor Mike Marshall. He said he was proud of the paper's coverage, "beginning with stories about that administration's considerable achievements but ending with coverage of activity that certainly seemed corrupt."
Certainly seemed corrupt? That statement gives the impression that leaders at the Mobile paper did not grasp the legal component of a story that had huge law-enforcement issues.
Curran's statements at the event give the same impression. Curran rattled on about warehouse deals and motorcycle deals etc., but never provides any context. And neither did his stories. Were these alleged actions by Siegelman actually corrupt and unlawful? Did the Mobile paper make any attempt to understand the relevant statutory and case law? Did the paper ever make an attempt to explain how Siegelman's actions differed from those of previous governors--or those of current governor, Republican Bob Riley? Did the paper make any effort to educate itself--or its readers--about honest-services mail fraud, which made up roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and five of the seven counts on which he was convicted? Has the paper made any effort to report on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's unsavory background and his clear conflicts in the case? Has the paper made any effort to determine if the jury instructions Fuller presented coincided with actual law?
The answers are no, no, no, no, no, and no. Those are just a few of the questions that should make any coherent reader roll his eyes when he hears Marshall say, "Our news stories have been objective throughout."
Even prosecutors evidently did not think quite a few of Siegelman's actions amounted to crimes because those events were not included in the indictment. And the jury that heard the case essentially rejected everything except the alleged deal with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
Horton was right on target when he said the Alabama press "fell down in its responsibility" to accurately investigate and report the story behind Siegelman's prosecution. And he provided important historical context, noting that Alabama newspapers in 1878 vilified Chief Justice Thomas Minott Peters for trying to promote racial equality.
But I hope Horton will eventually go a step further. The dismal performance of the Alabama press goes beyond the Siegelman case and federal courts. Alabama state courts are a cesspool, with Republicans dominating at the appellate level and trial-court judges getting away with blatant abuse of many citizens who come before them.
In Shelby County, one of the state's fastest growing counties, I have a front-row seat to a modern Alabama police state. Local GOP authorities are threatening to unlawfully seize and auction my house because they don't like the inconvenient truths I'm reporting on this blog.
Horton praised small-town Alabama papers such as the Anniston Star and the Decatur Daily, and they certainly deserve a seat at the head of the journalism class in our state. But that's not saying much. Have those papers done anything to inform their readers about the police state that exists just south of Birmingham, our largest city? Nope. Have they taken a cold, hard look at the Alabama Supreme Court's ExxonMobil ruling and explained how the court acted unlawfully and intentionally cheated the state out of a $3.6 billion judgment? Nope.
Let's hope that last night's event proves to be a significant stop on what promises to be a long, tough road to justice. Corruption in Alabama is deep seated, and the story only begins with the Don Siegelman case. It certainly does not end there.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, spoke at a meeting of North Alabama Media Reform on the campus of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
I hate that I was not able to attend. But that makes me extra grateful to the fine folks at Left in Alabama, who provided outstanding coverage.
You can check out a clip from Horton's lecture here. You can check out comments by former Governor Don Siegelman here. And the evening would not have been complete without an appearance by Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran. Our guy Eddie was in full rude, bull-headed mode, and you can get an eyeful of his act here.
What made this rather intimate gathering historic? We are on the verge of learning about what might prove to be the worst scandal in American history. If the scandal truly is unearthed, and the whole story told, its origins will be placed in Alabama. And the Paul Revere of this tale--the guy who sounded the alarm on the national stage long before anyone else did--will be Horton.
I'm not aware of any coverage of the event in the Birmingham press. The Huntsville Times did have a reporter on hand, and you can read her story here.
Horton took issue with The Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register and their coverage of Siegelman's administration and subsequent prosecution. Horton noted that prosecutors might have committed crimes by feeding confidential information to those papers.
Here's an interesting quote from Press-Register Editor Mike Marshall. He said he was proud of the paper's coverage, "beginning with stories about that administration's considerable achievements but ending with coverage of activity that certainly seemed corrupt."
Certainly seemed corrupt? That statement gives the impression that leaders at the Mobile paper did not grasp the legal component of a story that had huge law-enforcement issues.
Curran's statements at the event give the same impression. Curran rattled on about warehouse deals and motorcycle deals etc., but never provides any context. And neither did his stories. Were these alleged actions by Siegelman actually corrupt and unlawful? Did the Mobile paper make any attempt to understand the relevant statutory and case law? Did the paper ever make an attempt to explain how Siegelman's actions differed from those of previous governors--or those of current governor, Republican Bob Riley? Did the paper make any effort to educate itself--or its readers--about honest-services mail fraud, which made up roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and five of the seven counts on which he was convicted? Has the paper made any effort to report on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's unsavory background and his clear conflicts in the case? Has the paper made any effort to determine if the jury instructions Fuller presented coincided with actual law?
The answers are no, no, no, no, no, and no. Those are just a few of the questions that should make any coherent reader roll his eyes when he hears Marshall say, "Our news stories have been objective throughout."
Even prosecutors evidently did not think quite a few of Siegelman's actions amounted to crimes because those events were not included in the indictment. And the jury that heard the case essentially rejected everything except the alleged deal with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
Horton was right on target when he said the Alabama press "fell down in its responsibility" to accurately investigate and report the story behind Siegelman's prosecution. And he provided important historical context, noting that Alabama newspapers in 1878 vilified Chief Justice Thomas Minott Peters for trying to promote racial equality.
But I hope Horton will eventually go a step further. The dismal performance of the Alabama press goes beyond the Siegelman case and federal courts. Alabama state courts are a cesspool, with Republicans dominating at the appellate level and trial-court judges getting away with blatant abuse of many citizens who come before them.
In Shelby County, one of the state's fastest growing counties, I have a front-row seat to a modern Alabama police state. Local GOP authorities are threatening to unlawfully seize and auction my house because they don't like the inconvenient truths I'm reporting on this blog.
Horton praised small-town Alabama papers such as the Anniston Star and the Decatur Daily, and they certainly deserve a seat at the head of the journalism class in our state. But that's not saying much. Have those papers done anything to inform their readers about the police state that exists just south of Birmingham, our largest city? Nope. Have they taken a cold, hard look at the Alabama Supreme Court's ExxonMobil ruling and explained how the court acted unlawfully and intentionally cheated the state out of a $3.6 billion judgment? Nope.
Let's hope that last night's event proves to be a significant stop on what promises to be a long, tough road to justice. Corruption in Alabama is deep seated, and the story only begins with the Don Siegelman case. It certainly does not end there.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Abrams Sends Rove Reeling
Don't know what response Karl Rove was expecting when he fired off a letter to MSNBC's Dan Abrams, unleashing a laundry list of criticisms regarding Abrams' coverage of the Don Siegelman story.
But if Rove was looking for a timid, chastened reply, he didn't get it.
No, Abrams fired back with a letter that surely put Turd Blossom on his heels. And he presented Rove with a challenge that the Republican guru almost certainly will not be willing to answer.
Hmmm, maybe writing Dan Abrams a letter and spreading it around the Web wasn't such a good idea.
Abrams hammers Rove right from the outset:
You accuse me of "diminishing the search for facts and evidence," yet thus far you have refused to answer any questions under oath or even from me that would aid in that very search.
In that respect, I want to be very clear that we repeatedly sought, through your lawyer, your presence on my program to respond to allegations made about you. I repeated that invitation on the air last week. I repeat it again by this letter.
If this were a boxing match, Turd Blossom would need a standing eight count. And it's only the first round! But Abrams has more body blows on the way:
It was my considered conclusion -- and my only conclusion -- after assessing a number of troubling aspects about the case and the prosecution of it, that the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta should order the release of the former Governor pending his appeal. The appeals court did just that over the objection of the trial judge. The appellate judges cited "substantial questions of law and fact."
I too have substantial questions of law and fact about the case and some of them involve you.
Now, let's all hold our breaths while we await Turd Blossom's reply to those eight questions.
But if Rove was looking for a timid, chastened reply, he didn't get it.
No, Abrams fired back with a letter that surely put Turd Blossom on his heels. And he presented Rove with a challenge that the Republican guru almost certainly will not be willing to answer.
Hmmm, maybe writing Dan Abrams a letter and spreading it around the Web wasn't such a good idea.
Abrams hammers Rove right from the outset:
You accuse me of "diminishing the search for facts and evidence," yet thus far you have refused to answer any questions under oath or even from me that would aid in that very search.
In that respect, I want to be very clear that we repeatedly sought, through your lawyer, your presence on my program to respond to allegations made about you. I repeated that invitation on the air last week. I repeat it again by this letter.
If this were a boxing match, Turd Blossom would need a standing eight count. And it's only the first round! But Abrams has more body blows on the way:
It was my considered conclusion -- and my only conclusion -- after assessing a number of troubling aspects about the case and the prosecution of it, that the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta should order the release of the former Governor pending his appeal. The appeals court did just that over the objection of the trial judge. The appellate judges cited "substantial questions of law and fact."
I too have substantial questions of law and fact about the case and some of them involve you.
Ow, that hurts! Another standing eight for Turd Blossom. This match is getting ugly in a hurry. But Abrams isn't letting up:
You seem particularly incensed that I interviewed Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican who had volunteered for the campaign of Siegelman's opponent and claimed, in sworn testimony, that she heard conversations about you and your involvement.
You ask why only later did she claim that you asked her to follow the Governor to attempt to take compromising photos. Specifically, you wrote, "Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story, that you then repeated on February 25th?"
Fair question. Which is why I asked her the following on February 25, 2008:
ABRAMS: And why have you never mentioned before the allegations of Rove and the pictures?
SIMPSON: Oh, I mentioned it to people. They just did not use it. Because nobody wanted to go into the fact that I had been following Don Siegelman trying to get pictures of him cheating on his wife.
ABRAMS: But some of your critics have said, "You know, in front of Congress she had a lot of opportunities. Why didn't she mention this before?"
SIMPSON: Well let me explain something to you. I talked to congressional investigators, Dan. And when I talked to those congressional investigators I told them that I had followed Don Siegelman and tried to get pictures of him cheating on his wife. However, they suggested to me that that was not relevant because there was nothing illegal about that and they'd just prefer that not come up at the hearing that day.
We repeatedly offered your attorney a chance to rebut the claims. Dana Jill Simpson testified under oath about this case while thus far you have refused to do so. If she is lying, she should be prosecuted. But as a journalist isn't it fair to ask why you don't welcome the opportunity to testify as well? With sworn false testimony, there are repercussions. Without it, there is no accountability.
Down goes Turd Blossom, down goes Turd Blossom! Will he get up? Yes, he will, but his corner can't let this go on much longer! Oh dear God, here comes Abrams with eight questions that he would like Turd Blossom to answer, either on Abrams show or in writing! And look at questions number 5 and 6!
5) Do you know why your lawyer told us that you would testify about this case if you were subpoenaed but now, after you have been invited to do so, he states that there are issues of executive privilege: "Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify ... is not for me or my client to decide" he said.
6) You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible "executive privilege?"
Thud!! That sound you hear is Turd Blossom hitting the canvas. And he's not getting up! He's not getting up!
Who said that this guy was a smooth political operator? Didn't look so smooth under the Abrams assault.Now, let's all hold our breaths while we await Turd Blossom's reply to those eight questions.
The Birmingham News Has No Shame
Any notion that The Birmingham News is a real newspaper, making even the slightest effort to report the news in an objective fashion, can officially be pitched out the window today.
Regular readers of Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org almost certainly decided some time ago that the News is little more than a right-wing mouthpiece. Anyone with lingering doubt needs to check out today's Brett Blackledge special in the "Riley/Rove Gazette."
The headline says "Siegelman report cited by defense in two-year college case." At the heart of the story is this: Lawyers for State Rep. Sue Schmitz, who faces fraud charges, have moved that her case be dismissed on the grounds that she, like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, is the victim of a political prosecution. Schmitz' lawyers cite last week's report from the majority staff of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which called for further investigation into the Siegelman case and other federal prosecutions that appear to have been driven by politics.
This seems to throw our guy Brett into some sort of spasm. His story devolves into a trashing of the U.S. House report that sounds like it was authored by the Republican National Committee.
Let's examine some of the contentions Blackledge makes in his piece:
* "The Democratic report issued last week on the Siegelman case frequently cites Internet postings by partisan bloggers working with Siegelman and his allies as evidence of growing public outrage . . . "--The overwhelming majority of citations in the report are to mainstream publications--The New York Times, Time magazine, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Huntsville Times, Mobile Press-Register, etc. Blackledge doesn't identify the "bloggers" he is referring to, so we are left to guess. But Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, is the only "blogger" cited for more than one article in the report. So it seems safe to assume that Blackledge is referring to Horton. Blackledge evidently doesn't want his readers to know that Horton writes for Harper's, one of America's most respected periodicals. He doesn't want us to know that Horton is a law professor at Columbia University and a native of Alabama, who knows and cares about the territory. Bottom line? Blackledge has no evidence to support his claim that the report is driven by "partisan bloggers," so he doesn't present any. We can just trust Brett.
* "In raising concerns about politics affecting prosecutions, the Democrats committee report repeats disputed claims about Washington interference in Siegelman's case."--Disputed by whom, and in what forum? Have any of the key players disputed the claims under oath? Have any of them submitted to questioning under oath? I didn't think so.
* "Former White House adviser Karl Rove's connection to the case, for example, relies on Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson's statements, which have changed at least twice."--Blackledge just can't resist dragging out this tired old chestnut. So let's get something straight: Simpson has told her story in three different forms or venues--a sworn affidavit, sworn testimony under bipartisan questioning from Congressional staff, and media interviews. She has given her story in three different forums. That doesn't mean she has changed her story. The truth? Simpson has made sworn statements and answered questions both under oath and the glare of media floodlights. Have any of her detractors done the same? I didn't think so.
* "(Bill) Canary and others Simpson said were on the 2002 conference call have denied discussing the case with Rove and have denied her allegations that Rove was discussed on a phone call with her."--Have these out-and-out denials come under oath? Nope. Is Blackledge going to mention the carefully hedged "lawyer's" language in the affidavits filed by Rob Riley and two others? Nope.
This one is good for a laugh, so make sure you don't have a mouthful of water:
* "The Democrats' report on Siegelman's case, which serves as the basis for a demand that Rove testify before Congress on the matter, states Rove publicly has not addressed 'the main charge that he had pressed the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Siegelman.' But last month, Rove did just that in an interview with The News, stating, 'There is absolutely no evidence for that at all. I did not pressure the Justice Department on anything.'"--Oh well, gee, that settles it. Karl Rove gives an interview to our guy Brett, and that equals sworn testimony before Congress. And we can be sure that our guy Brett really pressured Turd Blossom with some serious followup questions. If the Pulitzer committee doesn't take away Blackledge's Pulitzer Prize for writing that paragraph, then there is no reason to hold much respect for that storied outfit.
What an embarrassment for the journalism profession. But, as we said, The Birmingham News has no shame.
Regular readers of Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org almost certainly decided some time ago that the News is little more than a right-wing mouthpiece. Anyone with lingering doubt needs to check out today's Brett Blackledge special in the "Riley/Rove Gazette."
The headline says "Siegelman report cited by defense in two-year college case." At the heart of the story is this: Lawyers for State Rep. Sue Schmitz, who faces fraud charges, have moved that her case be dismissed on the grounds that she, like former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, is the victim of a political prosecution. Schmitz' lawyers cite last week's report from the majority staff of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, which called for further investigation into the Siegelman case and other federal prosecutions that appear to have been driven by politics.
This seems to throw our guy Brett into some sort of spasm. His story devolves into a trashing of the U.S. House report that sounds like it was authored by the Republican National Committee.
Let's examine some of the contentions Blackledge makes in his piece:
* "The Democratic report issued last week on the Siegelman case frequently cites Internet postings by partisan bloggers working with Siegelman and his allies as evidence of growing public outrage . . . "--The overwhelming majority of citations in the report are to mainstream publications--The New York Times, Time magazine, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Huntsville Times, Mobile Press-Register, etc. Blackledge doesn't identify the "bloggers" he is referring to, so we are left to guess. But Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, is the only "blogger" cited for more than one article in the report. So it seems safe to assume that Blackledge is referring to Horton. Blackledge evidently doesn't want his readers to know that Horton writes for Harper's, one of America's most respected periodicals. He doesn't want us to know that Horton is a law professor at Columbia University and a native of Alabama, who knows and cares about the territory. Bottom line? Blackledge has no evidence to support his claim that the report is driven by "partisan bloggers," so he doesn't present any. We can just trust Brett.
* "In raising concerns about politics affecting prosecutions, the Democrats committee report repeats disputed claims about Washington interference in Siegelman's case."--Disputed by whom, and in what forum? Have any of the key players disputed the claims under oath? Have any of them submitted to questioning under oath? I didn't think so.
* "Former White House adviser Karl Rove's connection to the case, for example, relies on Rainsville lawyer Jill Simpson's statements, which have changed at least twice."--Blackledge just can't resist dragging out this tired old chestnut. So let's get something straight: Simpson has told her story in three different forms or venues--a sworn affidavit, sworn testimony under bipartisan questioning from Congressional staff, and media interviews. She has given her story in three different forums. That doesn't mean she has changed her story. The truth? Simpson has made sworn statements and answered questions both under oath and the glare of media floodlights. Have any of her detractors done the same? I didn't think so.
* "(Bill) Canary and others Simpson said were on the 2002 conference call have denied discussing the case with Rove and have denied her allegations that Rove was discussed on a phone call with her."--Have these out-and-out denials come under oath? Nope. Is Blackledge going to mention the carefully hedged "lawyer's" language in the affidavits filed by Rob Riley and two others? Nope.
This one is good for a laugh, so make sure you don't have a mouthful of water:
* "The Democrats' report on Siegelman's case, which serves as the basis for a demand that Rove testify before Congress on the matter, states Rove publicly has not addressed 'the main charge that he had pressed the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Siegelman.' But last month, Rove did just that in an interview with The News, stating, 'There is absolutely no evidence for that at all. I did not pressure the Justice Department on anything.'"--Oh well, gee, that settles it. Karl Rove gives an interview to our guy Brett, and that equals sworn testimony before Congress. And we can be sure that our guy Brett really pressured Turd Blossom with some serious followup questions. If the Pulitzer committee doesn't take away Blackledge's Pulitzer Prize for writing that paragraph, then there is no reason to hold much respect for that storied outfit.
What an embarrassment for the journalism profession. But, as we said, The Birmingham News has no shame.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Is Karl Rove losing it?
Given his shrill, nutty letter to MSNBC's Dan Abrams, one has to wonder if indeed Karl Rove is approaching the edge.
Rove fired off his missive after Don Siegelman appeared on Abrams' The Verdict and said Rove's "fingerprints were all over" the former Alabama governor's prosecution. Naturally, Rove has refused to appear on the Abrams program and answer questions himself.
But he sure can castigate the MSNBC host in a letter, which can be read here.
Melissa, at Left in Alabama, has an amusing take on Rove's fragile mental state. But she also provides links to articles that provide important background on Turd Blossom's nasty tendencies.
Mark Crispin Miller, of News From Underground, was looking for some perspective on Rove's letter. So he contacted Scott Horton, of Harper's, who has been a leading chronicler of the political nature of the Siegelman case and other prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department.
Horton's response? Here it is:
Rove has been described to me by several of my GOP sources in Alabama as being in a state of panic. He has been pressing senior Alabama GOP figures to speak out for him and to attack me and Jill Simpson, as well as CBS and MSNBC. But they're keeping quiet, which shows more political smarts than Rove, frankly. Of course Rove has a simple objective here. He wants to know all the underlying evidence that has been accumulated to make a case against him and he's desperate to know it before he speaks any more about it. Which is precisely why CBS, MSNBC and others will keep things close to the vest.
But just to show you how ridiculous his tantrum is, he asks how I "know" he was involved in strategizing and fundraising. Of course he wants the names of my sources in Alabama so he can have them pressured and pilloried. But his involvement is established just by looking at the White House website. The key fundraising event of the campaign was the July 15, 2002 fundraiser for Riley in Birmingham - it brought in $4 million. It was arranged by Karl Rove, working closely with Bill Canary. President Bush was the featured draw. How can he deny he was involved in fundraising and strategizing? The very effort is absurd.
The evidence linking him to the use of the Siegelman case as a technique is of course thinner. That's because this is a felony, and those involved in it are not going to speak voluntarily. Which is why his denial should be under oath and subject to crossexamination, just as Jill Simpson's was.
Rove fired off his missive after Don Siegelman appeared on Abrams' The Verdict and said Rove's "fingerprints were all over" the former Alabama governor's prosecution. Naturally, Rove has refused to appear on the Abrams program and answer questions himself.
But he sure can castigate the MSNBC host in a letter, which can be read here.
Melissa, at Left in Alabama, has an amusing take on Rove's fragile mental state. But she also provides links to articles that provide important background on Turd Blossom's nasty tendencies.
Mark Crispin Miller, of News From Underground, was looking for some perspective on Rove's letter. So he contacted Scott Horton, of Harper's, who has been a leading chronicler of the political nature of the Siegelman case and other prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department.
Horton's response? Here it is:
Rove has been described to me by several of my GOP sources in Alabama as being in a state of panic. He has been pressing senior Alabama GOP figures to speak out for him and to attack me and Jill Simpson, as well as CBS and MSNBC. But they're keeping quiet, which shows more political smarts than Rove, frankly. Of course Rove has a simple objective here. He wants to know all the underlying evidence that has been accumulated to make a case against him and he's desperate to know it before he speaks any more about it. Which is precisely why CBS, MSNBC and others will keep things close to the vest.
But just to show you how ridiculous his tantrum is, he asks how I "know" he was involved in strategizing and fundraising. Of course he wants the names of my sources in Alabama so he can have them pressured and pilloried. But his involvement is established just by looking at the White House website. The key fundraising event of the campaign was the July 15, 2002 fundraiser for Riley in Birmingham - it brought in $4 million. It was arranged by Karl Rove, working closely with Bill Canary. President Bush was the featured draw. How can he deny he was involved in fundraising and strategizing? The very effort is absurd.
The evidence linking him to the use of the Siegelman case as a technique is of course thinner. That's because this is a felony, and those involved in it are not going to speak voluntarily. Which is why his denial should be under oath and subject to crossexamination, just as Jill Simpson's was.
How About Some Probing Questions for McCain?
ABC News and moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos have been roundly panned for their performance in last week's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Pennsylvania.
It got so bad at one point that the crowd started jeering the moderators, and Gibson said, "The crowd is turning on me." Perhaps that's because the debate was 45 minutes old before the moderators asked a substantive questions. Until then, it was all about lapel pins, "Bittergate," Bosnian "sniper fire," and the like.
Frank Rich, of The New York Times, has one of the best opinion pieces on the "debate." One major paper called it a "televised train wreck." And that was one of the kinder descriptions.
Jon Perr at the Perrspectives blog took the opportunity to present 10 questions Republican nominee John McCain will never be asked in a debate. You have to wonder about the soft treatment McCain receives, considering the press' supposed liberal tendencies. You also have to wonder if Alabamians, who apparently favor McCain by roughly 20 percent over either Democratic candidate, have bothered paying attention to the issues Perr raises.
It got so bad at one point that the crowd started jeering the moderators, and Gibson said, "The crowd is turning on me." Perhaps that's because the debate was 45 minutes old before the moderators asked a substantive questions. Until then, it was all about lapel pins, "Bittergate," Bosnian "sniper fire," and the like.
Frank Rich, of The New York Times, has one of the best opinion pieces on the "debate." One major paper called it a "televised train wreck." And that was one of the kinder descriptions.
Jon Perr at the Perrspectives blog took the opportunity to present 10 questions Republican nominee John McCain will never be asked in a debate. You have to wonder about the soft treatment McCain receives, considering the press' supposed liberal tendencies. You also have to wonder if Alabamians, who apparently favor McCain by roughly 20 percent over either Democratic candidate, have bothered paying attention to the issues Perr raises.
The GOP and Infantilism
Regular readers know that I occasionally like to engage in dime-store psychology. When you are writing about corrupt Republicans, it's hard not to turn to various forms of emotional pathology.
My current theory is that many corrupt GOPers are afflicted with some form of infantilism.
The latest evidence comes from perhaps the most corrupt GOPer of them all, former White House advisor Karl Rove. Is false bravado a sign of infantilism? I would say yes.
And you will recall that after former Don Siegelman appeared on Dan Abrams' The Verdict, the former Alabama governor challenged Rove to testify before Congress about Siegelman's prosecution.
Rove's initial reaction? Oh sure, no problem. Rove's current reaction? You can read about it here.
Seems Turd Blossom isn't so brave after all. Oh, he's brave enough to write Abrams a letter and chastise him for not asking Siegelman certain questions. But is Rove brave enough to go on Abrams show and answer questions, as Siegelman had done? Not exactly.
If you think about it, Rove kind of looks like a pudgy, doughy baby--the ugliest baby I've ever seen, but a baby nonetheless.
Other signs of infantilism? How about hiding behind someone's skirt when you're in the process of being found out?
Good grief, the Bushies are experts at this. It's what their "executive privilege" claim is all about. And closer to home, our Legal Schnauzer case is filled with examples of "hiding behind the skirt." Corrupt Shelby County attorney Bill Swatek is a master at it. He calls out the county clerk and the sheriff's department to do his dirty work for him. He let's corrupt judges protect him from facing the consequences of his own unlawful actions. In short, Swatek acts like a baby--a puss might be another apt word.
If "childishness" is another word for infantilism, what other examples do we see from the modern GOP?
What do children try to do to someone they don't like or feel threatened by? They try to get a group together to gang up on that person. That's precisely what the GOP has done to Don Siegelman. They couldn't beat him fair and square, so they ganged up on him. Same with Paul Minor in Mississippi. Their corporate cronies couldn't beat Minor in a court of law, so they ganged up on him.
What do children do with language? They mangle it, mostly. They aren't capable of making serious arguments. I've seen this trait firsthand from modern conservatives. Since I started Legal Schnauzer last June, I can't remember receiving a single comment or e-mail in which a GOP partisan makes an intelligent argument or point about something I've written. Invariably, the partisan comments are of the "you are f *****g moron" variety.
How ironic is it that Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran is credited with "breaking" the Siegelman story? Curran is a veritable poster child for infantilism.
When Curran used the Montgomery Independent as a forum for a two-part attack piece on Jill Simpson and Scott Horton, we tore Curran's work to shreds here and here.
When Curran attacked 60 Minutes and tried to get the right-wing blogosphere riled up about it, we again left his work in tatters. And it was easy to do. The man appears to be incapable of taking facts, language, and logic and putting them together in a coherent style. And remember, these "works" were Curran unfiltered, without an editor to clean up his miss.
In short, Curran writes and thinks like a child. Don't believe me?
Check out his comments on a few of my early posts. You can read them here and here.
Does that sound like the work of a well-adjusted, adult mind? I didn't think so.
And since I took apart Curran's attacks on Simpson, Horton, and 60 Minutes, I've received a steady diet of vile, profane, threatening e-mails, some of which have indicated a willingness to commit crimes against me.
All of these have been sent anonymously. Wonder who they came from?
They won't say. Childish, indeed.
My current theory is that many corrupt GOPers are afflicted with some form of infantilism.
The latest evidence comes from perhaps the most corrupt GOPer of them all, former White House advisor Karl Rove. Is false bravado a sign of infantilism? I would say yes.
And you will recall that after former Don Siegelman appeared on Dan Abrams' The Verdict, the former Alabama governor challenged Rove to testify before Congress about Siegelman's prosecution.
Rove's initial reaction? Oh sure, no problem. Rove's current reaction? You can read about it here.
Seems Turd Blossom isn't so brave after all. Oh, he's brave enough to write Abrams a letter and chastise him for not asking Siegelman certain questions. But is Rove brave enough to go on Abrams show and answer questions, as Siegelman had done? Not exactly.
If you think about it, Rove kind of looks like a pudgy, doughy baby--the ugliest baby I've ever seen, but a baby nonetheless.
Other signs of infantilism? How about hiding behind someone's skirt when you're in the process of being found out?
Good grief, the Bushies are experts at this. It's what their "executive privilege" claim is all about. And closer to home, our Legal Schnauzer case is filled with examples of "hiding behind the skirt." Corrupt Shelby County attorney Bill Swatek is a master at it. He calls out the county clerk and the sheriff's department to do his dirty work for him. He let's corrupt judges protect him from facing the consequences of his own unlawful actions. In short, Swatek acts like a baby--a puss might be another apt word.
If "childishness" is another word for infantilism, what other examples do we see from the modern GOP?
What do children try to do to someone they don't like or feel threatened by? They try to get a group together to gang up on that person. That's precisely what the GOP has done to Don Siegelman. They couldn't beat him fair and square, so they ganged up on him. Same with Paul Minor in Mississippi. Their corporate cronies couldn't beat Minor in a court of law, so they ganged up on him.
What do children do with language? They mangle it, mostly. They aren't capable of making serious arguments. I've seen this trait firsthand from modern conservatives. Since I started Legal Schnauzer last June, I can't remember receiving a single comment or e-mail in which a GOP partisan makes an intelligent argument or point about something I've written. Invariably, the partisan comments are of the "you are f *****g moron" variety.
How ironic is it that Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran is credited with "breaking" the Siegelman story? Curran is a veritable poster child for infantilism.
When Curran used the Montgomery Independent as a forum for a two-part attack piece on Jill Simpson and Scott Horton, we tore Curran's work to shreds here and here.
When Curran attacked 60 Minutes and tried to get the right-wing blogosphere riled up about it, we again left his work in tatters. And it was easy to do. The man appears to be incapable of taking facts, language, and logic and putting them together in a coherent style. And remember, these "works" were Curran unfiltered, without an editor to clean up his miss.
In short, Curran writes and thinks like a child. Don't believe me?
Check out his comments on a few of my early posts. You can read them here and here.
Does that sound like the work of a well-adjusted, adult mind? I didn't think so.
And since I took apart Curran's attacks on Simpson, Horton, and 60 Minutes, I've received a steady diet of vile, profane, threatening e-mails, some of which have indicated a willingness to commit crimes against me.
All of these have been sent anonymously. Wonder who they came from?
They won't say. Childish, indeed.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Siegelman Speaks Out in Alabama
Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, is the first Alabama print journalist to interview Don Siegelman after the former governor's recent release from federal prison pending appeal of his conviction on corruption charges.
Stevenson produces an important piece, not only about the Siegelman case but about America's justice system as a whole.
"This is not about Don Siegelman, and it's not about the Alabama case," (Siegelman) said in his first interview with an Alabama newspaper since being released from a federal prison in Oakdale, La. "This is about America, it is about finding out who hijacked the Department of Justice and used it as a political tool to win elections."
Stevenson reports that Siegelman had just returned from two days in Washington conferring with U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Siegelman said he is willing to testify before Congress about his case "or anything else they want me to do."
"I tried to make clear to Congressman Conyers that, to me, above everything else, [my case is about] making it clear to anyone who might think that they can get away with this in the future that they won't be able to," Siegelman said.
Siegelman has maintained that he was targeted by political operatives, particularly Rove, the President George W. Bush's former chief political advisor. "So they've got to find out who is responsible, hold them responsible and make a clear and unequivocal statement that Congress and people of this country are not going to tolerate people taking over the Department of Justice and using it as a political tool," he said.
Stevenson provides an update on the legal status of Siegelman's appeal:
"We have not filed the appeal yet and have until the 23rd of May to do so," Siegelman said. "But you have to remember, that on an appeal, only what happened in the courtroom is relevant and you have to find errors to have action taken. I could get thrown back in Oakdale, I could get a new trial, I could get a new trial on one issue or not the other, or the court could reverse the conviction and I would be a free man."
Comments from Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn provide insight on the heart of Siegelman's appeal:
"We think there were some problems with Judge [Mark] Fuller's instructions to the jury about what constitutes a bribe — that there has to be a quid pro quo involved and there was never any testimony that there was," he said. 'There were also several issues we tried to bring up in the case that the judge would not let us do that we think bear looking at."
Stevenson produces an important piece, not only about the Siegelman case but about America's justice system as a whole.
"This is not about Don Siegelman, and it's not about the Alabama case," (Siegelman) said in his first interview with an Alabama newspaper since being released from a federal prison in Oakdale, La. "This is about America, it is about finding out who hijacked the Department of Justice and used it as a political tool to win elections."
Stevenson reports that Siegelman had just returned from two days in Washington conferring with U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Siegelman said he is willing to testify before Congress about his case "or anything else they want me to do."
"I tried to make clear to Congressman Conyers that, to me, above everything else, [my case is about] making it clear to anyone who might think that they can get away with this in the future that they won't be able to," Siegelman said.
Siegelman has maintained that he was targeted by political operatives, particularly Rove, the President George W. Bush's former chief political advisor. "So they've got to find out who is responsible, hold them responsible and make a clear and unequivocal statement that Congress and people of this country are not going to tolerate people taking over the Department of Justice and using it as a political tool," he said.
Stevenson provides an update on the legal status of Siegelman's appeal:
"We have not filed the appeal yet and have until the 23rd of May to do so," Siegelman said. "But you have to remember, that on an appeal, only what happened in the courtroom is relevant and you have to find errors to have action taken. I could get thrown back in Oakdale, I could get a new trial, I could get a new trial on one issue or not the other, or the court could reverse the conviction and I would be a free man."
Comments from Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn provide insight on the heart of Siegelman's appeal:
"We think there were some problems with Judge [Mark] Fuller's instructions to the jury about what constitutes a bribe — that there has to be a quid pro quo involved and there was never any testimony that there was," he said. 'There were also several issues we tried to bring up in the case that the judge would not let us do that we think bear looking at."
UAB's Singing Quarterback Goes to CD
Whenever we need a break from tales of corrupt judges and lawyers, we tend to focus on news about music. Usually, we turn our attention to something connected to Taylor Hicks, Birmingham's most recent American Idol and the "official musician of Legal Schnauzer."
A few weeks back, we did a post about Sam Hunt, who was a senior quarterback last season for UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) and also happens to be a pretty darned good singer. We noted that several of his teammates had encouraged Hunt to try out for American Idol, following in the footsteps of Hicks, Ruben Studdard, and Bo Bice. Now that his college football career is over, Hunt just might give it a try. The auditions for 2009 Idol would be the earliest he could give it a shot.
Our post included a rather shaky video of Hunt's performance with the UAB Gospel Choir, performing a tribute song, "Nothing Goes Unnoticed," honoring the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Now we learn that Hunt's performance will be part of the UAB Gospel Choir's newest CD and accompanying DVD, "Gospel 101: Go Dominate."
The choir will unveil the new CD and DVD at its spring concert at 7 p.m. on Monday at the Alys Stephens Center on the UAB campus. Should be a fun event.
We've heaped plenty of criticism on The Birmingham News for its one-sided political coverage in Alabama. But the paper does some good stuff, too, and today's piece on the UAB Gospel Choir, by staff writer Greg Garrison, is one example.
Garrison notes that the rise of UAB's gospel choir has coincided with an explosion in the academic study of gospel music nationally. In fact, after UAB started its gospel choir, 17 other universities started gospel choirs modeled on the UAB program.
"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery," says Kevin Turner, director of the choir. "That says you're doing something right."
A few weeks back, we did a post about Sam Hunt, who was a senior quarterback last season for UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) and also happens to be a pretty darned good singer. We noted that several of his teammates had encouraged Hunt to try out for American Idol, following in the footsteps of Hicks, Ruben Studdard, and Bo Bice. Now that his college football career is over, Hunt just might give it a try. The auditions for 2009 Idol would be the earliest he could give it a shot.
Our post included a rather shaky video of Hunt's performance with the UAB Gospel Choir, performing a tribute song, "Nothing Goes Unnoticed," honoring the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Now we learn that Hunt's performance will be part of the UAB Gospel Choir's newest CD and accompanying DVD, "Gospel 101: Go Dominate."
The choir will unveil the new CD and DVD at its spring concert at 7 p.m. on Monday at the Alys Stephens Center on the UAB campus. Should be a fun event.
We've heaped plenty of criticism on The Birmingham News for its one-sided political coverage in Alabama. But the paper does some good stuff, too, and today's piece on the UAB Gospel Choir, by staff writer Greg Garrison, is one example.
Garrison notes that the rise of UAB's gospel choir has coincided with an explosion in the academic study of gospel music nationally. In fact, after UAB started its gospel choir, 17 other universities started gospel choirs modeled on the UAB program.
"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery," says Kevin Turner, director of the choir. "That says you're doing something right."
Jim Gundlach: Kudos for a Whistleblower
Retired Auburn University professor Jim Gundlach is a courageous fellow. He has taken on college football and Republican politicians--in Alabama, of all places. That's like going to Mecca and raising questions about the Prophet Muhammad.
Speaking truth to power has caused Gundlach all kinds of headaches. Auburn administrators, he says, made his life so miserable that he chose to retire when he did not really want to.
But Gundlach is receiving some much-deserved recognition. Today in Memphis, he receives the Drake Group's 2008 Robert Maynard Hutchins Award. The award goes to a person who the group believes shows courage in standing up for academic integrity in the face of commercialized college sports. The Drake Group consists of past and present faculty members and athletics department employees who are trying to reform big-time college athletics.
In July 2006, Gundlach revealed to The New York Times that a disproportionate number of athletes at Auburn received high grades for independent study courses that required little or no work. As a result of Gundlach's revelations, Auburn announced limits on the number of students whose independent study can be supervised by a single professor. And the professor in question, Thomas Petee, was removed as department chairman.
By making these moves, Auburn seemed to be acknowledging there was a problem. But that didn't keep administrators from giving Gundlach a hard time:
These days, Gundlach says, he misses working with students. He does some data consulting work but laments he spends too much time with his dogs and not enough with people.
He retired last May, he said, as a result of Auburn administrators "making my life miserable" after his data and comments became public.
"I just reached the point where I couldn't stand to be around the place anymore," he said. "And I felt a whole lot better very quickly after I left. I started sleeping regularly again."
The award from the Drake Group has nothing to with Gundlach's other courageous act--his academic paper showing that Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial election almost certainly was stolen by Republican operatives, giving Bob Riley a narrow victory over Don Siegelman, who had appeared to be the winner on the night of the election. Gundlach's paper showed that changing vote totals in Baldwin County, a Republican stronghold, almost had to be the result of intentional electronic manipulation of data and could not have been caused by a computer "glitch" as election officials claimed.
I would bet that Gundlach's paper on the 2002 election had a lot to do with the harassment he received from Auburn administrators. Due to his position as governor, Bob Riley also serves as president of the Auburn Board of Trustees. My understanding that the governor's role on such boards is usually ceremonial. But could Riley have used his influence to lead a harassment campaign against Gundlach? I don't think there's any question about it. Certainly wouldn't want someone to practice academic freedom at our state's largest university.
Speaking truth to power has caused Gundlach all kinds of headaches. Auburn administrators, he says, made his life so miserable that he chose to retire when he did not really want to.
But Gundlach is receiving some much-deserved recognition. Today in Memphis, he receives the Drake Group's 2008 Robert Maynard Hutchins Award. The award goes to a person who the group believes shows courage in standing up for academic integrity in the face of commercialized college sports. The Drake Group consists of past and present faculty members and athletics department employees who are trying to reform big-time college athletics.
In July 2006, Gundlach revealed to The New York Times that a disproportionate number of athletes at Auburn received high grades for independent study courses that required little or no work. As a result of Gundlach's revelations, Auburn announced limits on the number of students whose independent study can be supervised by a single professor. And the professor in question, Thomas Petee, was removed as department chairman.
By making these moves, Auburn seemed to be acknowledging there was a problem. But that didn't keep administrators from giving Gundlach a hard time:
These days, Gundlach says, he misses working with students. He does some data consulting work but laments he spends too much time with his dogs and not enough with people.
He retired last May, he said, as a result of Auburn administrators "making my life miserable" after his data and comments became public.
"I just reached the point where I couldn't stand to be around the place anymore," he said. "And I felt a whole lot better very quickly after I left. I started sleeping regularly again."
The award from the Drake Group has nothing to with Gundlach's other courageous act--his academic paper showing that Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial election almost certainly was stolen by Republican operatives, giving Bob Riley a narrow victory over Don Siegelman, who had appeared to be the winner on the night of the election. Gundlach's paper showed that changing vote totals in Baldwin County, a Republican stronghold, almost had to be the result of intentional electronic manipulation of data and could not have been caused by a computer "glitch" as election officials claimed.
I would bet that Gundlach's paper on the 2002 election had a lot to do with the harassment he received from Auburn administrators. Due to his position as governor, Bob Riley also serves as president of the Auburn Board of Trustees. My understanding that the governor's role on such boards is usually ceremonial. But could Riley have used his influence to lead a harassment campaign against Gundlach? I don't think there's any question about it. Certainly wouldn't want someone to practice academic freedom at our state's largest university.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Conyers Has Rove in His Sights
Remember last fall's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution?
We sure do. That's when Legal Schnauzer officially made it into the halls of Congress, thanks to references to our reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Those references came in documents entered by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). (Sorry, but couldn't pass up an opportunity for self promotion.)
Like many of you, I've been wondering ever since what was going to come next. Today, we found out.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced three actions today on the issue of selective prosecution. He invited former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove to testify regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution; he urged the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate allegations of selective prosecution; and he demanded that Attorney General Michael Mukasey provide additional documents on the subject.
Letters and the Majority Staff Report on selective prosecution can be viewed here.
We sure do. That's when Legal Schnauzer officially made it into the halls of Congress, thanks to references to our reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Those references came in documents entered by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). (Sorry, but couldn't pass up an opportunity for self promotion.)
Like many of you, I've been wondering ever since what was going to come next. Today, we found out.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced three actions today on the issue of selective prosecution. He invited former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove to testify regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution; he urged the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate allegations of selective prosecution; and he demanded that Attorney General Michael Mukasey provide additional documents on the subject.
Letters and the Majority Staff Report on selective prosecution can be viewed here.
Alice Martin Gets Off the Perjury Hook
How do you lie under oath and get away with?
Evidently it helps to be a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney in the Bush Justice Department. That's the only conclusion we can make from news today that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has been cleared of perjury allegations.
The allegations stem from Martin's deposition related to an EEOC complaint filed against her office in 2004 by a former employee. Deirdra Brown-Fleming, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Huntsville Office, filed complaints alleging that Martin had perjured herself when she testified under oath about events leading up to Brown-Fleming's termination in 2002.
But the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Alabama State Bar made no finding of wrongdoing.
The EEOC in 2007 found that Brown-Fleming's firing was retaliatory and ordered Brown-Fleming and her former supervisor, Victor Conrad, to be reinstated with back pay and other benefits.
In a post dated September 8, 2007, Harper's Scott Horton made it abundantly clear that Martin lied under oath in the Brown-Fleming deposition.
First, we should consider exactly what perjury means. A good definition, drawn from the U.S. Code, can be found here.
Here's how Horton, a Columbia University law professor, assessed the case against Martin:
There are of course all sorts of technical defenses that can be raised to a perjury charge. Perjury is not frequently charged all by itself. It tends to be an add-on. I am sure that Martin’s counsel has formulated a rafter of defenses to the accusation.
But we’re dealing with a sitting U.S. attorney who gave false evidence under oath in a legal proceeding–the same U.S. attorney who leveled charges of corruption and obstruction against Governor (Don) Siegelman. The conclusion of the (EEOC's) proceedings on Brown’s claim was that Martin’s testimony was “not worthy of credence.” I’ll say. But how can a person who behaves in such a way–let’s put it as mildly as possible–as cavalierly with the truth, under oath, in legal proceedings–serve as a United States Attorney?
Evidently it helps to be a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney in the Bush Justice Department. That's the only conclusion we can make from news today that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has been cleared of perjury allegations.
The allegations stem from Martin's deposition related to an EEOC complaint filed against her office in 2004 by a former employee. Deirdra Brown-Fleming, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Huntsville Office, filed complaints alleging that Martin had perjured herself when she testified under oath about events leading up to Brown-Fleming's termination in 2002.
But the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Alabama State Bar made no finding of wrongdoing.
The EEOC in 2007 found that Brown-Fleming's firing was retaliatory and ordered Brown-Fleming and her former supervisor, Victor Conrad, to be reinstated with back pay and other benefits.
In a post dated September 8, 2007, Harper's Scott Horton made it abundantly clear that Martin lied under oath in the Brown-Fleming deposition.
First, we should consider exactly what perjury means. A good definition, drawn from the U.S. Code, can be found here.
Here's how Horton, a Columbia University law professor, assessed the case against Martin:
There are of course all sorts of technical defenses that can be raised to a perjury charge. Perjury is not frequently charged all by itself. It tends to be an add-on. I am sure that Martin’s counsel has formulated a rafter of defenses to the accusation.
But we’re dealing with a sitting U.S. attorney who gave false evidence under oath in a legal proceeding–the same U.S. attorney who leveled charges of corruption and obstruction against Governor (Don) Siegelman. The conclusion of the (EEOC's) proceedings on Brown’s claim was that Martin’s testimony was “not worthy of credence.” I’ll say. But how can a person who behaves in such a way–let’s put it as mildly as possible–as cavalierly with the truth, under oath, in legal proceedings–serve as a United States Attorney?
Quite easily, it appears, in the age of Rove. How strong was the case against Martin.
Consider that the heart of the case was Brown-Fleming's allegation that she was fired for helping Conrad file an EEOC complaint against Martin. Martin stated under oath that she did not know about Conrad's EEOC complaint until March 2003, almost a year after she had fired Brown.
But evidence showed that she received a December 20, 2001, letter, delivered by FedEx, which set out the Conrad claim in considerable detail. Later, in March 2002, she received an e-mail from Will Chambers, head of the Huntsville U.S. Attorney's office, spelling out Conrad's claims and noting Brown-Fleming's assistance in the matter.
Horton sums it up, after quoting from the Chambers e-mail:
There you have it: Martin did know in some detail about Conrad’s EEO claim. She did know about Brown’s work with Conrad to put it together and push it forward. And her reaction was to fire Brown.
The bottom line? The evidence was overwhelming that Alice Martin committed perjury. But the Bush Justice Department let her off. Is anyone really surprised by this?
As for the Alabama State Bar, I've seen firsthand how worthless it can be and how it is prone to ignore its own Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Martin perjury case involves some curious jurisdictional issues that I don't understand. Why was Alice Martin not tried in a court of law, as would have happened if you or I had lied so blatantly under oath? I can only assume it's because her alleged crimes took place in her own district. Perhaps procedure calls for such a case to be heard by the Office of Professional Responsibility. But how would Martin have fared before a jury of her peers? Not so well, I have a feeling. It seems Brown-Fleming's claims should be heard by a true tribunal.
Martin might have been cleared on perjury charges, but we will show here at Legal Schnauzer that she has no problems lying to the public, the people whom she is supposed to serve. I've got an e-mail exchange that will show you how, in her own words, Queen Alice plays fast and loose with the truth and intentionally cheats victims of crimes.
Scott Horton's words from September 2007 still ring true:
Back when I started writing about the U.S. attorneys scandal, I got flooded with personal accounts of dealings and encounters with Alice Martin—they came in from attorneys, businessmen, political figures, and prosecutors who work for her, and even a judge. And not a single person had a positive thing to say about Martin. Many expressed questions about her professional competence—and her handling of the HealthSouth case may be the basis for some lasting judgments on that score. But in others she was characterized as mean-spirited, mercurial, petty, vindictive, and extremely partisan. Indeed, her extreme partisanship was a consistent theme of comment.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Civil Side of the Siegelman Saga
Coverage of the Don Siegelman case has focused almost exclusively on criminal issues. But it seems to me that major civil litigation could eventually be a byproduct of the criminal case.
And I think the same thing could be said of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has produced three political prisoners--attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
If it is proven that the Bush Justice Department prosecuted the Siegelman and Minor cases for political and unlawful reasons, what kind of lawsuits might that generate?
Let's consider the Siegelman case first. The former Alabama governor has spent nine months in federal prison. He recently said on national television that he is "busted" financially and any hopes he had of pursuing future political opportunities are ruined. His legal bills probably run into the hundreds of thousands. And one can only imagine the stress that he and his family have endured because of the Bush DOJ prosecution.
The defendants in the Minor case have been through similar ordeals. They were sentenced in September 2007, and Minor went almost immediately to federal prison. Wes Teel and John Whitfield reported to federal prison in late December. Minor has been fined $4.25 million, 15 times the district court guidelines for such a case. All three men have had to deal with personal and/or family health crises while imprisoned.
What if it is shown that both of these prosecutions were fraudulent, that none of the defendants actually committed federal crimes and Justice Department officials knew it from the outset?What if it is shown that these men were prosecuted and convicted not because they committed crimes but because they were active Democrats at a time when Republicans controlled the U.S. Justice Department?
What kind of lawsuits might result from such findings? How many millions of dollars might juries award the defendants for their extreme suffering? Can you put enough zeroes on the end of a check to sufficiently compensate these victims?
And here's the big question: Who might be held liable for damages in such lawsuits? I, of course, am not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not an expert on the kind of complex civil litigation we are talking about here. But here are a few thoughts, based on my own experiences and research regarding civil law:
* In general, judges and prosecutors are immune from lawsuits as long as they act within their official capacity. But what if it is shown that judges and prosecutors knew from the outset these cases were bogus? Judicial and prosecutorial immunity is not absolute. Could facts surface that would cause serious problems for folks like Mark Fuller, Leura Canary, and Louis Franklin in Alabama and Henry Wingate and Dunn Lampton in Mississippi?
* What about Karl Rove, who might have played a key role in both cases? I don't see how Rove would be protected by immunity. I'm sure Rove has some kind of umbrella or personal liability insurance policy. If I were Turd Blossom, I would be checking on my policy limits. And if I were Turd Blossom's insurer, I would be more than a little concerned about a major payout that could be looming. Could Don Siegelman wind up with rights to a nice chunk of property at Rosemary Beach?
* What about Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and other GOP operatives who might have played a role in initiating the Siegelman prosecution? Again, I see no way they can hide behind claims of immunity. And if I were them, I would be checking the policy limits on my umbrella policies.
* What about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which pumped millions of dollars into Mississippi and Alabama in an effort to get "pro business" judges in place? What about COC leaders such as Thomas J. Donahue, who apparently led this effort to essentially buy our courts? Forgive my editorializing, but I think it would be poetic justice if the COC and Donahue both wound up bankrupt and destitute in the aftermath of lawsuits. They have intentionally corrupted our justice system, at both the federal and state levels, and no punishment for them is too severe, in my view.
* What about George W. Bush and other members of the administration (can we say Alberto Gonzalez?) who might have been involved? Paula Jones has proven that sitting presidents are not immune from lawsuits, so I see no reason why lawyers representing Siegelman and Minor should not go after Bush & Co.--and the sooner the better.
From a practical standpoint, the biggest holdup might be money. The defendants already are paying huge sums of money for their criminal defenses? Where would they find the funds to launch civil cases, which could be very expensive? Does the Democratic Party, or other progressive interests, have the human and financial resources to help justice be done on the civil side?
(To be continued)
And I think the same thing could be said of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has produced three political prisoners--attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
If it is proven that the Bush Justice Department prosecuted the Siegelman and Minor cases for political and unlawful reasons, what kind of lawsuits might that generate?
Let's consider the Siegelman case first. The former Alabama governor has spent nine months in federal prison. He recently said on national television that he is "busted" financially and any hopes he had of pursuing future political opportunities are ruined. His legal bills probably run into the hundreds of thousands. And one can only imagine the stress that he and his family have endured because of the Bush DOJ prosecution.
The defendants in the Minor case have been through similar ordeals. They were sentenced in September 2007, and Minor went almost immediately to federal prison. Wes Teel and John Whitfield reported to federal prison in late December. Minor has been fined $4.25 million, 15 times the district court guidelines for such a case. All three men have had to deal with personal and/or family health crises while imprisoned.
What if it is shown that both of these prosecutions were fraudulent, that none of the defendants actually committed federal crimes and Justice Department officials knew it from the outset?What if it is shown that these men were prosecuted and convicted not because they committed crimes but because they were active Democrats at a time when Republicans controlled the U.S. Justice Department?
What kind of lawsuits might result from such findings? How many millions of dollars might juries award the defendants for their extreme suffering? Can you put enough zeroes on the end of a check to sufficiently compensate these victims?
And here's the big question: Who might be held liable for damages in such lawsuits? I, of course, am not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not an expert on the kind of complex civil litigation we are talking about here. But here are a few thoughts, based on my own experiences and research regarding civil law:
* In general, judges and prosecutors are immune from lawsuits as long as they act within their official capacity. But what if it is shown that judges and prosecutors knew from the outset these cases were bogus? Judicial and prosecutorial immunity is not absolute. Could facts surface that would cause serious problems for folks like Mark Fuller, Leura Canary, and Louis Franklin in Alabama and Henry Wingate and Dunn Lampton in Mississippi?
* What about Karl Rove, who might have played a key role in both cases? I don't see how Rove would be protected by immunity. I'm sure Rove has some kind of umbrella or personal liability insurance policy. If I were Turd Blossom, I would be checking on my policy limits. And if I were Turd Blossom's insurer, I would be more than a little concerned about a major payout that could be looming. Could Don Siegelman wind up with rights to a nice chunk of property at Rosemary Beach?
* What about Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and other GOP operatives who might have played a role in initiating the Siegelman prosecution? Again, I see no way they can hide behind claims of immunity. And if I were them, I would be checking the policy limits on my umbrella policies.
* What about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which pumped millions of dollars into Mississippi and Alabama in an effort to get "pro business" judges in place? What about COC leaders such as Thomas J. Donahue, who apparently led this effort to essentially buy our courts? Forgive my editorializing, but I think it would be poetic justice if the COC and Donahue both wound up bankrupt and destitute in the aftermath of lawsuits. They have intentionally corrupted our justice system, at both the federal and state levels, and no punishment for them is too severe, in my view.
* What about George W. Bush and other members of the administration (can we say Alberto Gonzalez?) who might have been involved? Paula Jones has proven that sitting presidents are not immune from lawsuits, so I see no reason why lawyers representing Siegelman and Minor should not go after Bush & Co.--and the sooner the better.
* What if it is shown that members of the press were actively engaged in a conspiracy to bring a bogus case against Siegelman? Could Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register have bigger worries than his floundering book deal? What about folks like publisher Victor Hanson III and Editor Tom Scarritt at The Birmingham News? Could journalists be hit hard in the pocketbook? Normally, I wouldn't think so. But I'm not sure that anything about this case has been normal.
Here's another big question to ponder: What about the timing of any lawsuits by the Siegelman and Minor defendants? Should they wait until the criminal appeals are exhausted? Or could they go ahead now, starting the discovery process that could include sworn depositions for folks like Rove, Canary, Rob Riley, Lampton, even Dubya. (I seem to recall that Bill Clinton was forced to give a deposition while serving in the White House. Turnabout is fair play, isn't it?)
Again, I'm not a lawyer--and I welcome input from anyone who knows about issues connected to this kind of civil litigation--but I see no reason why, technically, the Siegelman and Minor defendants could not move forward with lawsuits right now.From a practical standpoint, the biggest holdup might be money. The defendants already are paying huge sums of money for their criminal defenses? Where would they find the funds to launch civil cases, which could be very expensive? Does the Democratic Party, or other progressive interests, have the human and financial resources to help justice be done on the civil side?
(To be continued)
Suing Law Enforcement Officers? Hmmm
Looks like Shelby County does not have the only incompetent law-enforcement outfit in Alabama.
Evidently Baldwin County, another Republican stronghold, also has a bunch of misfits masquerading as law officers.
Get this: Jeanette Garrett, a 48-year-old mother of three, was arrested for selling drugs to undercover officers. Ms. Garrett, who lives in Loxley, AL, is a stroke victim who has been confined to a wheelchair since 2000.
Just the type of person you would expect to be selling drugs on a street corner.
It took her a year and a half to clean up the mess made by law enforcement, and now she is suing three officers in federal court. The officers are from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, Daphne Police Department, and Orange Beach Police Department.
How did all this affect Garrett?
"Worrying about it, worrying about it, worrying about it every day was a living hell," said Garrett, who blames the stress for causing another stroke.
And what about this paragraph from the Mobile Press-Register:
How it is that a woman with no apparent connection to illegal drugs could have been mistaken for a drug dealer -- and why it took so long for law enforcement to acknowledge the error -- remains unclear. Officials from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, which runs the drug task force that investigated the case, declined comment.
Yeah, I bet they declined comment. Baldwin County's district attorney did not decline comment. Is there actually an honest Republican in Alabama? Great, Caesar's Ghost!
Baldwin County District Attorney Judy Newcomb said last week that she was not familiar with the details of Garrett's case. But Newcomb added that at about the time of Garrett's arrest, she was becoming concerned with the way that law enforcement officers were making identifications in undercover drug cases.
Gee, think she had reason to become concerned?
James Curenton, a lawyer from Fairhope, is representing Ms. Garrett. Count me as one citizen who is hoping the folks in Baldwin County wind up writing a check with a whole lot of zeroes to Ms. Garrett:
"It's kind of amazing, really," Curenton said. "They supposedly had a videotape of a drug transaction. I'm just shocked that she was prosecuted for this."
So law enforcement officers can be sued in federal court for acting unlawfully, taking away people's rights, and causing emotional distress? Sounds like they can be sued for unlawfully taking away people's houses. Now isn't that an interesting thought?
Evidently Baldwin County, another Republican stronghold, also has a bunch of misfits masquerading as law officers.
Get this: Jeanette Garrett, a 48-year-old mother of three, was arrested for selling drugs to undercover officers. Ms. Garrett, who lives in Loxley, AL, is a stroke victim who has been confined to a wheelchair since 2000.
Just the type of person you would expect to be selling drugs on a street corner.
It took her a year and a half to clean up the mess made by law enforcement, and now she is suing three officers in federal court. The officers are from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, Daphne Police Department, and Orange Beach Police Department.
How did all this affect Garrett?
"Worrying about it, worrying about it, worrying about it every day was a living hell," said Garrett, who blames the stress for causing another stroke.
And what about this paragraph from the Mobile Press-Register:
How it is that a woman with no apparent connection to illegal drugs could have been mistaken for a drug dealer -- and why it took so long for law enforcement to acknowledge the error -- remains unclear. Officials from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, which runs the drug task force that investigated the case, declined comment.
Yeah, I bet they declined comment. Baldwin County's district attorney did not decline comment. Is there actually an honest Republican in Alabama? Great, Caesar's Ghost!
Baldwin County District Attorney Judy Newcomb said last week that she was not familiar with the details of Garrett's case. But Newcomb added that at about the time of Garrett's arrest, she was becoming concerned with the way that law enforcement officers were making identifications in undercover drug cases.
Gee, think she had reason to become concerned?
James Curenton, a lawyer from Fairhope, is representing Ms. Garrett. Count me as one citizen who is hoping the folks in Baldwin County wind up writing a check with a whole lot of zeroes to Ms. Garrett:
"It's kind of amazing, really," Curenton said. "They supposedly had a videotape of a drug transaction. I'm just shocked that she was prosecuted for this."
So law enforcement officers can be sued in federal court for acting unlawfully, taking away people's rights, and causing emotional distress? Sounds like they can be sued for unlawfully taking away people's houses. Now isn't that an interesting thought?
An Injustice Anywhere . . .
An alert and highly intelligent reader sends a reminder that today marks the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail.
King's brilliant letter contained one of the most profound quotations in American history:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr., - Letter from Birmingham jail
April 16, 1963
How far have we really come in Alabama over the past 45 years? We have U.S. attorneys like Alice Martin in Birmingham and Leura Canary in Montgomery, who seem to have no conception of truth or the rule of law. We have Republican-packed appellate courts, shaped largely by two men--Karl Rove and Bill Canary--who seem to tweak their nose at the law without a thought. And justices on our Supreme Court cheat the state out of a $3.6 billion judgment because they've taken money from the oil industry. We have a former governor who was unquestionably wrongly imprisoned and almost certainly wrongly convicted, in a trial conducted by a judge with myriad conflicts of interest. A Missouri attorney has stated in an affidavit that he has evidence of criminal activity by this judge, and yet Alabama's brain-dead press has never, to my knowledge, written a word about it.
Finally, for what it's worth, in the Republican stronghold of Shelby County--which you think might be a somewhat enlightened place considering that its the fastest growing, wealthiest county in Alabama--a couple is under threat of having their house snatched for no lawful reason. Why are they facing this threat? It's because of the blog you are reading.
Which raises the question: What is being written here that GOP authorities so badly do not want you to read? I write the darn thing, and I haven't got a clue.
Attorney Bill Swatek has a 30-year record of sleaze that is public record. I'm not writing a thing that isn't well known in the Birmingham legal community. And I've talked to probably a dozen or more local lawyers who acknowledge that judges like Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves routinely cheat parties. Do these lawyers have the guts to try to do something about it? Evidently not.
But what happens when one of those cheated parties has the audacity to share his story with the public? Well, let's take his house from him. We must not let the "great unwashed" know about our heaping piles of smelly laundry.
Justice in America might be under a greater threat than at any time since King wrote the famous words cited above. What are Americans going to do about it?
King's brilliant letter contained one of the most profound quotations in American history:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr., - Letter from Birmingham jail
April 16, 1963
How far have we really come in Alabama over the past 45 years? We have U.S. attorneys like Alice Martin in Birmingham and Leura Canary in Montgomery, who seem to have no conception of truth or the rule of law. We have Republican-packed appellate courts, shaped largely by two men--Karl Rove and Bill Canary--who seem to tweak their nose at the law without a thought. And justices on our Supreme Court cheat the state out of a $3.6 billion judgment because they've taken money from the oil industry. We have a former governor who was unquestionably wrongly imprisoned and almost certainly wrongly convicted, in a trial conducted by a judge with myriad conflicts of interest. A Missouri attorney has stated in an affidavit that he has evidence of criminal activity by this judge, and yet Alabama's brain-dead press has never, to my knowledge, written a word about it.
Finally, for what it's worth, in the Republican stronghold of Shelby County--which you think might be a somewhat enlightened place considering that its the fastest growing, wealthiest county in Alabama--a couple is under threat of having their house snatched for no lawful reason. Why are they facing this threat? It's because of the blog you are reading.
Which raises the question: What is being written here that GOP authorities so badly do not want you to read? I write the darn thing, and I haven't got a clue.
Attorney Bill Swatek has a 30-year record of sleaze that is public record. I'm not writing a thing that isn't well known in the Birmingham legal community. And I've talked to probably a dozen or more local lawyers who acknowledge that judges like Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves routinely cheat parties. Do these lawyers have the guts to try to do something about it? Evidently not.
But what happens when one of those cheated parties has the audacity to share his story with the public? Well, let's take his house from him. We must not let the "great unwashed" know about our heaping piles of smelly laundry.
Justice in America might be under a greater threat than at any time since King wrote the famous words cited above. What are Americans going to do about it?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A New Date With the Jack Booted Thugs
Deputies in the Shelby County Sheriff's Office evidently are frustrated home decorators.
How else to explain their desire to keep coming on our property--almost certainly trespassing, given that they have no official business on our property--and decorating our garage door with taped messages.
The latest came yesterday and was notice for a new sheriff's sale of our house. (You haven't lived until you've received one of these notices. A definite day brightener.)
We recently posted that the sale of our house, set for April 7, was postponed because the clod heads who run Shelby County put down the wrong legal description of our property in their original notice of levy.
My wife is wondering if somebody lives in a house at the location that was listed on the first notice. Perhaps people showed up in droves, measuring, taking pictures, etc. My wife can only imagine the owner coming out and being told, "Hey, we're just preparing to make a bid when they auction your house." We laugh at the thought of said owner going into a frenzy and calling the Shelby County ding dongs and demanding to know what is going on. If that happened, that owner would probably have a heckuva lawsuit for emotional distress, etc. (Smile.)
The new notice of sheriff's sale is identical to the one we posted about earlier, except I guess it has the correct legal description of our property. (All I know is our address; I have no idea what the legal description of our property is--lot this, block that, etc.)
It's interesting to note this wording in the notice:
"Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST of the above named Roger Shuler to the described property . . . "
Sounds like they have the right to sell my entire interest in my own home over an alleged judgment of $1,525 doesn't it?
I'm going to try, in my own unlawyerly way, to spell out all the manifest ways in which this house seizure business is unlawful. I'm also going to do a recap of all the actions that make the judgment against me--upon which this threat to seize my house is based--itself unlawful.
As for the process of seizing property to satisfy a court judgment, it seems to consist of four parts--a writ of execution, a notice of levy, a notice of sheriff's sale, the sheriff's sale itself. I will show that the Shelby County Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight has messed it up at every level. And that doesn't even touch on the judgment itself, which Shelby County judges pulled from dark crevices under their robes. (That conjures up some disturbing images. Sorry about that.)
Let me say this: writs of execution etc. get into some pretty complicated law. It has connections to tax law, mortgage law, bankruptcy law, foreclosure law, collections law--all very pleasant subjects, and all areas that even your average lawyer doesn't know much about. These are the kinds of things that usually call for a legal specialist.
So your Unfrozen Caveman Legal Schnauzer doesn't claim to have all of the answers. But I've done enough research that I think I have a pretty good idea about what bogus stuff is going on in my situation--and what should go on in cases where a judgment and writ of execution are legitimate, which these most definitely are not.
How else to explain their desire to keep coming on our property--almost certainly trespassing, given that they have no official business on our property--and decorating our garage door with taped messages.
The latest came yesterday and was notice for a new sheriff's sale of our house. (You haven't lived until you've received one of these notices. A definite day brightener.)
We recently posted that the sale of our house, set for April 7, was postponed because the clod heads who run Shelby County put down the wrong legal description of our property in their original notice of levy.
My wife is wondering if somebody lives in a house at the location that was listed on the first notice. Perhaps people showed up in droves, measuring, taking pictures, etc. My wife can only imagine the owner coming out and being told, "Hey, we're just preparing to make a bid when they auction your house." We laugh at the thought of said owner going into a frenzy and calling the Shelby County ding dongs and demanding to know what is going on. If that happened, that owner would probably have a heckuva lawsuit for emotional distress, etc. (Smile.)
The new notice of sheriff's sale is identical to the one we posted about earlier, except I guess it has the correct legal description of our property. (All I know is our address; I have no idea what the legal description of our property is--lot this, block that, etc.)
It's interesting to note this wording in the notice:
"Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST of the above named Roger Shuler to the described property . . . "
Sounds like they have the right to sell my entire interest in my own home over an alleged judgment of $1,525 doesn't it?
I'm going to try, in my own unlawyerly way, to spell out all the manifest ways in which this house seizure business is unlawful. I'm also going to do a recap of all the actions that make the judgment against me--upon which this threat to seize my house is based--itself unlawful.
As for the process of seizing property to satisfy a court judgment, it seems to consist of four parts--a writ of execution, a notice of levy, a notice of sheriff's sale, the sheriff's sale itself. I will show that the Shelby County Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight has messed it up at every level. And that doesn't even touch on the judgment itself, which Shelby County judges pulled from dark crevices under their robes. (That conjures up some disturbing images. Sorry about that.)
Let me say this: writs of execution etc. get into some pretty complicated law. It has connections to tax law, mortgage law, bankruptcy law, foreclosure law, collections law--all very pleasant subjects, and all areas that even your average lawyer doesn't know much about. These are the kinds of things that usually call for a legal specialist.
So your Unfrozen Caveman Legal Schnauzer doesn't claim to have all of the answers. But I've done enough research that I think I have a pretty good idea about what bogus stuff is going on in my situation--and what should go on in cases where a judgment and writ of execution are legitimate, which these most definitely are not.
Oliver Diaz: Witness to Political Prosecution
We noted in a recent post that Larisa Alexandrovna's story and interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz is one of the most important pieces of journalism to come out on the evolving Bush Justice Department scandal.
Alexandrovna's piece at Raw Story is an in-depth look at a man who was one of the first targets of the Bush Justice machine. And here is what makes the Diaz story so fascinating: He was indicted twice by the feds, and he was acquitted both times. A study of the Diaz case shows that the charges against him were preposterously weak. That prosecutors moved ahead with them anyway adds consider fuel to the notion that justice in the Age of Bush is motivated by politics, not facts and law.
What else makes the Diaz story fascinating? He was a Republican and served as such in the Mississippi Legislature. Diaz' apparent crime is that he worked in a bipartisan way in the legislature and he did not properly toe the "pro business" line once he was a state judge. And nothing made Diaz a target to the Bush Republicans like his friendship with trial lawyer and Democratic donor Paul Minor.
Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted of crimes they did not commit and have had little if any chance to tell their stories. But Diaz, after going through a long legal ordeal, is back on the Mississippi Supreme Court. And he can tell his story--a story that is central to understanding the current state of justice in America.
Let's look at some of the key issues raised by Alexandrovna's story:
A Mysterious Burglary
We've heard about the fire at the home of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, and we know her car was run off the road. We know about the break-in at Don Siegelman's home and at his lawyer's office. Diaz had a similar experience:
“After I was indicted and before my trial, my home was also broken into,” Diaz tells RAW STORY. “Our door was kicked in and our documents were rummaged. Televisions, computers and other valuables were not taken, despite the fact that we were out of town for several days and the home was left open by the burglars. We could not figure out a motive for the burglary and reported it to the Biloxi Police Department. The crime was never solved.”
Find a Suspect, Create a Crime
Diaz says federal prosecutors took the normal criminal-investigation process and turned it on its head:
“Normally, a criminal investigation begins after a crime is committed. Investigators are sent out to gather evidence and a list of suspects is drawn up. Sometimes an investigation is begun after a complaint is made about suspicious activity. In our case neither of these things occurred.
“In other words, an individual was singled out for examination from the federal government and prosecutors then attempted to make his conduct fit into some criminal statute. This is not how our system of justice is supposed to operate.”
Pressure on Witnesses
We've heard about former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White and the extraordinary pressure that was put on him to supply information about Don Siegelman. Diaz tells a similar story about his wife, Jennifer:
“Just before our trial, federal prosecutors spoke to Jennifer’s attorney and told him that they were willing to make a deal. They explained that she and I were each facing many years in federal prison and millions of dollars in fines. They told her that it would be a shame if both she and I were convicted because they knew that we had two small children.
“They said that if she would agree to plead guilty to a single count of tax evasion they would guarantee her that she would serve no time and would pay no fine. All she would have to do is fully cooperate with investigators by telling them everything she knows and to truthfully testify if they called her to the stand. Not being able to risk the loss of our children, Jennifer accepted this deal.”
A Sense of Electoral Timing
We have seen how the Siegelman investigation appeared to be timed to hurt his chances of running for governor in 2006. Diaz had a similar experience:
Diaz was indicted three months prior to Mississippi's gubernatorial election. Because he'd been appointed by the incumbent Democratic governor, Republicans used his name as part of a smear campaign to bolster their candidate, Haley Barbour.
The U.S. Chamber Comes Calling
It has been widely reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured large sums of money into Alabama court races in the 1990s. Diaz felt the wrath of the Chamber next door in Mississippi:
"In 2002 I was in the second year of an eight-year term on the Mississippi Supreme Court. A struggle was brewing over control of the court. In the 2000 election, large amounts of money were put into Mississippi judicial elections by big business, tobacco and insurance, with mixed results. I was targeted for defeat by these groups, who were not able to beat me in the election.
"The mechanism used by these groups to target me for defeat was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber spent more than a million dollars in the final two weeks before my election, running television and radio ads, direct mail, telephone solicitations and leaflets and fliers. Most of the ads were what you would call negative attack ads directed at me. They also ran a few ads that praised my opponent."
The Importance of Alabama in the GOP Scheme
Diaz says he was attacked by a machine that was fine tuned in the Heart of Dixie:
"I think that Alabama is the model that is used by conservative groups who are interested in stacking the courts. Nothing like this had ever occurred prior to [former White House deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush] Karl Rove’s experiment with this in Alabama. The same thing occurred in Texas under Rove’s direction."
John Grisham and the Big Picture
One of Mississippi's most famous sons, novelist John Grisham, has borrowed from the Diaz story:
"Today, many states with an elected judiciary find their courts under attack from big business, insurance and tobacco. This is so prevalent that it has even made its way into popular culture. This entire scenario is the plot of John Grisham’s latest best-seller, 'The Appeal.' I don’t think that John Grisham needs any help from me in selling his books, but I do highly recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic in a very entertaining way."
Diaz and Minor
Diaz took legal campaign support from Minor, but also took the extra step of recusing himself in cases involving Minor's clients. Diaz was not required to do this, but he did it as a precautionary measure. He was indicted anyway. Essentially, he was charged with making corrupt rulings on cases in which he made no rulings:
"The loan guaranteed by Minor was a campaign loan prior to the election, not after. All of the proceeds of this loan were used in my campaign to counter the attacks launched by the U.S. Chamber. This is all perfectly legal in Mississippi. Mississippi law specifically provides for loans to campaigns.
"Paul Minor had been a friend of mine for years, and he provided a great deal of help for me in my campaign. In addition to monetary support, he also provided advice and was involved in campaign decisions. Because of this relationship, I did not want anyone to be able to question my participation in cases in which he was involved. Therefore, in my entire time at the Mississippi Supreme Court, I have never voted or participated in any way in any case in which Paul Minor, his firm or his clients were involved. Paul knew that by taking such an active role in my campaign, I would not participate in his cases, and he agreed with that decision."
A Highly Conflicted Prosecutor
We know about the myriad conflicts of interest U.S. Attorney Leura Canary had in the Siegelman case. Diaz saw similar conflicts from U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton in Mississippi:
"Lampton tried to dodge the questions of conflict by saying that he was not participating. This was simply a lie. Lampton questioned witnesses in the grand jury and signed the indictment. He issued press releases trumpeting the charges against us. His office personnel and resources were devoted to the prosecution. He regularly attended court and observed the proceedings. Again, the irony was that we were being prosecuted by Lampton for perceived conflicts of interest, and Lampton himself was not even attempting to live up to the standard for which he was prosecuting."
Bogus Jury Instructions
As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, U.S. Judge Henry Wingate made numerous unlawful rulings and gave incorrect jury instructions in the Minor case. Diaz had a front-row seat for that circus:
"In some very bizarre rulings, the trial judge in his case actually ruled exactly opposite of his rulings in our first trial. The judge went so far as to instruct the jury that they could convict Minor even if they found that the rulings of a judge in his case were the correct rulings.
"In other words, the trial judge basically instructed the jury that the simple fact that Minor guaranteed loans to a judge’s campaign was enough to convict him of bribery. Because there was never a question as to the existence of loans, this instruction completely took away Minor’s defense that there were loans but that there was never a 'quid pro quo' or something done by the judge in exchange for the loan. Without a defense, it was easy for the jury to convict."
What Lies Ahead?
Diaz has hope that justice will eventually be done. But he says it probably will not happen quickly.
"Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to get any answers as long as the current administration is in office. I think the only way we will see any action taken to correct the injustices that have been done will be if we insist that the next administration conduct a full investigation into these abuses."
Alexandrovna's piece at Raw Story is an in-depth look at a man who was one of the first targets of the Bush Justice machine. And here is what makes the Diaz story so fascinating: He was indicted twice by the feds, and he was acquitted both times. A study of the Diaz case shows that the charges against him were preposterously weak. That prosecutors moved ahead with them anyway adds consider fuel to the notion that justice in the Age of Bush is motivated by politics, not facts and law.
What else makes the Diaz story fascinating? He was a Republican and served as such in the Mississippi Legislature. Diaz' apparent crime is that he worked in a bipartisan way in the legislature and he did not properly toe the "pro business" line once he was a state judge. And nothing made Diaz a target to the Bush Republicans like his friendship with trial lawyer and Democratic donor Paul Minor.
Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted of crimes they did not commit and have had little if any chance to tell their stories. But Diaz, after going through a long legal ordeal, is back on the Mississippi Supreme Court. And he can tell his story--a story that is central to understanding the current state of justice in America.
Let's look at some of the key issues raised by Alexandrovna's story:
A Mysterious Burglary
We've heard about the fire at the home of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, and we know her car was run off the road. We know about the break-in at Don Siegelman's home and at his lawyer's office. Diaz had a similar experience:
“After I was indicted and before my trial, my home was also broken into,” Diaz tells RAW STORY. “Our door was kicked in and our documents were rummaged. Televisions, computers and other valuables were not taken, despite the fact that we were out of town for several days and the home was left open by the burglars. We could not figure out a motive for the burglary and reported it to the Biloxi Police Department. The crime was never solved.”
Find a Suspect, Create a Crime
Diaz says federal prosecutors took the normal criminal-investigation process and turned it on its head:
“Normally, a criminal investigation begins after a crime is committed. Investigators are sent out to gather evidence and a list of suspects is drawn up. Sometimes an investigation is begun after a complaint is made about suspicious activity. In our case neither of these things occurred.
“In other words, an individual was singled out for examination from the federal government and prosecutors then attempted to make his conduct fit into some criminal statute. This is not how our system of justice is supposed to operate.”
Pressure on Witnesses
We've heard about former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White and the extraordinary pressure that was put on him to supply information about Don Siegelman. Diaz tells a similar story about his wife, Jennifer:
“Just before our trial, federal prosecutors spoke to Jennifer’s attorney and told him that they were willing to make a deal. They explained that she and I were each facing many years in federal prison and millions of dollars in fines. They told her that it would be a shame if both she and I were convicted because they knew that we had two small children.
“They said that if she would agree to plead guilty to a single count of tax evasion they would guarantee her that she would serve no time and would pay no fine. All she would have to do is fully cooperate with investigators by telling them everything she knows and to truthfully testify if they called her to the stand. Not being able to risk the loss of our children, Jennifer accepted this deal.”
A Sense of Electoral Timing
We have seen how the Siegelman investigation appeared to be timed to hurt his chances of running for governor in 2006. Diaz had a similar experience:
Diaz was indicted three months prior to Mississippi's gubernatorial election. Because he'd been appointed by the incumbent Democratic governor, Republicans used his name as part of a smear campaign to bolster their candidate, Haley Barbour.
The U.S. Chamber Comes Calling
It has been widely reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured large sums of money into Alabama court races in the 1990s. Diaz felt the wrath of the Chamber next door in Mississippi:
"In 2002 I was in the second year of an eight-year term on the Mississippi Supreme Court. A struggle was brewing over control of the court. In the 2000 election, large amounts of money were put into Mississippi judicial elections by big business, tobacco and insurance, with mixed results. I was targeted for defeat by these groups, who were not able to beat me in the election.
"The mechanism used by these groups to target me for defeat was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber spent more than a million dollars in the final two weeks before my election, running television and radio ads, direct mail, telephone solicitations and leaflets and fliers. Most of the ads were what you would call negative attack ads directed at me. They also ran a few ads that praised my opponent."
The Importance of Alabama in the GOP Scheme
Diaz says he was attacked by a machine that was fine tuned in the Heart of Dixie:
"I think that Alabama is the model that is used by conservative groups who are interested in stacking the courts. Nothing like this had ever occurred prior to [former White House deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush] Karl Rove’s experiment with this in Alabama. The same thing occurred in Texas under Rove’s direction."
John Grisham and the Big Picture
One of Mississippi's most famous sons, novelist John Grisham, has borrowed from the Diaz story:
"Today, many states with an elected judiciary find their courts under attack from big business, insurance and tobacco. This is so prevalent that it has even made its way into popular culture. This entire scenario is the plot of John Grisham’s latest best-seller, 'The Appeal.' I don’t think that John Grisham needs any help from me in selling his books, but I do highly recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic in a very entertaining way."
Diaz and Minor
Diaz took legal campaign support from Minor, but also took the extra step of recusing himself in cases involving Minor's clients. Diaz was not required to do this, but he did it as a precautionary measure. He was indicted anyway. Essentially, he was charged with making corrupt rulings on cases in which he made no rulings:
"The loan guaranteed by Minor was a campaign loan prior to the election, not after. All of the proceeds of this loan were used in my campaign to counter the attacks launched by the U.S. Chamber. This is all perfectly legal in Mississippi. Mississippi law specifically provides for loans to campaigns.
"Paul Minor had been a friend of mine for years, and he provided a great deal of help for me in my campaign. In addition to monetary support, he also provided advice and was involved in campaign decisions. Because of this relationship, I did not want anyone to be able to question my participation in cases in which he was involved. Therefore, in my entire time at the Mississippi Supreme Court, I have never voted or participated in any way in any case in which Paul Minor, his firm or his clients were involved. Paul knew that by taking such an active role in my campaign, I would not participate in his cases, and he agreed with that decision."
A Highly Conflicted Prosecutor
We know about the myriad conflicts of interest U.S. Attorney Leura Canary had in the Siegelman case. Diaz saw similar conflicts from U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton in Mississippi:
"Lampton tried to dodge the questions of conflict by saying that he was not participating. This was simply a lie. Lampton questioned witnesses in the grand jury and signed the indictment. He issued press releases trumpeting the charges against us. His office personnel and resources were devoted to the prosecution. He regularly attended court and observed the proceedings. Again, the irony was that we were being prosecuted by Lampton for perceived conflicts of interest, and Lampton himself was not even attempting to live up to the standard for which he was prosecuting."
Bogus Jury Instructions
As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, U.S. Judge Henry Wingate made numerous unlawful rulings and gave incorrect jury instructions in the Minor case. Diaz had a front-row seat for that circus:
"In some very bizarre rulings, the trial judge in his case actually ruled exactly opposite of his rulings in our first trial. The judge went so far as to instruct the jury that they could convict Minor even if they found that the rulings of a judge in his case were the correct rulings.
"In other words, the trial judge basically instructed the jury that the simple fact that Minor guaranteed loans to a judge’s campaign was enough to convict him of bribery. Because there was never a question as to the existence of loans, this instruction completely took away Minor’s defense that there were loans but that there was never a 'quid pro quo' or something done by the judge in exchange for the loan. Without a defense, it was easy for the jury to convict."
What Lies Ahead?
Diaz has hope that justice will eventually be done. But he says it probably will not happen quickly.
"Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to get any answers as long as the current administration is in office. I think the only way we will see any action taken to correct the injustices that have been done will be if we insist that the next administration conduct a full investigation into these abuses."
Schnauzer to the Washington Post, Part II
To: Carrie Johnson, staff writer
From: Legal Schnauzer
Re: "Former Ala. Governor Turns Tables on Justice Department"
Ms. Johnson:
Please allow me to point out several areas for further exploration regarding the Don Siegelman case and the Bush Justice Department:
Beyond Assertions
You state several times that Siegelman makes "assertions" that he was railroaded. The record shows that his assertions are grounded in substantial fact. Perhaps the document that most strongly supports Siegelman's assertions comes, ironically enough, from U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the case. When the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Fuller to issue an opinion justifying his decision to deny bond pending appeal, Fuller failed miserably to meet his burden under the law. The following posts show just how badly Fuller missed the mark on his decision to deny bond. And they also raise substantial questions about Fuller's administration of the entire case:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/checking-out-mark-fuller-shuffle.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/rechecking-mark-fuller-shuffle.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/fuller-makes-siegelmans-case-for-him.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-fuller-naked-in-town-square.html#links
An Unfit Judge
The posts above show that U.S. Judge Mark Fuller played fast and loose with the facts and the law in the Siegelman case. But a review of Fuller's background shows that he had clear conflicts of interest and never should have been assigned to the case. The most disturbing aspect of Fuller's background: While Fuller served as a district attorney, an audit was conducted of questionable business practices in his office. That audit was conducted while Don Siegelman was governor, raising the question: Did Fuller have a grudge against Siegelman, and did that color his handling of the case? Even more damning, Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks filed an affidavit in a separate case, raising claims of unethical and possibly criminal actions by Fuller. The following post provides details about Fuller's background:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2007/11/mark-fuller-two-timer.html#links
Conflicted Prosecutors
You state again that Siegelman "asserts" that Republican operatives conspired to manufacture a case against him. These assertions are based in pertinent fact. It's a fact that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary is the wife of Bill Canary, who served as a campaign advisor for Siegelman's opponent, Bob Riley. It's a fact that no one has produced evidence that Leura Canary ever actually recused herself from the Siegelman case. And it's a fact that normal procedure calls for a U.S. attorney from outside Canary's district to be appointed in the event of her recusal. Instead, the case was moved to one of Canary's deputies, someone who answers to her.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2007/09/strange-sort-of-recusal.html#links
The Rove Sideshow
As you note, Siegelman does not have proof at this point of Karl Rove's involvement in the case. But Rove's possible involvement is only a sidebar issue. The key point is this: Close examination of the case shows that Don Siegelman was convicted of crimes he did not commit. How could this happen? Again, Judge Fuller's own memorandum opinion shows that he gave the wrong jury instructions. Bribery is the crime that has received the most attention in the Siegelman case. But five of the seven counts upon which Siegelman was convicted involve honest-services mail fraud. And as we have shown in numerous posts, honest-services mail fraud is not a crime about money; it involves a public official actually depriving the public of his or her honest services. In this case, that could only have been done if Siegelman had appointed an unqualified individual to the Hospital Certificate of Need Board. But Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth, clearly was qualified and had served on the board under three previous governors. As for bribery, Fuller's own words show that he did not require a finding of a quid pro quo (something for something) arrangement in his jury instructions. Eleventh Circuit precedent requires a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. Fuller essentially allowed the jury to convict Siegelman of an offense that does not exist.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/schnauzer-greaseball-awards.html#links
New Trial or Reversal
You state on a couple of occasions that an Atlanta appeals court will determine whether Siegelman should win a new trial. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the appellate court also could reverse the trial court and award Siegelman an acquittal. I don't pretend to know all of the factors that might go into a possible reversal. And I understand that the awarding of a new trial is more common than a reversal. But Fuller's own memorandum opinion shows that the trial court's handling of this case was so off target, that I think a reversal is possible--and almost certainly justified.
Examining the Press
The Alabama press, particularly the Mobile Press-Register and The Birmingham News, merit strong scrutiny for their handling of the Siegelman story. Scott Horton, of Harper's, is a Columbia University law professor, and he has written extensively about the two papers' apparent coziness with prosecutors in the Siegelman case. Eddie Curran, of the Mobile Press-Register, wrote more than 100 investigative articles that are credited with sparking the federal government's Siegelman probe. On the surface, Curran's work appears to be an impressive example of hard-nosed journalism. And he certainly portrays Siegelman as a "wheeler-dealer" governor. But I've yet to see any indication that Curran has an understanding of the criminal statutes that wound up being applied to the Siegelman case. In other words, Curran's reporting generated much "sound and fury," but it did little if anything to show that Siegelman's behavior amounted to federal crimes. And Curran's bizarre personal behavior merits scrutiny by other reporters. He certainly does not advance the idea of an objective reporter, and we've noted his strange rantings numerous times on my blog. It has been well reported that Curran has a book deal based on the Siegelman case, but it seems clear that his book deal is likely to turn sour if Siegelman's conviction fails to hold. Has Curran stayed "above the fray" and followed the story wherever it leads? Doesn't look like it.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/eddie-curran-fires-spitballs-at-60.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/02/deconstructing-eddie-curran.html#links
Mississippi Churning
You state that the Justice Department is "vulnerable to allegations of politically tainted actions." Again, you are being much too kind to the Bush DOJ. No case is a more blatant example of a political prosecution than the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield are in federal prison, convicted of crimes they clearly did not commit. How can I be so sure in making that statement? I wrote a 25-part series of posts called "Mississippi Churning," showing that U.S. Judge Henry Wingate gave grossly incorrect jury instructions and made wrongful evidentiary rulings that essentially kept Minor & Co. from putting on a defense. Here is one of my most recent posts on the Minor case, showing its connections to the Siegelman prosecution.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/04/unearthing-siegelmanminor-gameplan.html#links
In short, your story on the Siegelman case is a good start. But I hope the Post will devote its considerable resources to digging deeper on this topic. The Bush DOJ/U.S. Attorneys scandal reaches from coast to coast, with brush fires in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Washington, to name a few states. But the scandal has its genesis in the South. And much more reporting needs to be done in Alabama and Mississippi.
From: Legal Schnauzer
Re: "Former Ala. Governor Turns Tables on Justice Department"
Ms. Johnson:
Please allow me to point out several areas for further exploration regarding the Don Siegelman case and the Bush Justice Department:
Beyond Assertions
You state several times that Siegelman makes "assertions" that he was railroaded. The record shows that his assertions are grounded in substantial fact. Perhaps the document that most strongly supports Siegelman's assertions comes, ironically enough, from U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the case. When the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Fuller to issue an opinion justifying his decision to deny bond pending appeal, Fuller failed miserably to meet his burden under the law. The following posts show just how badly Fuller missed the mark on his decision to deny bond. And they also raise substantial questions about Fuller's administration of the entire case:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/checking-out-mark-fuller-shuffle.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/rechecking-mark-fuller-shuffle.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/fuller-makes-siegelmans-case-for-him.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/01/mark-fuller-naked-in-town-square.html#links
An Unfit Judge
The posts above show that U.S. Judge Mark Fuller played fast and loose with the facts and the law in the Siegelman case. But a review of Fuller's background shows that he had clear conflicts of interest and never should have been assigned to the case. The most disturbing aspect of Fuller's background: While Fuller served as a district attorney, an audit was conducted of questionable business practices in his office. That audit was conducted while Don Siegelman was governor, raising the question: Did Fuller have a grudge against Siegelman, and did that color his handling of the case? Even more damning, Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks filed an affidavit in a separate case, raising claims of unethical and possibly criminal actions by Fuller. The following post provides details about Fuller's background:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2007/11/mark-fuller-two-timer.html#links
Conflicted Prosecutors
You state again that Siegelman "asserts" that Republican operatives conspired to manufacture a case against him. These assertions are based in pertinent fact. It's a fact that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary is the wife of Bill Canary, who served as a campaign advisor for Siegelman's opponent, Bob Riley. It's a fact that no one has produced evidence that Leura Canary ever actually recused herself from the Siegelman case. And it's a fact that normal procedure calls for a U.S. attorney from outside Canary's district to be appointed in the event of her recusal. Instead, the case was moved to one of Canary's deputies, someone who answers to her.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2007/09/strange-sort-of-recusal.html#links
The Rove Sideshow
As you note, Siegelman does not have proof at this point of Karl Rove's involvement in the case. But Rove's possible involvement is only a sidebar issue. The key point is this: Close examination of the case shows that Don Siegelman was convicted of crimes he did not commit. How could this happen? Again, Judge Fuller's own memorandum opinion shows that he gave the wrong jury instructions. Bribery is the crime that has received the most attention in the Siegelman case. But five of the seven counts upon which Siegelman was convicted involve honest-services mail fraud. And as we have shown in numerous posts, honest-services mail fraud is not a crime about money; it involves a public official actually depriving the public of his or her honest services. In this case, that could only have been done if Siegelman had appointed an unqualified individual to the Hospital Certificate of Need Board. But Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth, clearly was qualified and had served on the board under three previous governors. As for bribery, Fuller's own words show that he did not require a finding of a quid pro quo (something for something) arrangement in his jury instructions. Eleventh Circuit precedent requires a quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. Fuller essentially allowed the jury to convict Siegelman of an offense that does not exist.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/schnauzer-greaseball-awards.html#links
New Trial or Reversal
You state on a couple of occasions that an Atlanta appeals court will determine whether Siegelman should win a new trial. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the appellate court also could reverse the trial court and award Siegelman an acquittal. I don't pretend to know all of the factors that might go into a possible reversal. And I understand that the awarding of a new trial is more common than a reversal. But Fuller's own memorandum opinion shows that the trial court's handling of this case was so off target, that I think a reversal is possible--and almost certainly justified.
Examining the Press
The Alabama press, particularly the Mobile Press-Register and The Birmingham News, merit strong scrutiny for their handling of the Siegelman story. Scott Horton, of Harper's, is a Columbia University law professor, and he has written extensively about the two papers' apparent coziness with prosecutors in the Siegelman case. Eddie Curran, of the Mobile Press-Register, wrote more than 100 investigative articles that are credited with sparking the federal government's Siegelman probe. On the surface, Curran's work appears to be an impressive example of hard-nosed journalism. And he certainly portrays Siegelman as a "wheeler-dealer" governor. But I've yet to see any indication that Curran has an understanding of the criminal statutes that wound up being applied to the Siegelman case. In other words, Curran's reporting generated much "sound and fury," but it did little if anything to show that Siegelman's behavior amounted to federal crimes. And Curran's bizarre personal behavior merits scrutiny by other reporters. He certainly does not advance the idea of an objective reporter, and we've noted his strange rantings numerous times on my blog. It has been well reported that Curran has a book deal based on the Siegelman case, but it seems clear that his book deal is likely to turn sour if Siegelman's conviction fails to hold. Has Curran stayed "above the fray" and followed the story wherever it leads? Doesn't look like it.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/03/eddie-curran-fires-spitballs-at-60.html#links
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/02/deconstructing-eddie-curran.html#links
Mississippi Churning
You state that the Justice Department is "vulnerable to allegations of politically tainted actions." Again, you are being much too kind to the Bush DOJ. No case is a more blatant example of a political prosecution than the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield are in federal prison, convicted of crimes they clearly did not commit. How can I be so sure in making that statement? I wrote a 25-part series of posts called "Mississippi Churning," showing that U.S. Judge Henry Wingate gave grossly incorrect jury instructions and made wrongful evidentiary rulings that essentially kept Minor & Co. from putting on a defense. Here is one of my most recent posts on the Minor case, showing its connections to the Siegelman prosecution.
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/04/unearthing-siegelmanminor-gameplan.html#links
In short, your story on the Siegelman case is a good start. But I hope the Post will devote its considerable resources to digging deeper on this topic. The Bush DOJ/U.S. Attorneys scandal reaches from coast to coast, with brush fires in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Washington, to name a few states. But the scandal has its genesis in the South. And much more reporting needs to be done in Alabama and Mississippi.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Democratic Underground Connects the Dots
The Hissyspit journal at Democratic Underground has a detailed piece today about the Paul Minor and Don Siegelman cases and how they connect to my own story here at Legal Schnauzer.
In a sense, the DU story is about the modern Republican Party and its lack of regard for the rule of law. But perhaps the more important angle is this: the modern Republican Party and its utter lack of humanity.
The wife of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor has brain cancer, and her condition is reportedly deteriorating. Meanwhile, her husband is in a federal prison in Florida for crimes he clearly did not commit.
We feel confident in making that statement because we have written a series of 25 posts that show the Minor case was wrongly decided, thanks largely to the corrupt actions of federal judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee. The Hissyspit piece references much of our work in the "Mississippi Churning" series. You can review the entire series here.
Paul Minor, and former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, are true political prisoners. Minor's clients received favorable rulings in cases before Teel and Whitfield because the law and facts were on their side. Teel and Whitfield ruled correctly under the law, and there is no evidence that their rulings were unlawfully influenced by the fact that Minor had guaranteed loans for their campaigns, which is legal under Mississippi law.
In short, Minor, Teel, and Whitfield all did their jobs. And for that, they wound up in federal prison.
By the way, Wes Teel's wife also has serious health problems. And Teel himself had a heart attack not long after reporting to federal prison in December 2007.
Under the circumstances, I think most caring people would have sympathy for the Minor defendants even if they were guilty of the charges against them. But given that all three defendants clearly were not guilty--that they were railroaded by a corrupt federal judge and a prosecutor who had seen his family business successfully sued by Paul Minor--it's stunning that the case has generated so little attention--or outrage.
Think about Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield and their families the next time you hear a Republican talk about God and Christianity. Think about them the next time you hear a Republican say, "Character counts."
Yes, character does count. And the Paul Minor case speaks volumes about the true character of the modern Republican Party.
In a sense, the DU story is about the modern Republican Party and its lack of regard for the rule of law. But perhaps the more important angle is this: the modern Republican Party and its utter lack of humanity.
The wife of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor has brain cancer, and her condition is reportedly deteriorating. Meanwhile, her husband is in a federal prison in Florida for crimes he clearly did not commit.
We feel confident in making that statement because we have written a series of 25 posts that show the Minor case was wrongly decided, thanks largely to the corrupt actions of federal judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee. The Hissyspit piece references much of our work in the "Mississippi Churning" series. You can review the entire series here.
Paul Minor, and former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, are true political prisoners. Minor's clients received favorable rulings in cases before Teel and Whitfield because the law and facts were on their side. Teel and Whitfield ruled correctly under the law, and there is no evidence that their rulings were unlawfully influenced by the fact that Minor had guaranteed loans for their campaigns, which is legal under Mississippi law.
In short, Minor, Teel, and Whitfield all did their jobs. And for that, they wound up in federal prison.
By the way, Wes Teel's wife also has serious health problems. And Teel himself had a heart attack not long after reporting to federal prison in December 2007.
Under the circumstances, I think most caring people would have sympathy for the Minor defendants even if they were guilty of the charges against them. But given that all three defendants clearly were not guilty--that they were railroaded by a corrupt federal judge and a prosecutor who had seen his family business successfully sued by Paul Minor--it's stunning that the case has generated so little attention--or outrage.
Think about Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield and their families the next time you hear a Republican talk about God and Christianity. Think about them the next time you hear a Republican say, "Character counts."
Yes, character does count. And the Paul Minor case speaks volumes about the true character of the modern Republican Party.
Schnauzer to the Washington Post
To: Carrie Johnson, staff writer
From: Legal Schnauzer
Re: "Former Ala. Governor Turns Tables on Justice Department"
Ms. Johnson:
I was pleased to see your report on the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and the broad issue of political prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
As a resident of Birmingham, Alabama, and the target of an ongoing campaign by Republican authorities to unlawfully seize and auction my house, I can tell you that your story only skims the surface of problems in our justice system.
The Deep South, particularly Alabama and Mississippi, has become Ground Zero in the evolving Bush DOJ scandal, which started with the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in December 2006. Siegelman is the best known target of the Bush DOJ. But a case in Mississippi involving attorney Paul Minor, a prominent donor to numerous Democratic candidates, might be an even more alarming and clear example of a political prosecution.
Why is the Deep South important in this story? Well, former White House advisor Karl Rove built his national reputation on Alabama state court races in the mid 1990s and maintains close ties to the state's GOP hierarchy, including campaign consultant Bill Canary. Canary, of course, is reported to have played a central role in launching the Siegelman investigation. Rove also is close to high-level Repulblicans in Mississippi, including sitting governor Haley Barbour.
My experience proves that the GOP does not limit its targets to the powerful (Siegelman) or the wealthy (Minor). I've been forced to fight a baseless lawsuit, filed by a neighbor over a property-related matter, in Alabama state courts. By law, the case had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in a matter of six to eight months. (Almost all lawsuits, even the worst ones, take at least that long to be resolved.) But repeated unlawful rulings by Republican judges caused the case to drag on for more than seven years, costing my wife and me--and Alabama taxpayers--thousands of dollars.
Even though the case by law could not go to trial, I was forced to go to trial and wound up with a judgment of $1,525 against me.
Why did Republican judges handle the case in an unlawful manner? The answer seems clear: My neighbor's attorney was William E. Swatek, whose office is based in Pelham, Alabama. Bill Swatek has family ties to the Alabama GOP hierarchy, and those ties appear to reach all the way to the Bush White House.
Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a Montgomery-based campaign consultant whose clients have included Alice Martin, now U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, and Bob Riley, current governor of Alabama. Dax Swatek also has worked for Bill Canary, he of the close ties to Karl Rove. Hence the Bush White House connection in my case.
Alabama law provides several mechanisms for punishing an attorney who files a lawsuit that has no basis in law or fact. But GOP judges have made sure that Bill Swatek was not held accountable for the baseless lawsuit he filed against me.
In the process, these judges (and Bill Swatek himself) have committed federal crimes, specifically honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy. I have reported these crimes to the FBI and the Birmingham U.S. Attorney's Office, but they have taken no action and Alice Martin even has taken steps to keep my complaint under wraps. It seems clear that she is trying to protect Bill Swatek, the father of her former campaign manager.
By the way, I should mention that Bill Swatek has an unsavory background. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation." The State Bar also found that Swatek's actions "reflected adversely on his fitness for the practice of law." Swatek also has been tried for perjury in criminal court. For good measure, Swatek's client--my neighbor, Mike McGarity--has a substantial criminal record. He has at least eight criminal convictions in his background, including violence-related and sex-related offenses.
When it became clear that I would never receive justice in Alabama courts, I decided to start a blog called Legal Schnauzer. My goal was to educate the public about corruption in Alabama state courts and to connect my experience to broader justice issues, such as the Siegelman and Minor cases.
In the more than three years since the trial in my case, Bill Swatek had made no attempt to collect the $1,525 "judgment." But when I started my blog, Swatek and Republican authorities in Shelby County (where I live) suddenly got interested in the judgment. They clearly, however, weren't interested in collecting the money. They issued a writ of execution threatening to seize our cars and our home. Then they issued a notice of levy, saying that our home was going to be auctioned to satisfy this "judgment" in the amount of $1,525.
A sheriff's sale of our home was scheduled for April 7, but that was postponed due to an error in the ad that is required to run for three weeks in a general circulation newspaper. We've received word from the sheriff's department that the ad has been corrected, and our house evidently will be auctioned in about a month.
The actions of Republican officials--judges, county clerk, sheriff, etc.--have been unlawful from start to finish. The "judgment" against me was obtained by unlawful means, with my rights to due process butchered at every turn. The writ of execution itself is invalid because it did not include a "Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions," as required by law.
Since no one ever has asked me simply to pay the judgment, or in the alternative tried to garnish my wages for a relatively small amount of money, it's clear GOP authorities have an ulterior motive: They want to force me to quit blogging. Evidently truthful reporting about what really goes on in Alabama courts makes some folks uncomfortable.
So there you have it: One regular guy's up-close-and-personal experience with GOP corruption in Alabama. Many of the same characters involved in my case also appear in the Siegelman case. And as I noted earlier, they have a direct pipeline to Karl Rove.
Because of my experience in Alabama state courts, I've been caused to study the Siegelman and Minor cases closely, and I've written extensively about both cases on Legal Schnauzer.
I should mention that I approach my blog from the background of a journalist. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and almost 30 years of professional experience in the field. I worked at a daily newspaper for 11 years before going into the education environment.
The Washington Post is famed for its groundbreaking reporting on Watergate. I think your story of April 13, 2008, touches on a scandal that might prove to be worse than Watergate.
My goal is to examine your story closely and illustrate some avenues for further investigation into the Bush DOJ's unlawful activities in the Deep South.
This letter is getting a bit lengthy, so I will address these issues in Part II. That is coming soon.
From: Legal Schnauzer
Re: "Former Ala. Governor Turns Tables on Justice Department"
Ms. Johnson:
I was pleased to see your report on the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and the broad issue of political prosecutions by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
As a resident of Birmingham, Alabama, and the target of an ongoing campaign by Republican authorities to unlawfully seize and auction my house, I can tell you that your story only skims the surface of problems in our justice system.
The Deep South, particularly Alabama and Mississippi, has become Ground Zero in the evolving Bush DOJ scandal, which started with the firings of nine U.S. attorneys in December 2006. Siegelman is the best known target of the Bush DOJ. But a case in Mississippi involving attorney Paul Minor, a prominent donor to numerous Democratic candidates, might be an even more alarming and clear example of a political prosecution.
Why is the Deep South important in this story? Well, former White House advisor Karl Rove built his national reputation on Alabama state court races in the mid 1990s and maintains close ties to the state's GOP hierarchy, including campaign consultant Bill Canary. Canary, of course, is reported to have played a central role in launching the Siegelman investigation. Rove also is close to high-level Repulblicans in Mississippi, including sitting governor Haley Barbour.
My experience proves that the GOP does not limit its targets to the powerful (Siegelman) or the wealthy (Minor). I've been forced to fight a baseless lawsuit, filed by a neighbor over a property-related matter, in Alabama state courts. By law, the case had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in a matter of six to eight months. (Almost all lawsuits, even the worst ones, take at least that long to be resolved.) But repeated unlawful rulings by Republican judges caused the case to drag on for more than seven years, costing my wife and me--and Alabama taxpayers--thousands of dollars.
Even though the case by law could not go to trial, I was forced to go to trial and wound up with a judgment of $1,525 against me.
Why did Republican judges handle the case in an unlawful manner? The answer seems clear: My neighbor's attorney was William E. Swatek, whose office is based in Pelham, Alabama. Bill Swatek has family ties to the Alabama GOP hierarchy, and those ties appear to reach all the way to the Bush White House.
Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a Montgomery-based campaign consultant whose clients have included Alice Martin, now U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, and Bob Riley, current governor of Alabama. Dax Swatek also has worked for Bill Canary, he of the close ties to Karl Rove. Hence the Bush White House connection in my case.
Alabama law provides several mechanisms for punishing an attorney who files a lawsuit that has no basis in law or fact. But GOP judges have made sure that Bill Swatek was not held accountable for the baseless lawsuit he filed against me.
In the process, these judges (and Bill Swatek himself) have committed federal crimes, specifically honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy. I have reported these crimes to the FBI and the Birmingham U.S. Attorney's Office, but they have taken no action and Alice Martin even has taken steps to keep my complaint under wraps. It seems clear that she is trying to protect Bill Swatek, the father of her former campaign manager.
By the way, I should mention that Bill Swatek has an unsavory background. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation." The State Bar also found that Swatek's actions "reflected adversely on his fitness for the practice of law." Swatek also has been tried for perjury in criminal court. For good measure, Swatek's client--my neighbor, Mike McGarity--has a substantial criminal record. He has at least eight criminal convictions in his background, including violence-related and sex-related offenses.
When it became clear that I would never receive justice in Alabama courts, I decided to start a blog called Legal Schnauzer. My goal was to educate the public about corruption in Alabama state courts and to connect my experience to broader justice issues, such as the Siegelman and Minor cases.
In the more than three years since the trial in my case, Bill Swatek had made no attempt to collect the $1,525 "judgment." But when I started my blog, Swatek and Republican authorities in Shelby County (where I live) suddenly got interested in the judgment. They clearly, however, weren't interested in collecting the money. They issued a writ of execution threatening to seize our cars and our home. Then they issued a notice of levy, saying that our home was going to be auctioned to satisfy this "judgment" in the amount of $1,525.
A sheriff's sale of our home was scheduled for April 7, but that was postponed due to an error in the ad that is required to run for three weeks in a general circulation newspaper. We've received word from the sheriff's department that the ad has been corrected, and our house evidently will be auctioned in about a month.
The actions of Republican officials--judges, county clerk, sheriff, etc.--have been unlawful from start to finish. The "judgment" against me was obtained by unlawful means, with my rights to due process butchered at every turn. The writ of execution itself is invalid because it did not include a "Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions," as required by law.
Since no one ever has asked me simply to pay the judgment, or in the alternative tried to garnish my wages for a relatively small amount of money, it's clear GOP authorities have an ulterior motive: They want to force me to quit blogging. Evidently truthful reporting about what really goes on in Alabama courts makes some folks uncomfortable.
So there you have it: One regular guy's up-close-and-personal experience with GOP corruption in Alabama. Many of the same characters involved in my case also appear in the Siegelman case. And as I noted earlier, they have a direct pipeline to Karl Rove.
Because of my experience in Alabama state courts, I've been caused to study the Siegelman and Minor cases closely, and I've written extensively about both cases on Legal Schnauzer.
I should mention that I approach my blog from the background of a journalist. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and almost 30 years of professional experience in the field. I worked at a daily newspaper for 11 years before going into the education environment.
The Washington Post is famed for its groundbreaking reporting on Watergate. I think your story of April 13, 2008, touches on a scandal that might prove to be worse than Watergate.
My goal is to examine your story closely and illustrate some avenues for further investigation into the Bush DOJ's unlawful activities in the Deep South.
This letter is getting a bit lengthy, so I will address these issues in Part II. That is coming soon.
John W. Goff: The Latest Bush DOJ Target
If you thought the Don Siegelman case smelled, and you thought the Paul Minor case in Mississippi wreaked, wait till you get a whiff of the stench emanating from the John W. Goff case currently heating up in Montgomery.
Goff is the Montgomery insurance executive who filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, alleging that they had conspired to harm his business. It appears that Riley retaliated by urging U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, famed for her central role in the Siegelman prosecution, to go after Goff.
Riley's entreaties evidently fell on welcoming ears. Goff recently was indicted on 26 corruption-related charges, 23 of them for mail fraud. The charges against Goff appear to mirror those in a 2004 complaint filed by the Alabama Insurance Department. That case was settled in March 2005, and the settlement was approved by an administrative law judge, with 59 of 60 counts dismissed and Goff pleading guilty to one count and being fined.
"I thought, until now, that this whole matter was over," Goff said in a recent statement.
He evidently had good reason to think the matter was over. The language in the settlement agreement, Goff says, stated he was released "for any and all claims, demands, charges, prosecutions, damages, actions, causes of action and suits of any kind or nature related to the subject matter of Counts 1-59 of the administrative complaint."
Despite that language in the settlement agreement, Goff is under indictment now. And he says, "This indictment is in my opinion to retaliate against me for suing the Insurance Department, its commissioner Walter Bell, Steve Windom, Gov. Riley, Ferrell Patrick, and others on March 23, 2007."
Thomas Gallion III, Goff's attorney, told the Montgomery Independent, "They had released (Goff) from these claims. Absolutely this is double jeopardy."
The Goff indictment has attracted considerable attention in the insurance industry. Workcompcentral.com, a Web site devoted to coverage of workers compensation issues, has a story about the case.
Says Workcompcentral:
Goff said Monday the federal indictment is payback for his allegations that (Jack) Abramoff laundered campaign money funneled to Riley in return for help with a threat that the Alabama Creek Indians would build a casino rivaling the gaming operations of the Choctaws in neighboring Mississippi.
Abramoff was convicted on charges stemming from a Miami casino boat deal and allegations that he illegally pressured Native American tribes, including the Mississippi Choctaws, for money. Two White House officials, nine lobbyists and a U.S. Congressman also were convicted in the Abramoff probe.
Goff filed the civil case against Riley and his allies last year, after Riley's campaign paid Goff $8,000 on a $25,000 bill for two flights Riley took aboard The Goff Group company aircraft in 2002. The suit also names Ferrell Patrick, a former Goff employee, as part of the conspiracy and Riley's son, Montgomery attorney Rob Riley.
Is it possible that Bob Riley and his GOP compadres have grabbed the wrong tiger by the tail this time? It certainly sounds like Goff is ready for a fight.
"The Rileys, Windom, Bell, and Patrick have ruined me," Goff said. "I am innocent, and if they think I am backing off of my civil lawsuit, then they can think again."
Goff and Gallion say depositions they've requested of the state's most powerful politicians will reveal a conspiracy that stretches to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Bush White House. Goff and Gallion are scheduled to go back to state court this week to push for a change in judges and permission to move forward with depositions in the Goff lawsuit.
This could get very interesting. Says Workcompcentral:
Press spokespeople for both Bell and the U.S. Attorney's office have failed to return repeated telephone calls and so far issued no public response to allegations by Goff and Gallion that the 26-count indictment is a political hatchet job.
The Goff case, like the Don Siegelman prosecution, shines an unflattering light on the office of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. William L. Rhegness, former commander of the Alabama Public Safety Intelligence Unit, filed an affidavit that reveals the slapdash nature of the Goff investigation.
Rhegness has worked as a consultant for Gallion's law firm and participated in a meeting on September 11, 2007, with Steve Feaga from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Rhegness says the meeting was about other issues, but Feaga brought up the Goff matter.
"Feaga said he was going through files because he had been tied up in the Siegelman case," Rhegness says. "He had run across the Goff file and he realized that the statute of limitations would run out in October 2007 and that was the reason he was urgently working on the Goff matter. I remember asking Feaga somewhat jokingly why is the U.S. Attorney's Office bringing out the heavy artillery on the Goff matter. He just smiled and said nothing. He said later, words to the effect that a disgruntled insurance agent had turned this over for investigation some years ago."
Feaga's actions sound real professional don't they? And isn't it interesting that Feaga just happened to stumble upon the Goff case just a few months after Goff had filed a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others--and just a few days after Goff''s attorneys had begun to send out deposition notices and discovery requests in his lawsuit?
Feaga's behavior moved from the incompetent to the comical at one point. "Feaga said he would be glad to let Goff come in and enter a guilty plea," Rhegness says. "Gallion asked what he wanted Goff to plead guilty to. Feaga said well they could work it out."
These are your federal tax dollars at work, folks. A federal prosecutor wants someone to plead guilty, but the prosecutor doesn't even know enough about the case to cite what the alleged offense is.
The incompetence doesn't stop there. Feaga stated that the statute of limitations ran out in October 2007, but the indictment against Goff was not handed down until December 19, 2007. Based on Feaga's statement, the government was too late in going after Goff--for a case that already had been settled.
Reporter Bob Gambacurta writes that Feaga's colleague, Louis Franklin, has been quoted as saying Goff's alleged offenses took place between Jan. 1, 2002, and April 30, 2003. If that is the case, the statute of limitations would not have run out.
But it appears that Feaga and Franklin cannot get their stories straight. We will keep you posted when this episode of Keystone Cops continues.
Goff is the Montgomery insurance executive who filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, alleging that they had conspired to harm his business. It appears that Riley retaliated by urging U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, famed for her central role in the Siegelman prosecution, to go after Goff.
Riley's entreaties evidently fell on welcoming ears. Goff recently was indicted on 26 corruption-related charges, 23 of them for mail fraud. The charges against Goff appear to mirror those in a 2004 complaint filed by the Alabama Insurance Department. That case was settled in March 2005, and the settlement was approved by an administrative law judge, with 59 of 60 counts dismissed and Goff pleading guilty to one count and being fined.
"I thought, until now, that this whole matter was over," Goff said in a recent statement.
He evidently had good reason to think the matter was over. The language in the settlement agreement, Goff says, stated he was released "for any and all claims, demands, charges, prosecutions, damages, actions, causes of action and suits of any kind or nature related to the subject matter of Counts 1-59 of the administrative complaint."
Despite that language in the settlement agreement, Goff is under indictment now. And he says, "This indictment is in my opinion to retaliate against me for suing the Insurance Department, its commissioner Walter Bell, Steve Windom, Gov. Riley, Ferrell Patrick, and others on March 23, 2007."
Thomas Gallion III, Goff's attorney, told the Montgomery Independent, "They had released (Goff) from these claims. Absolutely this is double jeopardy."
The Goff indictment has attracted considerable attention in the insurance industry. Workcompcentral.com, a Web site devoted to coverage of workers compensation issues, has a story about the case.
Says Workcompcentral:
Goff said Monday the federal indictment is payback for his allegations that (Jack) Abramoff laundered campaign money funneled to Riley in return for help with a threat that the Alabama Creek Indians would build a casino rivaling the gaming operations of the Choctaws in neighboring Mississippi.
Abramoff was convicted on charges stemming from a Miami casino boat deal and allegations that he illegally pressured Native American tribes, including the Mississippi Choctaws, for money. Two White House officials, nine lobbyists and a U.S. Congressman also were convicted in the Abramoff probe.
Goff filed the civil case against Riley and his allies last year, after Riley's campaign paid Goff $8,000 on a $25,000 bill for two flights Riley took aboard The Goff Group company aircraft in 2002. The suit also names Ferrell Patrick, a former Goff employee, as part of the conspiracy and Riley's son, Montgomery attorney Rob Riley.
Is it possible that Bob Riley and his GOP compadres have grabbed the wrong tiger by the tail this time? It certainly sounds like Goff is ready for a fight.
"The Rileys, Windom, Bell, and Patrick have ruined me," Goff said. "I am innocent, and if they think I am backing off of my civil lawsuit, then they can think again."
Goff and Gallion say depositions they've requested of the state's most powerful politicians will reveal a conspiracy that stretches to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Bush White House. Goff and Gallion are scheduled to go back to state court this week to push for a change in judges and permission to move forward with depositions in the Goff lawsuit.
This could get very interesting. Says Workcompcentral:
Press spokespeople for both Bell and the U.S. Attorney's office have failed to return repeated telephone calls and so far issued no public response to allegations by Goff and Gallion that the 26-count indictment is a political hatchet job.
The Goff case, like the Don Siegelman prosecution, shines an unflattering light on the office of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. William L. Rhegness, former commander of the Alabama Public Safety Intelligence Unit, filed an affidavit that reveals the slapdash nature of the Goff investigation.
Rhegness has worked as a consultant for Gallion's law firm and participated in a meeting on September 11, 2007, with Steve Feaga from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Rhegness says the meeting was about other issues, but Feaga brought up the Goff matter.
"Feaga said he was going through files because he had been tied up in the Siegelman case," Rhegness says. "He had run across the Goff file and he realized that the statute of limitations would run out in October 2007 and that was the reason he was urgently working on the Goff matter. I remember asking Feaga somewhat jokingly why is the U.S. Attorney's Office bringing out the heavy artillery on the Goff matter. He just smiled and said nothing. He said later, words to the effect that a disgruntled insurance agent had turned this over for investigation some years ago."
Feaga's actions sound real professional don't they? And isn't it interesting that Feaga just happened to stumble upon the Goff case just a few months after Goff had filed a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others--and just a few days after Goff''s attorneys had begun to send out deposition notices and discovery requests in his lawsuit?
Feaga's behavior moved from the incompetent to the comical at one point. "Feaga said he would be glad to let Goff come in and enter a guilty plea," Rhegness says. "Gallion asked what he wanted Goff to plead guilty to. Feaga said well they could work it out."
These are your federal tax dollars at work, folks. A federal prosecutor wants someone to plead guilty, but the prosecutor doesn't even know enough about the case to cite what the alleged offense is.
The incompetence doesn't stop there. Feaga stated that the statute of limitations ran out in October 2007, but the indictment against Goff was not handed down until December 19, 2007. Based on Feaga's statement, the government was too late in going after Goff--for a case that already had been settled.
Reporter Bob Gambacurta writes that Feaga's colleague, Louis Franklin, has been quoted as saying Goff's alleged offenses took place between Jan. 1, 2002, and April 30, 2003. If that is the case, the statute of limitations would not have run out.
But it appears that Feaga and Franklin cannot get their stories straight. We will keep you posted when this episode of Keystone Cops continues.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Washington Post Focuses on Siegelman Case
The Washington Post shines a spotlight today on the Don Siegelman case, noting that the former Alabama governor is trying to attack a weakness of the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
Reporter Carrie Johnson says Siegelman is using a theme that is popular with politically connected defendants: Taking advantage of missteps by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to show that the Bush DOJ practices political prosecutions.
Siegelman has not petitioned the court to hear his allegations of political tampering, choosing instead to make them on television programs and in newspapers and magazines. He asserts that Rove, two Republican U.S. attorneys, the son of his successor as governor, career prosecutors and former leaders of the Justice Department's public integrity unit conspired to manufacture a case and thwart Siegelman's ambitions to return to the governor's mansion.
Rove denies the assertions and derides the evidence offered by his accusers as vague and scanty. Federal prosecutors respond that they will argue in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.
Siegelman's assertions have attracted the attention of the House Judiciary Committee, which has launched an investigation into Justice Department actions under President Bush. But Siegelman acknowledges that he has no specific evidence tying his fate to White House political interference. "We don't have the knife with Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, but we've got the glove, and the glove fits," Siegelman said in a telephone interview.
Johnson's account seems to imply that Siegelman's defense amounts to little more than a PR campaign. And she is much too kind to Gonzalez, saying he engaged in "missteps." Talk about an understatement. But she also notes the consistent use of "hedge language" by Karl Rove, Rob Riley, Bill Canary, and other Republicans who have been implicated in the case.
Perhaps most importantly, Johnson notes that the issue of political prosecutions could gain steam as 2008 winds down:
Assertions of political motivations, however, could grow louder as the presidential election approaches and the end of the Bush administration nears. Federal prosecutors have made public corruption among their top priorities, and grand jury investigations of lawmakers including former Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and House Appropriations panel member Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) could be resolved by the end of the year.
It's interesting that Johnson picks up on the DOJ theme that public corruption is a top priority. We will show here at Legal Schnauzer that corruption by Republican judges in Alabama state courts certainly has not been a top priority. In fact, we can show how a Bush appointee, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, has taken clear steps to sweep corruption I've witnessed out of public view, protecting members of the Republican "home team." And those "home teamers" have ties to the Bush White House, through Alabama GOP operatives Dax Swatek and Bill Canary, and on to Karl Rove.
Reporter Carrie Johnson says Siegelman is using a theme that is popular with politically connected defendants: Taking advantage of missteps by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to show that the Bush DOJ practices political prosecutions.
Siegelman has not petitioned the court to hear his allegations of political tampering, choosing instead to make them on television programs and in newspapers and magazines. He asserts that Rove, two Republican U.S. attorneys, the son of his successor as governor, career prosecutors and former leaders of the Justice Department's public integrity unit conspired to manufacture a case and thwart Siegelman's ambitions to return to the governor's mansion.
Rove denies the assertions and derides the evidence offered by his accusers as vague and scanty. Federal prosecutors respond that they will argue in the courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.
Siegelman's assertions have attracted the attention of the House Judiciary Committee, which has launched an investigation into Justice Department actions under President Bush. But Siegelman acknowledges that he has no specific evidence tying his fate to White House political interference. "We don't have the knife with Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it, but we've got the glove, and the glove fits," Siegelman said in a telephone interview.
Johnson's account seems to imply that Siegelman's defense amounts to little more than a PR campaign. And she is much too kind to Gonzalez, saying he engaged in "missteps." Talk about an understatement. But she also notes the consistent use of "hedge language" by Karl Rove, Rob Riley, Bill Canary, and other Republicans who have been implicated in the case.
Perhaps most importantly, Johnson notes that the issue of political prosecutions could gain steam as 2008 winds down:
Assertions of political motivations, however, could grow louder as the presidential election approaches and the end of the Bush administration nears. Federal prosecutors have made public corruption among their top priorities, and grand jury investigations of lawmakers including former Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and House Appropriations panel member Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) could be resolved by the end of the year.
It's interesting that Johnson picks up on the DOJ theme that public corruption is a top priority. We will show here at Legal Schnauzer that corruption by Republican judges in Alabama state courts certainly has not been a top priority. In fact, we can show how a Bush appointee, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, has taken clear steps to sweep corruption I've witnessed out of public view, protecting members of the Republican "home team." And those "home teamers" have ties to the Bush White House, through Alabama GOP operatives Dax Swatek and Bill Canary, and on to Karl Rove.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Bye-Bye Babec
It's a sad day for animal lovers in Alabama. Babec, the lowland gorilla at the Birmingham Zoo, has died from heart disease.
Babec was 28, and he made national news in 2004 when he had a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted. Experts said Babec contributed greatly to our understanding of gorillas. Male gorillas tend to develop heart problems in captivity, and scientists are not sure why.
We considered Babec a friend here at Legal Schnauzer. We wrote about him several times and noted that he almost certainly had a keener legal mind than some of the dufuses who serve as judges in Alabama. I was only semi kidding about that.
We also made the mistake of referring to Babec as "she." Just click on the link at this post, and you can clearly see that Babec was a truly manly dude.
The big fella will be missed.
Babec was 28, and he made national news in 2004 when he had a pacemaker and defibrillator implanted. Experts said Babec contributed greatly to our understanding of gorillas. Male gorillas tend to develop heart problems in captivity, and scientists are not sure why.
We considered Babec a friend here at Legal Schnauzer. We wrote about him several times and noted that he almost certainly had a keener legal mind than some of the dufuses who serve as judges in Alabama. I was only semi kidding about that.
We also made the mistake of referring to Babec as "she." Just click on the link at this post, and you can clearly see that Babec was a truly manly dude.
The big fella will be missed.
Friday, April 11, 2008
A Thief Overseeing Thieves
Let's examine another justice-related story that broke a few weeks back in Shelby County, Alabama. This one purports to be about a serious subject. But to anyone who knows how justice really works in Shelby County--and your humble blogger most definitely does--this story is downright comical.
It seems that J. Michael Joiner, presiding circuit judge in Shelby County, has decided to launch a new court to deal with thieves. It's called "accountability court."
The Birmingham News treated this with the utmost seriousness, playing the story on the front page of its Feb. 18 edition. (You must wonder if the headline writer saw the humor in the story. The headline: "Accountability Court Gives Thieves Second Chance." To do what? Steal again?)
Anyway, I don't mean to be hard on the folks who might find themselves in accountability court. The real joke is the judge in charge of the court.
Here's the truth The Birmingham News doesn't want you to know: J. Michael Joiner is a far bigger thief than anyone who will come before him in accountability court.
And that's not just the opinion of someone who has gone before Joiner and received an unpleasant result. It's a fact, under the law.
Let me explain: We have already shown on this blog--and we will show it in even greater detail in future posts--that Mike Joiner handled a bogus lawsuit filed against me in an unlawful way. Specifically, he denied two motions for summary judgment that, by law, had to be granted, causing a case that had to be dismissed in a few months time to drag on for about five years, costing me and Alabama taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. (By the way, after Joiner recused himself on my motion--acknowledging that he had a relationship with opposing counsel William E. Swatek--Judge G. Dan Reeves unlawfully denied a third motion for summary judgment. The two summary-judgment rulings were among numerous examples of Joiner butchering the law.)
A reader might respond to this by saying: "Tough luck, Schnauzer. Sorry you got a raw deal, but why am I supposed to care? How does that affect me?"
Under the law, Mike Joiner's unlawful actions in my case affect every citizen of Alabama. And here is why: By intentionally making multiple unlawful rulings in my case, and using the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, Mike Joiner committed honest-services mail fraud. Specifically, he violated 18 U.S. Code 1346, the statute that was central to the federal prosecutions of Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi.
For anyone wishing to understand honest-services mail fraud, I strongly recommend the article "Honest Services Fraud--Strong Medicine for Pay to Play." It is available here.
Here is a key passage:
"Underlying Sec. 1346 is the notion that a public official acts as trustee for the citizens and the State . . . and thus owes the normal fiduciary duties of a trustee, e.g., honesty and loyalty to them. THEFT of honest services occurs when a public official strays from this duty.'" (U.S. v. Sawyer, 239 F. 3d 31, 39, First Circuit, 2001.)"
Two key points:
* Joiner owes a fiduciary duty to all citizens, not just those who come before him. He owes a duty to me, and to you, to act in an honest way.
* A public official who fails in this duty is committing THEFT of honest services. Mike Joiner is a THIEF. Let me say that again, because it feels so good: Mike Joiner is a THIEF.
Here is another delicious passage from the "Strong Medicine" article:
"Acording to the First Circuit, a public official can STEAL honest services from his public employer in two ways: (1) the official can be influenced or otherwise improperly affected in the performance of his duties, or (2) the official can fail to disclose a conflict of interest, resulting in a personal gain. U.S. v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir. 1998) (relying upon the court's earlier decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1stCir. 1996)."
Notice that word in big, bold letters: STEAL. So, you see, it's not just my opinion that Mike Joiner is a thief. The law says that Joiner, and other public officials who behave as he has, are thieves.
By the way, since we brought up the Siegelman and Minor cases, we should mention this: We have shown on this blog that Paul Minor and co-defendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield definitely did not commit honest-services mail fraud (or bribery, for that matter). We know this because a transcript of that trial actually exists, and I've read it, and it is clear that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield are innocent of the charges that currently find them in federal prison.
A transcript of the Siegelman only recently became available, and I have not seen it, so I can't say for certain that the former Alabama governor is innocent of the corruption charges against him. But given what we know about the political machinations behind his prosecution, I think it's safe to say that Siegelman someday will be proven innocent of honest-services mail fraud and the other charges brought against him.
In contrast to Siegelman and Minor and Co., Mike Joiner is the real deal. He is a true THIEF of honest services. We already have laid out the case against him here in general terms. And when we go into specifics, you will see that it's about as blatant a case of honest-services mail fraud as you can imagine.
Joiner, of course, is a member in good standing of the Republican "home team" in Alabama, which means U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has no interest in seeing that he is punished for his crimes. She would rather drag 63-year-old retired school teachers out of the shower and arrest them for "underperforming their lesson plans."
Perhaps after the November election, we will have a Democratic president (God willing!) who will appoint a real U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. And perhaps that U.S. attorney will put Mike Joiner, Dan Reeves, Bill Swatek, and others behind bars where they belong. (Wonder how they will look in orange jumpsuits?)
Until that day comes, Legal Schnauzer readers will know the truth: Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner is a thief. And the fact that he is starting a special court to oversee thieves is the cruelest of jokes upon the citizens of Alabama.
It seems that J. Michael Joiner, presiding circuit judge in Shelby County, has decided to launch a new court to deal with thieves. It's called "accountability court."
The Birmingham News treated this with the utmost seriousness, playing the story on the front page of its Feb. 18 edition. (You must wonder if the headline writer saw the humor in the story. The headline: "Accountability Court Gives Thieves Second Chance." To do what? Steal again?)
Anyway, I don't mean to be hard on the folks who might find themselves in accountability court. The real joke is the judge in charge of the court.
Here's the truth The Birmingham News doesn't want you to know: J. Michael Joiner is a far bigger thief than anyone who will come before him in accountability court.
And that's not just the opinion of someone who has gone before Joiner and received an unpleasant result. It's a fact, under the law.
Let me explain: We have already shown on this blog--and we will show it in even greater detail in future posts--that Mike Joiner handled a bogus lawsuit filed against me in an unlawful way. Specifically, he denied two motions for summary judgment that, by law, had to be granted, causing a case that had to be dismissed in a few months time to drag on for about five years, costing me and Alabama taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. (By the way, after Joiner recused himself on my motion--acknowledging that he had a relationship with opposing counsel William E. Swatek--Judge G. Dan Reeves unlawfully denied a third motion for summary judgment. The two summary-judgment rulings were among numerous examples of Joiner butchering the law.)
A reader might respond to this by saying: "Tough luck, Schnauzer. Sorry you got a raw deal, but why am I supposed to care? How does that affect me?"
Under the law, Mike Joiner's unlawful actions in my case affect every citizen of Alabama. And here is why: By intentionally making multiple unlawful rulings in my case, and using the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, Mike Joiner committed honest-services mail fraud. Specifically, he violated 18 U.S. Code 1346, the statute that was central to the federal prosecutions of Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi.
For anyone wishing to understand honest-services mail fraud, I strongly recommend the article "Honest Services Fraud--Strong Medicine for Pay to Play." It is available here.
Here is a key passage:
"Underlying Sec. 1346 is the notion that a public official acts as trustee for the citizens and the State . . . and thus owes the normal fiduciary duties of a trustee, e.g., honesty and loyalty to them. THEFT of honest services occurs when a public official strays from this duty.'" (U.S. v. Sawyer, 239 F. 3d 31, 39, First Circuit, 2001.)"
Two key points:
* Joiner owes a fiduciary duty to all citizens, not just those who come before him. He owes a duty to me, and to you, to act in an honest way.
* A public official who fails in this duty is committing THEFT of honest services. Mike Joiner is a THIEF. Let me say that again, because it feels so good: Mike Joiner is a THIEF.
Here is another delicious passage from the "Strong Medicine" article:
"Acording to the First Circuit, a public official can STEAL honest services from his public employer in two ways: (1) the official can be influenced or otherwise improperly affected in the performance of his duties, or (2) the official can fail to disclose a conflict of interest, resulting in a personal gain. U.S. v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46, 57 (1st Cir. 1998) (relying upon the court's earlier decision in U.S. v. Sawyer, 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1stCir. 1996)."
Notice that word in big, bold letters: STEAL. So, you see, it's not just my opinion that Mike Joiner is a thief. The law says that Joiner, and other public officials who behave as he has, are thieves.
By the way, since we brought up the Siegelman and Minor cases, we should mention this: We have shown on this blog that Paul Minor and co-defendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield definitely did not commit honest-services mail fraud (or bribery, for that matter). We know this because a transcript of that trial actually exists, and I've read it, and it is clear that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield are innocent of the charges that currently find them in federal prison.
A transcript of the Siegelman only recently became available, and I have not seen it, so I can't say for certain that the former Alabama governor is innocent of the corruption charges against him. But given what we know about the political machinations behind his prosecution, I think it's safe to say that Siegelman someday will be proven innocent of honest-services mail fraud and the other charges brought against him.
In contrast to Siegelman and Minor and Co., Mike Joiner is the real deal. He is a true THIEF of honest services. We already have laid out the case against him here in general terms. And when we go into specifics, you will see that it's about as blatant a case of honest-services mail fraud as you can imagine.
Joiner, of course, is a member in good standing of the Republican "home team" in Alabama, which means U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has no interest in seeing that he is punished for his crimes. She would rather drag 63-year-old retired school teachers out of the shower and arrest them for "underperforming their lesson plans."
Perhaps after the November election, we will have a Democratic president (God willing!) who will appoint a real U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. And perhaps that U.S. attorney will put Mike Joiner, Dan Reeves, Bill Swatek, and others behind bars where they belong. (Wonder how they will look in orange jumpsuits?)
Until that day comes, Legal Schnauzer readers will know the truth: Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner is a thief. And the fact that he is starting a special court to oversee thieves is the cruelest of jokes upon the citizens of Alabama.
Return of the Jack Booted Thugs
Got home last night to see that the Shelby County jack booted thugs had paid another visit.
This time, they had taped a new Notice of Levy on our garage door. I guess this one was "new and improved," without the wrong block number that the previous one had.
This signals a new beginning for the process to unlawfully seize and auction our house. I assume any day now we will get another Notice of Sheriff's Sale, letting us know the new date that our house will be sold.
I had a conversation recently with Deputy Bubba Caudill and told him that this process was unlawful from start to finish. Bubba said he does what he's told, so I guess that means if he's told to deliver unlawful documents, he does it.
Under the law, I would suspect that Bubba and his colleague Eddie Moore are criminally trespassing every time they come on my property. Law-enforcement personnel generally are privileged to enter property, but I believe that only applies when they have lawful business. Leaving bogus documents taped to my garage door probably does not qualify as lawful business. If I'm right about that, we have members of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department violating the very criminal statues it is supposed to uphold.
Criminal trespassing is the least of what is unlawful, though, about this whole process. It really boils down to civil-rights and constitutional rights. And I will be spelling out for you the myriad ways the actions by Shelby County authorities are unlawful--and how they clearly are designed to shut down this blog.
None of this should surprise me, I guess. Evidence shows that the same Bushies who turned Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield into political prisoners--and are trying to do the same thing to Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff--have connections to my case. Stealing someone's house shouldn't faze them in the least.
Of course, actions someone could take to defend their home might faze them. We'll see just how far the Bushies care to push it because I'm in a mood to push back--hard.
I'm a big Don Henley fan, and I'm reminded of his song "I Will Not Go Quietly."
Like the way Henley thinks.
This time, they had taped a new Notice of Levy on our garage door. I guess this one was "new and improved," without the wrong block number that the previous one had.
This signals a new beginning for the process to unlawfully seize and auction our house. I assume any day now we will get another Notice of Sheriff's Sale, letting us know the new date that our house will be sold.
I had a conversation recently with Deputy Bubba Caudill and told him that this process was unlawful from start to finish. Bubba said he does what he's told, so I guess that means if he's told to deliver unlawful documents, he does it.
Under the law, I would suspect that Bubba and his colleague Eddie Moore are criminally trespassing every time they come on my property. Law-enforcement personnel generally are privileged to enter property, but I believe that only applies when they have lawful business. Leaving bogus documents taped to my garage door probably does not qualify as lawful business. If I'm right about that, we have members of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department violating the very criminal statues it is supposed to uphold.
Criminal trespassing is the least of what is unlawful, though, about this whole process. It really boils down to civil-rights and constitutional rights. And I will be spelling out for you the myriad ways the actions by Shelby County authorities are unlawful--and how they clearly are designed to shut down this blog.
None of this should surprise me, I guess. Evidence shows that the same Bushies who turned Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield into political prisoners--and are trying to do the same thing to Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff--have connections to my case. Stealing someone's house shouldn't faze them in the least.
Of course, actions someone could take to defend their home might faze them. We'll see just how far the Bushies care to push it because I'm in a mood to push back--hard.
I'm a big Don Henley fan, and I'm reminded of his song "I Will Not Go Quietly."
Like the way Henley thinks.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Siegelman/Schnauzer Connection, Part II
So how do the Don Siegelman and Legal Schnauzer cases intersect? Perhaps we can illustrate it best with a timeline:
2000--Dax Swatek is campaign manager for Alice Martin in a failed run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. (By the way, Sue Bell Cobb, current chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, beat Martin in 2000; I like Sue Bell Cobb more with each passing day.)
2000--In December, Dax Swatek's father, Pelham-based attorney William E. Swatek, files a lawsuit against me on behalf of his client, my neighbor Mike McGarity.
2002--Bob Riley defeats Don Siegelman in a razor-close race for governor, a race that includes mysteriously changed numbers in Baldwin County, Alabama, and allegations of electronic manipulation of voting tabulations.
2002--A conference call takes place among Republican operatives in Alabama. According to whistleblower Jill Simpson, Bill Canary states that "his girls" (U.S. attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin) will "take care of" Siegelman, thwarting his bid to challenge Riley in 2006.
2002--Dax Swatek is identified in a news article as a business partner of Bill Canary. Swatek is quoted as criticizing an effort to remove Canary's wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, from the Don Siegelman investigation. Specifically, Swatek's criticism is targeted at one of Siegelman's attorneys, the late David Cromwell Johnson. Swatek says Johnson should be "ashamed of himself" for questioning Leura Canary's impartiality in the Siegelman investigation.
2004--Alice Martin's office in Birmingham leads a prosecution against Siegelman, but U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon throws out the case.
2001-2005--William E. Swatek is the beneficiary of repeated unlawful rulings by Republican state judges in the lawsuit against me. These unlawful actions include judges on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court.
2006--Leura Canary's office in Montgomery leads a prosecution against Siegelman, which ends with his conviction on corruption-related charges.
2007--I start the Legal Schnauzer blog, outlining my experiences with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts.
2007--I send both the FBI and Alice Martin detailed information about specific crimes (honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy) committed in my case by trial judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, attorney William E. Swatek, and members of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. Martin informs me that she has sent my complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which does not have authority to investigate an honest-services mail fraud claim. I later discover Martin's ties to the Swatek family, which almost certainly helps explain her efforts to keep my case under wraps.
Yep, when Bill Swatek was being prosecuted for perjury, he turned to David Cromwell Johnson to get him off. And somehow Johnson managed to do it, even though evidence available in Swatek's file at the Alabama State Bar strongly suggests that Swatek was guilty.
We will examine Bill Swatek's perjury trial in detail later on. But it seems clear that without David Cromwell Johnson, Bill Swatek would have been convicted and disbarred. Because of his acquittal on perjury charges, Swatek eventually regained his bar card and went on to screw me and a number of his own clients over the years, building a record that is a disgrace to the legal profession.
So you see, Dax Swatek should thank his lucky stars for David Cromwell Johnson. If Bill Swatek had been convicted of a felony and lost his license to practice law, I doubt Dax Swatek would have enjoyed the life of privilege that has fallen into his lap. But not surprisingly, the Daxter is an ungrateful little twit.
As for me, I sure would like to know how David Cromwell Johnson managed to get Bill Swatek off some 25 years ago when the available evidence--if properly presented by prosecutors at trial--clearly showed Swatek was guilty.
I'm just one of many people who have suffered because Bill Swatek was able to regain his bar card and go on to an illustrious career as an "officer of the court."
2000--Dax Swatek is campaign manager for Alice Martin in a failed run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. (By the way, Sue Bell Cobb, current chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, beat Martin in 2000; I like Sue Bell Cobb more with each passing day.)
2000--In December, Dax Swatek's father, Pelham-based attorney William E. Swatek, files a lawsuit against me on behalf of his client, my neighbor Mike McGarity.
2002--Bob Riley defeats Don Siegelman in a razor-close race for governor, a race that includes mysteriously changed numbers in Baldwin County, Alabama, and allegations of electronic manipulation of voting tabulations.
2002--A conference call takes place among Republican operatives in Alabama. According to whistleblower Jill Simpson, Bill Canary states that "his girls" (U.S. attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin) will "take care of" Siegelman, thwarting his bid to challenge Riley in 2006.
2002--Dax Swatek is identified in a news article as a business partner of Bill Canary. Swatek is quoted as criticizing an effort to remove Canary's wife, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, from the Don Siegelman investigation. Specifically, Swatek's criticism is targeted at one of Siegelman's attorneys, the late David Cromwell Johnson. Swatek says Johnson should be "ashamed of himself" for questioning Leura Canary's impartiality in the Siegelman investigation.
2004--Alice Martin's office in Birmingham leads a prosecution against Siegelman, but U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon throws out the case.
2001-2005--William E. Swatek is the beneficiary of repeated unlawful rulings by Republican state judges in the lawsuit against me. These unlawful actions include judges on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court.
2006--Leura Canary's office in Montgomery leads a prosecution against Siegelman, which ends with his conviction on corruption-related charges.
2007--I start the Legal Schnauzer blog, outlining my experiences with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts.
2007--I send both the FBI and Alice Martin detailed information about specific crimes (honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy) committed in my case by trial judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, attorney William E. Swatek, and members of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court. Martin informs me that she has sent my complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which does not have authority to investigate an honest-services mail fraud claim. I later discover Martin's ties to the Swatek family, which almost certainly helps explain her efforts to keep my case under wraps.
2007-2008--I start receiving threats from Republican authorities in Shelby County that they intend to seize and auction my house (which is jointly owned by my wife). These threats are based on a 2004 "judgment" against me that derived from multiple unconstitutional actions by Shelby County judges. And the writ of execution and notice of levy upon which the home seizure is based have both been unlawfully developed and served. In short, the threats to seize my house have no basis in law. But they do serve as a threat designed to get me to quit blogging about truths that are uncomfortable for the Alabama GOP. (And given Karl Rove's close ties to Bill Canary and other Alabamians, these truths probably are uncomfortable for the national GOP, as well.)
Over about an eight-year period, we see connections between Dax Swatek, Alice Martin and Bill Canary (and perhaps Karl Rove), leading to the prosecution of Don Siegelman for crimes he did not commit and suppression of a prosecution of several Republicans (including Dax Swatek's father) for crimes they most definitely did commit.
And what about the irony of Dax Swatek criticizing David Cromwell Johnson? Well, for years, Johnson was one of the best known criminal-defense attorneys in Alabama. Don Siegelman hired him around 2002. And about 20 years earlier than that, guess who hired David Cromwell Johnson to help with a criminal defense? Why, none other than Dax Swatek's father, William E. Swatek.Yep, when Bill Swatek was being prosecuted for perjury, he turned to David Cromwell Johnson to get him off. And somehow Johnson managed to do it, even though evidence available in Swatek's file at the Alabama State Bar strongly suggests that Swatek was guilty.
We will examine Bill Swatek's perjury trial in detail later on. But it seems clear that without David Cromwell Johnson, Bill Swatek would have been convicted and disbarred. Because of his acquittal on perjury charges, Swatek eventually regained his bar card and went on to screw me and a number of his own clients over the years, building a record that is a disgrace to the legal profession.
So you see, Dax Swatek should thank his lucky stars for David Cromwell Johnson. If Bill Swatek had been convicted of a felony and lost his license to practice law, I doubt Dax Swatek would have enjoyed the life of privilege that has fallen into his lap. But not surprisingly, the Daxter is an ungrateful little twit.
As for me, I sure would like to know how David Cromwell Johnson managed to get Bill Swatek off some 25 years ago when the available evidence--if properly presented by prosecutors at trial--clearly showed Swatek was guilty.
I'm just one of many people who have suffered because Bill Swatek was able to regain his bar card and go on to an illustrious career as an "officer of the court."
Words From a Target of Political Prosecution
Many words have been written about the questionable practices of the Bush Justice Department since nine U.S. attorneys were fired in December 2006.
But I know of no story on the emerging scandal quite like the one published yesterday by Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story. It's an in-depth interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, who was one of the early targets of the Bush DOJ.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was convicted and immediately sent to federal prison for nine months, and thanks to his recent release pending appeal, is only now beginning to tell his story. Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield remain in prison and have been unable to go into detail about their experiences as political prisoners in the Age of Rove.
Oliver Diaz has a unique story in the sordid Bush DOJ tale. The case against him was so preposterously weak that he was acquitted--not once, but twice.
Diaz can not tell us what it is like to be a political prisoner. But he tells us in detail what it is like to be a political target--to have your life, both professionally, personally, and financially--turned upside down because you don't toe the pro-business line desired by the Bushies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I'm going to do a detailed analysis of Alexandrovna's piece in the next few days. But in the meantime, I hope Legal Schnauzer readers will go to Raw Story and read the piece from start to finish. It's long, but well worth the effort to read it all.
If you want to understand the Justice Department scandal at its core--the legal, political, and personal issues involved--the Raw Story piece is must reading.
Historians someday will piece together the full ugliness of justice in America at the beginning of the 21st century. It might take 10, 20, or 50 years for the full story to be known. But this interview with Diaz will be one of the first places historians need to turn.
But I know of no story on the emerging scandal quite like the one published yesterday by Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story. It's an in-depth interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, who was one of the early targets of the Bush DOJ.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was convicted and immediately sent to federal prison for nine months, and thanks to his recent release pending appeal, is only now beginning to tell his story. Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield remain in prison and have been unable to go into detail about their experiences as political prisoners in the Age of Rove.
Oliver Diaz has a unique story in the sordid Bush DOJ tale. The case against him was so preposterously weak that he was acquitted--not once, but twice.
Diaz can not tell us what it is like to be a political prisoner. But he tells us in detail what it is like to be a political target--to have your life, both professionally, personally, and financially--turned upside down because you don't toe the pro-business line desired by the Bushies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
I'm going to do a detailed analysis of Alexandrovna's piece in the next few days. But in the meantime, I hope Legal Schnauzer readers will go to Raw Story and read the piece from start to finish. It's long, but well worth the effort to read it all.
If you want to understand the Justice Department scandal at its core--the legal, political, and personal issues involved--the Raw Story piece is must reading.
Historians someday will piece together the full ugliness of justice in America at the beginning of the 21st century. It might take 10, 20, or 50 years for the full story to be known. But this interview with Diaz will be one of the first places historians need to turn.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Siegelman/Schnauzer Connection
With former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman now released from federal prison pending appeal, it might be a good time to examine the intersection between the Siegelman prosecution and my own experience with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts.
I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to show connections between the two cases. But I've recently come upon documents that might help make those connections a bit more clear:
I've tried (with varying degrees of success) to show connections between the two cases. But I've recently come upon documents that might help make those connections a bit more clear:
* I recently discovered documents at donsiegelman.org showing that Dax Swatek was campaign manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 run for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
* We learned in recent days that Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff has been indicted on a number of federal charges, primarily mail fraud. This comes after Goff had filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others for conspiring to harm his business--and after Scott Horton, of Harper's, had reported that Riley was asking the U.S. Attorney's office for help in making the lawsuit "go away." A few weeks back, we posted about a letter from Goff's attorneys, asking the U.S. Department of Justice to remove U.S. Attorney Leura Canary and anyone working under her direction from an investigation involving Goff. On page 7 of that letter, Goff's attorneys note that Bill Canary and Patrick McWhorter were partners in Capitol Group LLC. From a variety of PACs, the letter states, Canary and McWhorter directed funds to Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Then comes this statement in the letter:
"Later, another political crony and political advisor of Gov. Riley, Dax Swatek, began his own PAC, DSA PAC, from the very same address (P.O. Box 1703, Montgomery, Alabama 36102) as the one used by Canary and McWhorter. This leaves one to wonder whether this is another coincidence or further evidence of cooperation among this group of high-ranking Republican officials and supporters."
* We also discovered a March 28, 2002, Birmingham News article about efforts by Siegelman's attorneys to have Leura Canary removed from his investigation. Siegelman's attorney, the late David Cromwell Johnson, wrote that Leura Canary should be removed from the case largely because her husband Bill Canary and his business associate Patrick McWhorter had financial ties to Siegelman's political opponents.
The article includes this information:
"Dax Swatek, one of Bill Canary's business partners, said McWhorter and Canary haven't been partners or had any other business relationships since April 14, 2000. (The letter from Goff's attorneys says the Canary/McWhorter corporation dissolved on June 24, 2002. Was Swatek lying here?) He said donations by McWhorter since were solely at McWhorter's discretion.
"'There can't be a conflict here because there is no financial benefit. The whole thing is a red herring,' Swatek said. "It's unfounded, ridiculous, and frankly, he (Johnson) should be ashamed of himself."
What does all of this mean? We'll try to tie it all together in a bit.
And regarding Dax Swatek's criticism of David Cromwell Johnson? Wait till you hear about the delicious irony in that.
Bad Judges and Cockroaches, Part V
Let's return to our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" series because it gives me a chance to illustrate how smart Legal Schnauzer readers are.
In our previous post in the series, I noted that a helpful reader had pointed me toward a case with strong connections to my legal-malpractice claim against Birmingham attorney Richard Poff.
I was astonished when I first read Watson v. Parker (264 B.R. 685, 2001). "I'll be darn," I thought, "Legal Schnauzer readers know their stuff."
The case originated in Kansas and involved a woman named Jenee Marie Watson, who had filed a legal-malpractice claim against an attorney named Richard W. Parker. The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit found that Watson's lawsuit was due to be discharged along with the other debts in Parker's bankruptcy case.
This is exactly the outcome Richard Poff is seeking in my legal-malpractice case against him. And Jefferson County Circuit Judge Allwin Horn appears ready to hand Poff such an outcome on a proverbial silver platter.
But there are some differences between Watson and my case, differences that indicate that Poff should not receive the outcome that Parker received. Certainly he should not receive such an outcome for the reasons Judge Horn has cited.
Before we go further, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued a ruling on Watson in December 2002, and that can be found here. The 10th Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's finding. The bankruptcy appellate panel's finding does not appear to be available on the Web. But we will look briefly at the key points:
First, here's something I was wrong about: My lawsuit is a claim under bankruptcy law. The Watson panel found that "a claim will exist if some pre-petition conduct has occurred that will give rise to liability." Poff's liability to me for legal malpractice arose from his conduct prior to filing a bankruptcy petition. That means my lawsuit is a claim that can be discharged in his bankruptcy case. (Ouch, didn't like reading that.)
But here's where Judge Horn was wrong: I am not required to seek permission from the bankruptcy court in order to proceed in state court. In fact, I cannot seek permission, and here is why:
Poff's bankruptcy case, like that of the attorney in Watson, has been completed and his debts discharged. In order for my claim to be discharged, Poff's bankruptcy case has to be reopened. And who can reopen a bankruptcy case? Watson answers that question clearly:
"Bankruptcy Rule 5010 delineates the procedure for reopening a case. Only a debtor, creditor or trustee has standing to move for the reopening of a case."
Obviously, I'm not a debtor or a trustee in Poff's bankruptcy case. And I'm not a creditor because Poff did not list me in his schedules. According to Watson, if Poff wants to make me a creditor, he has to reopen his bankruptcy case and amend his schedules. I do not have the standing to do anything with Poff's bankruptcy case.
Bankruptcy law is complex, but this just makes common sense. When I read Horn's ruling in my case, I thought, "How am I supposed to go to bankruptcy court and get permission to do something when I don't have anything to do with that case? My name isn't mentioned anywhere in it?" I remember telling my wife, "If I go to bankruptcy court and do what Horn is ordering me to do, they are going to look at me like I'm nuts. Horn is sending me on a glorified snipe hunt."
And Watson shows that I was right about that, even if it was for the wrong reason.
Now here's a question: Was Judge Horn just mistaken in his order or did he issue his order intentionally, knowing I would get rebuffed at bankruptcy court and would probably become frustrated and just drop my case? You can probably guess which one I think it is.
So, under the law, here is what has to happen: Poff needs to go to bankruptcy court, where he is the debtor and thus has standing, and reopen his case. He needs to amend his schedules and seek to have my claim discharged. If he doesn't do this, and so far he hasn't, then by law my case must proceed in state court.
Here is where it gets tricky for Poff, and I suspect this is why neither he nor his protector, Judge Horn, want to have his bankruptcy case reopened: I'm hardly an expert on bankruptcy procedure, but if his case is reopened and I'm added as a creditor, I'm pretty sure I would be notified by the court of my right to contest discharge of my claim. One of the counts in my legal-malpractice lawsuit is for fraud, and claims that resulted from fraudulent conduct generally are not dischargeable under bankruptcy law. I would attempt to show the bankruptcy court that my claim resulted from fraud and should not be discharged.
I suspect that Poff, and his buddy Judge Horn, want no part of that process.
Why is that? Here is one reason, I suspect. In Watson, the lawsuit/claim was discharged partly because the bankruptcy panel found that Watson did not have a fiduciary relationship with her attorney, Parker. The panel found that a general attorney-client relationship is not sufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship. Such a relationship exists only where there is an express or technical trust.
Goodness knows, I'm not an expert on "express or technical trusts," and Watson is not clear about what this entails. But here, I believe, is where a key difference between Watson and my case comes into play. Watson hired Parker to represent her in an employment case, in federal court. Her case was dismissed, and Watson alleged that the dismissal was the result of Parker's negligence.
The record is not clear, but it appears that Watson had hired Parker on a contingency basis. In other words, it looks as though she paid him no money up front and was to receive a percentage of any recovery he obtained on her behalf. Because of that, the bankruptcy panel appears to find, she did not suffer the injury to "either a creditor or a creditor's property" that is required by case law.
My case is different. I paid Poff $4,500 up front to represent me. If my reading of Watson is correct, that established a fiduciary relationship. And Poff's failure to take hardly any appropriate action on my behalf represents an injury both to me and my property (the $4,500).
In Watson, the creditor was given the opportunity in bankruptcy court to present evidence of both injury and the "intent to deceive" required by fraud. She was unable to present such evidence, and her claim was discharged.
In my case, I would present evidence of both injury and fraud. I feel certain Richard Poff knows this. I imagine Judge Horn knows this too, and that's why he tried to send me on a snipe hunt to bankruptcy court.
Thanks to a Legal Schnauzer reader, I now have a pretty good idea of the motives behind Horn's unlawful ruling.
I will keep you posted on this segment of As the Schnauzer Turns.
In our previous post in the series, I noted that a helpful reader had pointed me toward a case with strong connections to my legal-malpractice claim against Birmingham attorney Richard Poff.
I was astonished when I first read Watson v. Parker (264 B.R. 685, 2001). "I'll be darn," I thought, "Legal Schnauzer readers know their stuff."
The case originated in Kansas and involved a woman named Jenee Marie Watson, who had filed a legal-malpractice claim against an attorney named Richard W. Parker. The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit found that Watson's lawsuit was due to be discharged along with the other debts in Parker's bankruptcy case.
This is exactly the outcome Richard Poff is seeking in my legal-malpractice case against him. And Jefferson County Circuit Judge Allwin Horn appears ready to hand Poff such an outcome on a proverbial silver platter.
But there are some differences between Watson and my case, differences that indicate that Poff should not receive the outcome that Parker received. Certainly he should not receive such an outcome for the reasons Judge Horn has cited.
Before we go further, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued a ruling on Watson in December 2002, and that can be found here. The 10th Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's finding. The bankruptcy appellate panel's finding does not appear to be available on the Web. But we will look briefly at the key points:
First, here's something I was wrong about: My lawsuit is a claim under bankruptcy law. The Watson panel found that "a claim will exist if some pre-petition conduct has occurred that will give rise to liability." Poff's liability to me for legal malpractice arose from his conduct prior to filing a bankruptcy petition. That means my lawsuit is a claim that can be discharged in his bankruptcy case. (Ouch, didn't like reading that.)
But here's where Judge Horn was wrong: I am not required to seek permission from the bankruptcy court in order to proceed in state court. In fact, I cannot seek permission, and here is why:
Poff's bankruptcy case, like that of the attorney in Watson, has been completed and his debts discharged. In order for my claim to be discharged, Poff's bankruptcy case has to be reopened. And who can reopen a bankruptcy case? Watson answers that question clearly:
"Bankruptcy Rule 5010 delineates the procedure for reopening a case. Only a debtor, creditor or trustee has standing to move for the reopening of a case."
Obviously, I'm not a debtor or a trustee in Poff's bankruptcy case. And I'm not a creditor because Poff did not list me in his schedules. According to Watson, if Poff wants to make me a creditor, he has to reopen his bankruptcy case and amend his schedules. I do not have the standing to do anything with Poff's bankruptcy case.
Bankruptcy law is complex, but this just makes common sense. When I read Horn's ruling in my case, I thought, "How am I supposed to go to bankruptcy court and get permission to do something when I don't have anything to do with that case? My name isn't mentioned anywhere in it?" I remember telling my wife, "If I go to bankruptcy court and do what Horn is ordering me to do, they are going to look at me like I'm nuts. Horn is sending me on a glorified snipe hunt."
And Watson shows that I was right about that, even if it was for the wrong reason.
Now here's a question: Was Judge Horn just mistaken in his order or did he issue his order intentionally, knowing I would get rebuffed at bankruptcy court and would probably become frustrated and just drop my case? You can probably guess which one I think it is.
So, under the law, here is what has to happen: Poff needs to go to bankruptcy court, where he is the debtor and thus has standing, and reopen his case. He needs to amend his schedules and seek to have my claim discharged. If he doesn't do this, and so far he hasn't, then by law my case must proceed in state court.
Here is where it gets tricky for Poff, and I suspect this is why neither he nor his protector, Judge Horn, want to have his bankruptcy case reopened: I'm hardly an expert on bankruptcy procedure, but if his case is reopened and I'm added as a creditor, I'm pretty sure I would be notified by the court of my right to contest discharge of my claim. One of the counts in my legal-malpractice lawsuit is for fraud, and claims that resulted from fraudulent conduct generally are not dischargeable under bankruptcy law. I would attempt to show the bankruptcy court that my claim resulted from fraud and should not be discharged.
I suspect that Poff, and his buddy Judge Horn, want no part of that process.
Why is that? Here is one reason, I suspect. In Watson, the lawsuit/claim was discharged partly because the bankruptcy panel found that Watson did not have a fiduciary relationship with her attorney, Parker. The panel found that a general attorney-client relationship is not sufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship. Such a relationship exists only where there is an express or technical trust.
Goodness knows, I'm not an expert on "express or technical trusts," and Watson is not clear about what this entails. But here, I believe, is where a key difference between Watson and my case comes into play. Watson hired Parker to represent her in an employment case, in federal court. Her case was dismissed, and Watson alleged that the dismissal was the result of Parker's negligence.
The record is not clear, but it appears that Watson had hired Parker on a contingency basis. In other words, it looks as though she paid him no money up front and was to receive a percentage of any recovery he obtained on her behalf. Because of that, the bankruptcy panel appears to find, she did not suffer the injury to "either a creditor or a creditor's property" that is required by case law.
My case is different. I paid Poff $4,500 up front to represent me. If my reading of Watson is correct, that established a fiduciary relationship. And Poff's failure to take hardly any appropriate action on my behalf represents an injury both to me and my property (the $4,500).
In Watson, the creditor was given the opportunity in bankruptcy court to present evidence of both injury and the "intent to deceive" required by fraud. She was unable to present such evidence, and her claim was discharged.
In my case, I would present evidence of both injury and fraud. I feel certain Richard Poff knows this. I imagine Judge Horn knows this too, and that's why he tried to send me on a snipe hunt to bankruptcy court.
Thanks to a Legal Schnauzer reader, I now have a pretty good idea of the motives behind Horn's unlawful ruling.
I will keep you posted on this segment of As the Schnauzer Turns.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Alice Martin: Bad to the Bone
Is it possible that Alice Martin is the worst U.S. attorney in American history?
To answer that question definitively, of course, would require major research. But I think it's safe to say that Queen Alice, right here in the Northern District of Alabama, deserves a place in the pantheon of truly wretched U.S. attorneys. In fact, she seems to be doing her best to work her way to the top of the hideous heap.
Consider this for a moment: What two qualities, at a minimum, should we look for in a federal prosecutor?
I would suggest the following:
* An ability to consistently tell the truth and seek the truth
* An empathy for the victims of crime
How badly does Alice Martin miss the mark in these areas? Scott Horton, of Harper's, shines considerable light on that question in a recent post titled "Justice in Birmingham."
Horton writes about the case of Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, who was charged with violations of arms-export laws. Martin brought the case against Latifi, but a federal judge dismissed it and then awarded Latifi damages (expected to be about $500,000) based on the misconduct of the U.S. attorney.
Martin at first opposed the reimbursement. But she had a quick change of heart:
She appears to have withdrawn opposition to the claims for reimbursement in an effort to avoid being forced to give testimony in a case in which she is accused of being motivated by improper, possibly racist, motives.
The government withdrew its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That prevented Latifi's lawyers from demanding a hearing to examine the Justice Department's internal documents and investigative methods. Very crafty on the Queen's part.
It looks to me as if Alice Martin was concerned about the prospect that she would be placed under oath. Martin filed a motion to quash the subpoena issued against her, which was denied, then a motion to reconsider. These documents reflect a slithering invocation of prosecutional discretion to cloak misconduct and threaten the court with the involvement of Solicitor General Paul D. Clement–the sole senior Department official to survive the recent scandals over politically abusive conduct–in the matter. The court record reflects an extraordinary seven days of hearings and argument related to Martin’s efforts to avoid being forced to testify under oath. When these efforts failed, Martin withdrew her request for a finding that she had acted with reasonable cause and agreed to an award of damages under the claimant’s most aggressive theory. The only upside of this for Martin was that it would bolster her arguments against being forced to testify about her management of the case. However, although the current procedural setting of the case is complex, it appears that Martin and some of her associates may still be required to testify.
In sum: the taxpayers may be out $500,000 or more on account of prosecutorial misconduct (not taking into account the taxpayer’s funds expended on bringing a bogus case, which was probably several million), and Martin’s handling of the case now appears to be driven by her fear of being forced to account for her own conduct under oath. This case cries out for an internal Justice Department probe.
To answer that question definitively, of course, would require major research. But I think it's safe to say that Queen Alice, right here in the Northern District of Alabama, deserves a place in the pantheon of truly wretched U.S. attorneys. In fact, she seems to be doing her best to work her way to the top of the hideous heap.
Consider this for a moment: What two qualities, at a minimum, should we look for in a federal prosecutor?
I would suggest the following:
* An ability to consistently tell the truth and seek the truth
* An empathy for the victims of crime
How badly does Alice Martin miss the mark in these areas? Scott Horton, of Harper's, shines considerable light on that question in a recent post titled "Justice in Birmingham."
Horton writes about the case of Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, who was charged with violations of arms-export laws. Martin brought the case against Latifi, but a federal judge dismissed it and then awarded Latifi damages (expected to be about $500,000) based on the misconduct of the U.S. attorney.
Martin at first opposed the reimbursement. But she had a quick change of heart:
She appears to have withdrawn opposition to the claims for reimbursement in an effort to avoid being forced to give testimony in a case in which she is accused of being motivated by improper, possibly racist, motives.
The government withdrew its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That prevented Latifi's lawyers from demanding a hearing to examine the Justice Department's internal documents and investigative methods. Very crafty on the Queen's part.
It looks to me as if Alice Martin was concerned about the prospect that she would be placed under oath. Martin filed a motion to quash the subpoena issued against her, which was denied, then a motion to reconsider. These documents reflect a slithering invocation of prosecutional discretion to cloak misconduct and threaten the court with the involvement of Solicitor General Paul D. Clement–the sole senior Department official to survive the recent scandals over politically abusive conduct–in the matter. The court record reflects an extraordinary seven days of hearings and argument related to Martin’s efforts to avoid being forced to testify under oath. When these efforts failed, Martin withdrew her request for a finding that she had acted with reasonable cause and agreed to an award of damages under the claimant’s most aggressive theory. The only upside of this for Martin was that it would bolster her arguments against being forced to testify about her management of the case. However, although the current procedural setting of the case is complex, it appears that Martin and some of her associates may still be required to testify.
In sum: the taxpayers may be out $500,000 or more on account of prosecutorial misconduct (not taking into account the taxpayer’s funds expended on bringing a bogus case, which was probably several million), and Martin’s handling of the case now appears to be driven by her fear of being forced to account for her own conduct under oath. This case cries out for an internal Justice Department probe.
So we know that Alice Martin miserably fails the truth test. What about the empathy-for-crime-victims test?
Well, we know about that firsthand here at Legal Schnauzer. I've been the victim of repeated federal crimes in Alice Martin's district. And how did she handle the information I sent her about those crimes? She intentionally tried to cover up the wrongdoing, committed by members of the Republican "home team," and then lied to me about what she was doing.
Details are coming soon on my interactions with Queen Alice. And you will see just how badly she fails the empathy test, too.
Siegelman, The Verdict, and Beyond
It was good to see former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman wearing a coat and tie and looking remarkably fit last night on MSNBC's The Verdict, with Dan Abrams.
Other than Sunday night's brief appearance on 60 Minutes, the last time most of us had seen Siegelman on television he was wearing the garb of a federal prisoner.
One can only imagine how good it must have felt for Siegelman to tell his story--or at least a portion of it--after spending nine months silenced and stashed away in the federal prison system. And it seemed appropriate that he would answer questions from Abrams, who picked up on problems with the Siegelman case before anyone else on the national television stage.
What did we learn from Siegelman's appearance on the verdict? Here at Legal Schnauzer, the following points made our ears stand up:
The GOP and Jury Instructions
Abrams asked a question that you often hear in situations like this: "You were convicted by a jury of your peers. How do you explain that?"
Siegelman had a ready reply. He said that U.S. Judge Mark Fuller gave unlawful jury instructions. Naturally, it is easy for a jury to come back with an incorrect verdict when they are given incorrect instructions.
I haven't seen the Siegelman trial transcript, so I don't know the content of Fuller's jury instructions. But a transcript finally exists, and it appears that the former governor has had a chance to look at it closely. Siegelman's statement on The Verdict was the strongest indication so far that improper jury instructions played a huge role in his conviction.
Giving bad jury instructions appears to be a specialty of GOP judges. Fuller, of course, is a George W. Bush appointee. We have written at length here at Legal Schnauzer about the unlawful jury instructions given in the Paul Minor case by Mississippi federal judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee.
I've seen monkey business with juries in an up-close way. Some funky stuff took place with the jury in my case. How extensive was it and what form did it take? I'm in the process of trying to figure that out.
One of the biggest myths about American justice is that the jury is sacred and beyond the meddling of judges and others. Experience tells me that is not the case at all. And one of the best ways to meddle with the jury is by giving them unlawful jury instructions.
Don Siegelman brought the problem with jury instructions to the public's attention in a major way last night.
Worse Than Watergate
Perhaps the key soundbite of the interview was this from Siegelman:
"This case will make Watergate look like child's play if Congress will just dig into things."
Siegelman made it clear that problems with our justice system go way beyond his case. He mentioned, by name, the case involving Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin. But other cases involve Paul Minor and two former state judges in Mississippi and Cyril Wecht in Pennsylvania. And that doesn't even go into the firings of U.S. attorneys across the country.
It also does not go into the problems in state courts, which is one of our primary topics here at Legal Schnauzer. My case in Alabama state courts has connections to many of the same unsavory GOP characters who play central roles in the Siegelman saga.
We might not know it for 10 or 20 or 30 years. But when the full story of American justice during the George W. Bush era is known, I think Siegelman is right on target. It will be considered the worst scandal in American history, far worse than Watergate.
Looking Under Rocks in Alabama
Siegelman said Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over his conviction. But he did not stop with the former White House advisor.
Key Republican leaders in Alabama also need to be called before the House Judiciary Committee, Siegelman said. These include Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary and U.S. attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin.
This also should include an inquiry into the money trail that traveled through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and helped Bob Riley defeat Siegelman in 2002. And it should include a look at the "funny numbers" that popped up in the middle of the night in Baldwin County and helped Riley to a come-from-behind win in that 2002 election.
This all hit mighty close to home in the Schnauzer household as the wife and I watched The Verdict. All of these names--Alice Martin, Bill Canary, Leura Canary, Bob Riley. Who has ties to all of them?
None other than Dax Swatek, whose father Bill Swatek filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that started my legal nightmare and led to this blog. Do Dax Swatek's connections to Alabama Republican royalty help protect his father from the consequences of filing an bogus lawsuit? Sure looks like it from here.
Other than Sunday night's brief appearance on 60 Minutes, the last time most of us had seen Siegelman on television he was wearing the garb of a federal prisoner.
One can only imagine how good it must have felt for Siegelman to tell his story--or at least a portion of it--after spending nine months silenced and stashed away in the federal prison system. And it seemed appropriate that he would answer questions from Abrams, who picked up on problems with the Siegelman case before anyone else on the national television stage.
What did we learn from Siegelman's appearance on the verdict? Here at Legal Schnauzer, the following points made our ears stand up:
The GOP and Jury Instructions
Abrams asked a question that you often hear in situations like this: "You were convicted by a jury of your peers. How do you explain that?"
Siegelman had a ready reply. He said that U.S. Judge Mark Fuller gave unlawful jury instructions. Naturally, it is easy for a jury to come back with an incorrect verdict when they are given incorrect instructions.
I haven't seen the Siegelman trial transcript, so I don't know the content of Fuller's jury instructions. But a transcript finally exists, and it appears that the former governor has had a chance to look at it closely. Siegelman's statement on The Verdict was the strongest indication so far that improper jury instructions played a huge role in his conviction.
Giving bad jury instructions appears to be a specialty of GOP judges. Fuller, of course, is a George W. Bush appointee. We have written at length here at Legal Schnauzer about the unlawful jury instructions given in the Paul Minor case by Mississippi federal judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee.
I've seen monkey business with juries in an up-close way. Some funky stuff took place with the jury in my case. How extensive was it and what form did it take? I'm in the process of trying to figure that out.
One of the biggest myths about American justice is that the jury is sacred and beyond the meddling of judges and others. Experience tells me that is not the case at all. And one of the best ways to meddle with the jury is by giving them unlawful jury instructions.
Don Siegelman brought the problem with jury instructions to the public's attention in a major way last night.
Worse Than Watergate
Perhaps the key soundbite of the interview was this from Siegelman:
"This case will make Watergate look like child's play if Congress will just dig into things."
Siegelman made it clear that problems with our justice system go way beyond his case. He mentioned, by name, the case involving Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin. But other cases involve Paul Minor and two former state judges in Mississippi and Cyril Wecht in Pennsylvania. And that doesn't even go into the firings of U.S. attorneys across the country.
It also does not go into the problems in state courts, which is one of our primary topics here at Legal Schnauzer. My case in Alabama state courts has connections to many of the same unsavory GOP characters who play central roles in the Siegelman saga.
We might not know it for 10 or 20 or 30 years. But when the full story of American justice during the George W. Bush era is known, I think Siegelman is right on target. It will be considered the worst scandal in American history, far worse than Watergate.
Looking Under Rocks in Alabama
Siegelman said Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over his conviction. But he did not stop with the former White House advisor.
Key Republican leaders in Alabama also need to be called before the House Judiciary Committee, Siegelman said. These include Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary and U.S. attorneys Leura Canary and Alice Martin.
This also should include an inquiry into the money trail that traveled through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and helped Bob Riley defeat Siegelman in 2002. And it should include a look at the "funny numbers" that popped up in the middle of the night in Baldwin County and helped Riley to a come-from-behind win in that 2002 election.
This all hit mighty close to home in the Schnauzer household as the wife and I watched The Verdict. All of these names--Alice Martin, Bill Canary, Leura Canary, Bob Riley. Who has ties to all of them?
None other than Dax Swatek, whose father Bill Swatek filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that started my legal nightmare and led to this blog. Do Dax Swatek's connections to Alabama Republican royalty help protect his father from the consequences of filing an bogus lawsuit? Sure looks like it from here.
Monday, April 7, 2008
A Judge Ignores the Law--In Real Time
In a previous post, I reported that Shelby County Deputy Bubba Caudill told me that Circuit Judge Hub Harrington had instructed him to proceed with a sheriff's sale on my house even though I had filed a notarized Claim of Exemption.
I told Bubba that Harrington was giving him bad information, that by law my filing of a Claim of Exemption meant that the sheriff's sale was stayed, the other party had to file a sworn contest, and a hearing had to be held to assess the merits of the opposing claims.
Well, I wanted to make sure that Legal Schnauzer readers--and Bubba, for that matter--don't have to take my word for it. (Bubba told me, by the way, that he's become a reader.) Just check the law. In fact, I will do it for you.
The place to go is Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 69 is titled, very cleverly, "Execution." Go down the page a bit, and we see this (key words in all caps):
(d) Claim of Exemption. At any time after a levy or seizure but prior to a sale of such property, a judgment debtor may file a notarized claim of exemption with the sheriff. If a claim of exemption is filed with the sheriff, the judgment debtor shall also file a copy thereof with the clerk of the court. Sale of any property claimed as exempt by the judgment debtor which has not been previously sold, shall thereafter be STAYED, unless the creditor successfully contests the claim.
OK, we've got that straight. I did what a judgment debtor is required to do. What happens next?
(e) Contesting a Claim of Exemption. After notice from the sheriff that a claim of exemption has been filed by a judgment debtor, the judgment creditor may institute a contest of such claim by filing with the sheriff an AFFIDAVIT as required by law within the time provide in Sec. 6-10-26 Code of Alabama 1975. If a timely contest of a claim of exemption is filed, the sheriff shall forthwith return the process and other papers to the court to which the process is returnable, accompanied with a full statement of the facts, and a HEARING to determine said contest SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY THE COURT at the earliest practicable time and the contest shall be TRIED AND DETERMINED as other contests of claims of exemption are tried and determined.
What happens if the judgment creditor doesn't do his part?
(f) No Contest Filed. If the judgment creditor, in person or by that party's agent or attorney, fails to file a timely contest with the sheriff after notice of the judgment debtor's claim of exemption, THE SHERIFF SHALL FORTHWITH RELEASE TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR ALL PROPERTY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT that had not been sold prior to the filing of the claim of exemption. The sheriff shall then return the process and other papers to the court to which the process is returnable, accompanied with an itemized affidavit of the sheriff's costs of making the levy and keeping the property subject to the claim of exemption, WHICH COSTS SHALL BE TAXED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR.
So that's the law, and you don't need a law degree to understand it. It's also law that Shelby County Circuit Judge Hub Harrington evidently told Deputy Bubba Caudill to ignore. Now, why would a judge do that?
Particularly, why would a Don Siegelman appointee such as Harrington do this? Lord knows, judicial corruption is a bipartisan problem across the nation. But in my experience here in Alabama, it appears to be an overwhelmingly Republican problem.
My understanding is that Harrington is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Based on his recent behavior, it looks like he's become a RTAT (Republican Through and Through).
The sad fact is this: Across the country, many of our courthouses are run by political considerations, not the law. In Shelby County, the presiding judge is J. Michael Joiner, who I understand was a mediocrity as a lawyer and he's a certified horror story as a judge. But half of south Shelby County is named Joiner, so he will be judge for life--unless we get a real U.S. attorney in the Birmingham area and they put Joiner in federal prison, where he belongs.
My guess is that Harrington, if he wants to win when he comes up for election, had better toe the line with Joiner. If he doesn't, Joiner will promote some other GOP schmo to run against him--and that means Harrington will be right back to being a regular lawyer.
One thing I've learned: Being a lawyer, or at least being a mediocre lawyer, sure must suck compared to being a judge. Really outstanding lawyers probably have no desire to be a judge because they would have to take a huge pay cut. But for a mediocre lawyer, getting a spot on the bench evidently is something worth holding onto for dear life.
And if that means butchering the law in a case like mine, well so be it.
I told Bubba that Harrington was giving him bad information, that by law my filing of a Claim of Exemption meant that the sheriff's sale was stayed, the other party had to file a sworn contest, and a hearing had to be held to assess the merits of the opposing claims.
Well, I wanted to make sure that Legal Schnauzer readers--and Bubba, for that matter--don't have to take my word for it. (Bubba told me, by the way, that he's become a reader.) Just check the law. In fact, I will do it for you.
The place to go is Rule 69 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 69 is titled, very cleverly, "Execution." Go down the page a bit, and we see this (key words in all caps):
(d) Claim of Exemption. At any time after a levy or seizure but prior to a sale of such property, a judgment debtor may file a notarized claim of exemption with the sheriff. If a claim of exemption is filed with the sheriff, the judgment debtor shall also file a copy thereof with the clerk of the court. Sale of any property claimed as exempt by the judgment debtor which has not been previously sold, shall thereafter be STAYED, unless the creditor successfully contests the claim.
OK, we've got that straight. I did what a judgment debtor is required to do. What happens next?
(e) Contesting a Claim of Exemption. After notice from the sheriff that a claim of exemption has been filed by a judgment debtor, the judgment creditor may institute a contest of such claim by filing with the sheriff an AFFIDAVIT as required by law within the time provide in Sec. 6-10-26 Code of Alabama 1975. If a timely contest of a claim of exemption is filed, the sheriff shall forthwith return the process and other papers to the court to which the process is returnable, accompanied with a full statement of the facts, and a HEARING to determine said contest SHALL BE SCHEDULED BY THE COURT at the earliest practicable time and the contest shall be TRIED AND DETERMINED as other contests of claims of exemption are tried and determined.
What happens if the judgment creditor doesn't do his part?
(f) No Contest Filed. If the judgment creditor, in person or by that party's agent or attorney, fails to file a timely contest with the sheriff after notice of the judgment debtor's claim of exemption, THE SHERIFF SHALL FORTHWITH RELEASE TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR ALL PROPERTY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT that had not been sold prior to the filing of the claim of exemption. The sheriff shall then return the process and other papers to the court to which the process is returnable, accompanied with an itemized affidavit of the sheriff's costs of making the levy and keeping the property subject to the claim of exemption, WHICH COSTS SHALL BE TAXED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR.
So that's the law, and you don't need a law degree to understand it. It's also law that Shelby County Circuit Judge Hub Harrington evidently told Deputy Bubba Caudill to ignore. Now, why would a judge do that?
Particularly, why would a Don Siegelman appointee such as Harrington do this? Lord knows, judicial corruption is a bipartisan problem across the nation. But in my experience here in Alabama, it appears to be an overwhelmingly Republican problem.
My understanding is that Harrington is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Based on his recent behavior, it looks like he's become a RTAT (Republican Through and Through).
The sad fact is this: Across the country, many of our courthouses are run by political considerations, not the law. In Shelby County, the presiding judge is J. Michael Joiner, who I understand was a mediocrity as a lawyer and he's a certified horror story as a judge. But half of south Shelby County is named Joiner, so he will be judge for life--unless we get a real U.S. attorney in the Birmingham area and they put Joiner in federal prison, where he belongs.
My guess is that Harrington, if he wants to win when he comes up for election, had better toe the line with Joiner. If he doesn't, Joiner will promote some other GOP schmo to run against him--and that means Harrington will be right back to being a regular lawyer.
One thing I've learned: Being a lawyer, or at least being a mediocre lawyer, sure must suck compared to being a judge. Really outstanding lawyers probably have no desire to be a judge because they would have to take a huge pay cut. But for a mediocre lawyer, getting a spot on the bench evidently is something worth holding onto for dear life.
And if that means butchering the law in a case like mine, well so be it.
Turning Up the Heat Under Turd Blossom
As we prepare to watch Dan Abrams' interview with Don Siegelman tonight on MSNBC, this is a good time to consider the tactics of the man who increasingly appears to be behind the scheme to unlawfully put Siegelman in prison.
We are talking, of course, about former White House advisor Karl Rove--a name that is sure to come up in the Abrams-Siegelman interview.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides important background on Rove's activities in Alabama, the state where he built his national reputation:
These days, Karl is taking a bit of heat over his involvement in the Siegelman case. As I noted in a recent on-air discussion with Dan Abrams, nearly every stone you overturn looking through this case reveals traces of Karl Rove. Rove was serving as campaign advisor to William Pryor, who, as a rabidly partisan Alabama attorney general, launched the investigation into Siegelman almost as soon as he was sworn in as governor. Rove’s close friend and associate William Canary was advising a Republican running against Siegelman, and busily raising money for him as his own wife, Leura Canary, pursued a criminal investigation against Siegelman as U.S. Attorney. A Republican campaign worker disclosed internal discussions about using a criminal prosecution to take out Siegelman, and Rove’s name appeared at every turn, uttered by a person close to Rove. And then the same source, Jill Simpson, described some of her own interactions with Rove in a 60 Minutes segment, followed by another interview on MSNBC’s Dan Abrams show. And we haven’t even begun to discuss the Washington angle…
In his recent interview with GQ, Rove showed signs of being a bit unhinged. Horton offers some insight into what might Rove uptight:
What’s gotten Karl worked into a lather? It’s simple. Jill Simpson and the United States Congress are saying exactly the same thing: Karl, if you’re so clear about this, then certainly you will have no problem appearing in response to a Congressional subpoena, swearing an oath and answering questions–just as Simpson did. Moreover, Congress wants to ask him just the same questions that GQ asked, and that he happily answered. How does Rove explain agreeing to be interviewed by a fashion magazine, but refusing to answer the same questions when formally posed by Congress? And certainly Rove should also turn over documents and answer questions about them, just as Jill Simpson did. Rove’s conduct in chatting up the media but refusing to testify before Congress on the same subjects has certainly been audacious. It’s also been stupid.
Karl’s taunts hurled at CBS are designed to get CBS to put all its cards on the table before Karl goes out wading any further into what he obviously recognizes is a minefield. It’s not that he doubts that CBS did their investigation and confirmed Simpson’s credibility. He knows that they did. And he’s frantic to discover exactly what the evidence is.
Where does all of this leave Rove? In an ever tightening corner, Horton says:
Rove has a fundamental problem. His denials will not stand up under scrutiny. And worm and evade as he may, he can’t avoid that simple fact. Which is another reason for us all to say we’re dying to hear Karl Rove’s views about the Siegelman case—as soon as he’s placed under oath and agrees to submit to questioning about them.
We are talking, of course, about former White House advisor Karl Rove--a name that is sure to come up in the Abrams-Siegelman interview.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides important background on Rove's activities in Alabama, the state where he built his national reputation:
These days, Karl is taking a bit of heat over his involvement in the Siegelman case. As I noted in a recent on-air discussion with Dan Abrams, nearly every stone you overturn looking through this case reveals traces of Karl Rove. Rove was serving as campaign advisor to William Pryor, who, as a rabidly partisan Alabama attorney general, launched the investigation into Siegelman almost as soon as he was sworn in as governor. Rove’s close friend and associate William Canary was advising a Republican running against Siegelman, and busily raising money for him as his own wife, Leura Canary, pursued a criminal investigation against Siegelman as U.S. Attorney. A Republican campaign worker disclosed internal discussions about using a criminal prosecution to take out Siegelman, and Rove’s name appeared at every turn, uttered by a person close to Rove. And then the same source, Jill Simpson, described some of her own interactions with Rove in a 60 Minutes segment, followed by another interview on MSNBC’s Dan Abrams show. And we haven’t even begun to discuss the Washington angle…
In his recent interview with GQ, Rove showed signs of being a bit unhinged. Horton offers some insight into what might Rove uptight:
What’s gotten Karl worked into a lather? It’s simple. Jill Simpson and the United States Congress are saying exactly the same thing: Karl, if you’re so clear about this, then certainly you will have no problem appearing in response to a Congressional subpoena, swearing an oath and answering questions–just as Simpson did. Moreover, Congress wants to ask him just the same questions that GQ asked, and that he happily answered. How does Rove explain agreeing to be interviewed by a fashion magazine, but refusing to answer the same questions when formally posed by Congress? And certainly Rove should also turn over documents and answer questions about them, just as Jill Simpson did. Rove’s conduct in chatting up the media but refusing to testify before Congress on the same subjects has certainly been audacious. It’s also been stupid.
Karl’s taunts hurled at CBS are designed to get CBS to put all its cards on the table before Karl goes out wading any further into what he obviously recognizes is a minefield. It’s not that he doubts that CBS did their investigation and confirmed Simpson’s credibility. He knows that they did. And he’s frantic to discover exactly what the evidence is.
Where does all of this leave Rove? In an ever tightening corner, Horton says:
Rove has a fundamental problem. His denials will not stand up under scrutiny. And worm and evade as he may, he can’t avoid that simple fact. Which is another reason for us all to say we’re dying to hear Karl Rove’s views about the Siegelman case—as soon as he’s placed under oath and agrees to submit to questioning about them.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
My House is Safe--For Now
I received word on Friday that Shelby County officials have postponed the auction of my house that had been set for noon Monday (April 7) on the courthouse steps in Columbiana, Alabama.
Why the postponement?
Deputy Bubba Caudill, who along with Eddie Moore evidently handles writs of executions and such for the Shelby County Sheriff's Department, told me it was because of a mistake in the ad that ran about the sheriff's sale. It looks like the block number in the mapbook description of my property was off by one digit.
Bubba said this was a serious enough error that they needed to start the ad over again and run it for another three weeks. I almost had to laugh when I heard that.
"Bubba, that digit being off slightly is the least of the mistakes in this whole process," I told him.
Bubba didn't seem to find the humor in that.
I went on to tell him about the Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions that I never received. I told him about the stay that, by law, had to be put into place when I filed my Claim of Exemption. I told him about the contest that, by law, had to be filed by the opposing party within 10 days of notice about my exemption claim. I told him about the hearing that, by law, had to be held regarding my exemption claim and any contest. And I told him that if the opposing party failed to file a timely contest, the whole matter, by law, was settled--in my favor. No more writ of execution, no sheriff's sale, and costs are charged to the party who filed the writ.
All of this seemed to be news to Bubba--even though he said he deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis.
Here's where it gets real interesting, another example of what I call "corruption in real time." I noted in a previous post that Bubba left a voice message for me on Wednesday (I had filed my exemption claim on Tuesday), saying that "a judge" had instructed him to go ahead with the sheriff's sale on Monday, April 7.
When I talked with Bubba on Friday, I said, "Which judge told you to go ahead with sheriff's sale, even though I had filed a notarized Claim of Exemption?"
"Judge Harrington," Bubba said.
That would be Circuit Judge Hub Harrington. And his involvement is interesting for several reasons. For one, the lawsuit against me has been handled by two "judges"--J. Michael Joiner and Dan Reeves, who took over when Joiner recused himself upon my motion. Harrington hasn't been involved (except for one strange cameo appearance, which I will explain later), and I have no idea why he involved himself at this juncture. Two, Harrington is the one judge in Shelby County that I would have expected to be honest. My understanding is that he is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He has to be a Republican to have any hope of being elected in Shelby County. But he was appointed by none other than Don Siegelman, which makes me think Harrington is a Democrat at heart.
There is a third reason that Harrington's involvement at this stage is interesting, and I will get to that in another post. But for now, let me say that Harrington's actions confirm two things that I've suspected for quite some time--(1) Judicial corruption is not limited to folks of only one political persuasion; (2) If a relatively honest person enters a cesspool like the Shelby County Courthouse, it is highly unlikely that such a person will remain honest.
When I told Bubba that Harrington was giving him bad information, Bubba said about all he could say, "I'm just trying to do what the judge told me to do."
Funny thing about it, I kind of like Bubba--considering he is playing a prominent role in a fraudulent scheme to steal my house. And I actually got to meet him in person when I visited the courthouse last week. I was sitting in the clerk's office, reading a document and minding my own business, when this big guy walked in, stuck out his hand, and said, "Mr. Shuler, Bubba Caudill!" He sounded like he was my long lost buddy. My jaw must have hit the floor because two thoughts immediately filled my brain:
* "Sweet Jehovah, it's actually Bubba, in the flesh." (Till then, he had been this disembodied voice in the numerous messages left on my wife's cell phone and/or our home phone.)
* "How in the heck did he know who I was?" (Still don't know the answer to that. Maybe he had seen my star turn on Fox 6 News a few nights earlier and recognized me as a local celebrity.)
Once my brain processed those thoughts, two other thoughts came quickly to mind:
* "So that's how you spell his darn last name," after taking a quick glimpse at his nametag.
* "This guy doesn't look like a jack booted thug is supposed to look. He looks more like a character out of Smokey and the Bandit."
So how did Bubba and I leave it in our phone conversation? He said they would correct the ad, run it again for three weeks, and evidently we will be right back in the same place in about a month.
In the meantime, Legal Schnauzer readers are going to learn a whole lot more about "corruption in real time," as well the wrongdoing that has led us to this point.
And we will might ponder this question: Isn't it a little curious that they served me with a writ of execution last September, and a notice of levy in early February, and it wasn't until the Friday before my house was due to be auctioned that they realized they had made a mistake?
Why the postponement?
Deputy Bubba Caudill, who along with Eddie Moore evidently handles writs of executions and such for the Shelby County Sheriff's Department, told me it was because of a mistake in the ad that ran about the sheriff's sale. It looks like the block number in the mapbook description of my property was off by one digit.
Bubba said this was a serious enough error that they needed to start the ad over again and run it for another three weeks. I almost had to laugh when I heard that.
"Bubba, that digit being off slightly is the least of the mistakes in this whole process," I told him.
Bubba didn't seem to find the humor in that.
I went on to tell him about the Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions that I never received. I told him about the stay that, by law, had to be put into place when I filed my Claim of Exemption. I told him about the contest that, by law, had to be filed by the opposing party within 10 days of notice about my exemption claim. I told him about the hearing that, by law, had to be held regarding my exemption claim and any contest. And I told him that if the opposing party failed to file a timely contest, the whole matter, by law, was settled--in my favor. No more writ of execution, no sheriff's sale, and costs are charged to the party who filed the writ.
All of this seemed to be news to Bubba--even though he said he deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis.
Here's where it gets real interesting, another example of what I call "corruption in real time." I noted in a previous post that Bubba left a voice message for me on Wednesday (I had filed my exemption claim on Tuesday), saying that "a judge" had instructed him to go ahead with the sheriff's sale on Monday, April 7.
When I talked with Bubba on Friday, I said, "Which judge told you to go ahead with sheriff's sale, even though I had filed a notarized Claim of Exemption?"
"Judge Harrington," Bubba said.
That would be Circuit Judge Hub Harrington. And his involvement is interesting for several reasons. For one, the lawsuit against me has been handled by two "judges"--J. Michael Joiner and Dan Reeves, who took over when Joiner recused himself upon my motion. Harrington hasn't been involved (except for one strange cameo appearance, which I will explain later), and I have no idea why he involved himself at this juncture. Two, Harrington is the one judge in Shelby County that I would have expected to be honest. My understanding is that he is a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He has to be a Republican to have any hope of being elected in Shelby County. But he was appointed by none other than Don Siegelman, which makes me think Harrington is a Democrat at heart.
There is a third reason that Harrington's involvement at this stage is interesting, and I will get to that in another post. But for now, let me say that Harrington's actions confirm two things that I've suspected for quite some time--(1) Judicial corruption is not limited to folks of only one political persuasion; (2) If a relatively honest person enters a cesspool like the Shelby County Courthouse, it is highly unlikely that such a person will remain honest.
When I told Bubba that Harrington was giving him bad information, Bubba said about all he could say, "I'm just trying to do what the judge told me to do."
Funny thing about it, I kind of like Bubba--considering he is playing a prominent role in a fraudulent scheme to steal my house. And I actually got to meet him in person when I visited the courthouse last week. I was sitting in the clerk's office, reading a document and minding my own business, when this big guy walked in, stuck out his hand, and said, "Mr. Shuler, Bubba Caudill!" He sounded like he was my long lost buddy. My jaw must have hit the floor because two thoughts immediately filled my brain:
* "Sweet Jehovah, it's actually Bubba, in the flesh." (Till then, he had been this disembodied voice in the numerous messages left on my wife's cell phone and/or our home phone.)
* "How in the heck did he know who I was?" (Still don't know the answer to that. Maybe he had seen my star turn on Fox 6 News a few nights earlier and recognized me as a local celebrity.)
Once my brain processed those thoughts, two other thoughts came quickly to mind:
* "So that's how you spell his darn last name," after taking a quick glimpse at his nametag.
* "This guy doesn't look like a jack booted thug is supposed to look. He looks more like a character out of Smokey and the Bandit."
So how did Bubba and I leave it in our phone conversation? He said they would correct the ad, run it again for three weeks, and evidently we will be right back in the same place in about a month.
In the meantime, Legal Schnauzer readers are going to learn a whole lot more about "corruption in real time," as well the wrongdoing that has led us to this point.
And we will might ponder this question: Isn't it a little curious that they served me with a writ of execution last September, and a notice of levy in early February, and it wasn't until the Friday before my house was due to be auctioned that they realized they had made a mistake?
Siegelman and 60 Minutes, Part II
Want to get in the right frame of mind for tonight's Part II in 60 Minutes' coverage of the Don Siegelman case?
Well, check out today's editorial in the Tuscaloosa News, questioning Karl Rove's ethics for slamming CBS' coverage.
The News' editorial gets to the heart of the matter, noting up front that the Siegelman prosecution is "a case that grows more odious by the day."
Then the News goes after Rove in a major way. This is not the kind of stuff you are used to seeing in an Alabama newspaper:
Rove, in an interview with GQ magazine made public late last week, called Simpson a 'complete lunatic' and accused CBS of being a 'shoddy operation' for airing her charges.
Rove can hardly afford to hurl around accusations of shoddy operation. Ethics and morals mean little to him. He has proven time and again that he will do anything to get his way in politics.
Want some specifics? The News provides them:
For example, in the 2000 GOP primary, Rove's operation targeted Bush's main rival by spreading false stories that John McCain informed on other POWs in Hanoi and fathered a black daughter out of wedlock.
(Rove's) personal attack on Simpson fits the pattern. Rove has used smear tactics to tar opponents throughout his political career. In 1994, for instance, he ran Bush's successful campaign in Texas against incumbent Ann Richards in which 'pollsters' asked questions such as 'Would you be more or less likely to vote for Gov. Richards if you knew her staff was dominated by lesbians?'
Want background? The News has that, too:
Rove learned his craft at the foot of Richard Nixon's squad of dirty tricksters led by Donald Segretti. It's almost laughable that he would call anything 'shoddy.'
Tonight's Siegelman report evidently will be an abbreviated segment. I understand that 60 Minutes has much more information that could make another full report. Let's hope we will see a Part III.
Well, check out today's editorial in the Tuscaloosa News, questioning Karl Rove's ethics for slamming CBS' coverage.
The News' editorial gets to the heart of the matter, noting up front that the Siegelman prosecution is "a case that grows more odious by the day."
Then the News goes after Rove in a major way. This is not the kind of stuff you are used to seeing in an Alabama newspaper:
Rove, in an interview with GQ magazine made public late last week, called Simpson a 'complete lunatic' and accused CBS of being a 'shoddy operation' for airing her charges.
Rove can hardly afford to hurl around accusations of shoddy operation. Ethics and morals mean little to him. He has proven time and again that he will do anything to get his way in politics.
Want some specifics? The News provides them:
For example, in the 2000 GOP primary, Rove's operation targeted Bush's main rival by spreading false stories that John McCain informed on other POWs in Hanoi and fathered a black daughter out of wedlock.
(Rove's) personal attack on Simpson fits the pattern. Rove has used smear tactics to tar opponents throughout his political career. In 1994, for instance, he ran Bush's successful campaign in Texas against incumbent Ann Richards in which 'pollsters' asked questions such as 'Would you be more or less likely to vote for Gov. Richards if you knew her staff was dominated by lesbians?'
Want background? The News has that, too:
Rove learned his craft at the foot of Richard Nixon's squad of dirty tricksters led by Donald Segretti. It's almost laughable that he would call anything 'shoddy.'
Tonight's Siegelman report evidently will be an abbreviated segment. I understand that 60 Minutes has much more information that could make another full report. Let's hope we will see a Part III.
Alabama: An Iron Curtain is Descending
Larisa Alexandrovna grew up behind the Iron Curtain, so when she compares today's Alabama to the Soviet Union, she is not making idle chatter.
Alexandrovna knows firsthand what the Soviet Union was like. And she has spent time recently in Alabama and reported extensively on GOP shenanigans in our state.
I suspect Alexandrovna, in her piece at Huffington Post, does not make the Soviet/Alabama comparison casually. And I don't think she is engaging in hyperbole.
In fact, as someone who currently is fighting off attempts by GOP authorities to unlawfully seize and auction my house, I can tell you she is frighteningly on target.
Alexandrovna focuses on the federal investigation of employees of Alabama's two-year college system who also serve in the state legislature. Most of these legislators just happen to be Democrats.
Is there reason to find hope in the grimness of modern Alabama? Alexandrovna points to an article by Adam Nossiter of The New York Times, spotlighting the fear and paranoia that reign in Alabama's state house. The good news, Alexandrovna says, is that a newspaper of the Times stature is paying attention.
Writes Nossiter:
The fear is all the more acute in that the current investigation centers on Democrats in their last redoubt of power here, the State Legislature, and takes place against a backdrop of intense partisan ill-feeling. Many here maintain that a former governor, Don Siegelman, who was convicted by federal prosecutors and jailed last year, was singled out because he is a Democrat.
Anger among Democrats was re-stoked last week when Mr. Siegelman emerged from a federal prison after nine months, freed on bond by a federal court in Atlanta that said his appeal had raised substantial questions.
"There's a direct link between the Siegelman debacle and what's going on here," said one legislator, nervously looking around. Like many, he refused to be quoted by name.
Read the following paragraph from Nossiter and consider if Alexandrovna is on target:
Legislators are sweeping their offices for bugs. Routine horse-trading for votes is stymied, for fear it could be misinterpreted. A wary lawmaker agrees to meet a reporter only in a wide-open parking lot. After-hours get-togethers are off.
I can identify with what Alexandrovna and Nossiter are reporting. In recent weeks, my wife and I have had serious discussions about steps we might need to take should Shelby County deputies try to break down our door and throw us into the streets--all because I've had the audacity to write about my experiences in Alabama state courts.
From where I sit, Alexandrovna and Nossiter are telling it like it is.
And one reason people are so fearful is this: Alabama's own press is not about to shine light on corrupt Republicans in the state. In fact, as Harper's Scott Horton has adroitly shown, Alabama newspapers are intimately involved in the scheme.
Alexandrovna knows firsthand what the Soviet Union was like. And she has spent time recently in Alabama and reported extensively on GOP shenanigans in our state.
I suspect Alexandrovna, in her piece at Huffington Post, does not make the Soviet/Alabama comparison casually. And I don't think she is engaging in hyperbole.
In fact, as someone who currently is fighting off attempts by GOP authorities to unlawfully seize and auction my house, I can tell you she is frighteningly on target.
Alexandrovna focuses on the federal investigation of employees of Alabama's two-year college system who also serve in the state legislature. Most of these legislators just happen to be Democrats.
Is there reason to find hope in the grimness of modern Alabama? Alexandrovna points to an article by Adam Nossiter of The New York Times, spotlighting the fear and paranoia that reign in Alabama's state house. The good news, Alexandrovna says, is that a newspaper of the Times stature is paying attention.
Writes Nossiter:
The fear is all the more acute in that the current investigation centers on Democrats in their last redoubt of power here, the State Legislature, and takes place against a backdrop of intense partisan ill-feeling. Many here maintain that a former governor, Don Siegelman, who was convicted by federal prosecutors and jailed last year, was singled out because he is a Democrat.
Anger among Democrats was re-stoked last week when Mr. Siegelman emerged from a federal prison after nine months, freed on bond by a federal court in Atlanta that said his appeal had raised substantial questions.
"There's a direct link between the Siegelman debacle and what's going on here," said one legislator, nervously looking around. Like many, he refused to be quoted by name.
Read the following paragraph from Nossiter and consider if Alexandrovna is on target:
Legislators are sweeping their offices for bugs. Routine horse-trading for votes is stymied, for fear it could be misinterpreted. A wary lawmaker agrees to meet a reporter only in a wide-open parking lot. After-hours get-togethers are off.
I can identify with what Alexandrovna and Nossiter are reporting. In recent weeks, my wife and I have had serious discussions about steps we might need to take should Shelby County deputies try to break down our door and throw us into the streets--all because I've had the audacity to write about my experiences in Alabama state courts.
From where I sit, Alexandrovna and Nossiter are telling it like it is.
And one reason people are so fearful is this: Alabama's own press is not about to shine light on corrupt Republicans in the state. In fact, as Harper's Scott Horton has adroitly shown, Alabama newspapers are intimately involved in the scheme.
Another Gotcha on Rove
WriteChic has done some serious digging and produced an excellent post that adds to the growing body of evidence that GOP advisor Karl Rove was in some kind of unhinged state when he gave his recent interview to GQ.
We had a post yesterday, drawing heavily on the work of investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, showing that while Rove was calling Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson a "lunatic," Rove himself was playing fast and loose with the facts.
Rove particularly seemed to dispute the notion that the GOP had headquarters in Virginia, as referenced by Simpson. And WriteChic has unearthed a CNN transcript from 2000, in which a report is filed from Bush-Cheney transition headquarters in . . . McLean, Virginia.
WriteChic also adds some important perspective about the way GOPers operate in the Era of Rove:
Republicans know how to take down a threat. Remember Andrea Mackris? They didn’t call her Bill O’Reilly’s producer. They called her a “low level” employee. The troops following orders who debased prisoners and themselves under the direction of the White House and Pentagon were called a few bad eggs and a few bad apples. Senator John Kerry, a decorated war hero, was swiftboated in the 2004 campaign. His service was peddled to the public as exactly the opposite of what was true. Senator John McCain adopted a baby from Mother Teresa’s Orphanage, and Karl Rove spread rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black baby with a prostitute.
Now Rove is saying a Republican attorney from Alabama is “a complete lunatic.”
GQ Magazine provided the platform for Rove which is weird since Karl Rove is the definitive anti-gentleman. But I guess there is no Character Assassin Quarterly which would be eminently more suitable.
Readers should note the profane and disturbing quote that WriteChic uses to introduce her article on Rove. This is a guy that many professing Christians have chosen to follow lockstep, at least in terms of voting. Sad--and strange.
By the way, the disturbing quote comes from a Ron Suskind article in Esquire. Rove was referring to an unnamed political operative who had displeased him, someone evidently on his own team. Imagine the venom he spews about people from the other team.
We had a post yesterday, drawing heavily on the work of investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, showing that while Rove was calling Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson a "lunatic," Rove himself was playing fast and loose with the facts.
Rove particularly seemed to dispute the notion that the GOP had headquarters in Virginia, as referenced by Simpson. And WriteChic has unearthed a CNN transcript from 2000, in which a report is filed from Bush-Cheney transition headquarters in . . . McLean, Virginia.
WriteChic also adds some important perspective about the way GOPers operate in the Era of Rove:
Republicans know how to take down a threat. Remember Andrea Mackris? They didn’t call her Bill O’Reilly’s producer. They called her a “low level” employee. The troops following orders who debased prisoners and themselves under the direction of the White House and Pentagon were called a few bad eggs and a few bad apples. Senator John Kerry, a decorated war hero, was swiftboated in the 2004 campaign. His service was peddled to the public as exactly the opposite of what was true. Senator John McCain adopted a baby from Mother Teresa’s Orphanage, and Karl Rove spread rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black baby with a prostitute.
Now Rove is saying a Republican attorney from Alabama is “a complete lunatic.”
GQ Magazine provided the platform for Rove which is weird since Karl Rove is the definitive anti-gentleman. But I guess there is no Character Assassin Quarterly which would be eminently more suitable.
Readers should note the profane and disturbing quote that WriteChic uses to introduce her article on Rove. This is a guy that many professing Christians have chosen to follow lockstep, at least in terms of voting. Sad--and strange.
By the way, the disturbing quote comes from a Ron Suskind article in Esquire. Rove was referring to an unnamed political operative who had displeased him, someone evidently on his own team. Imagine the venom he spews about people from the other team.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Bloggers As Targets
Thanks to the folks at Left in Alabama for shining a light on the legal challenges bloggers can face, including my situation here at Legal Schnauzer.
Left in Alabama reports on a challenge facing Kathleen Seidel at the Neurodiversity Weblog. Seidel has received a subpoena instructing her to appear for a deposition and produce documents related to a personal-injury lawsuit.
Seidel is not a party to the lawsuit, and you can read her motion to quash the subpoena at her blog. She is claiming that the subpoena is unconstitutional, and I think she makes a strong argument.
Looks like Seidel, like yours truly, is having to represent herself. Based on her motion to quash, I'd say she's doing a pretty darn good job.
A few differences come to mind about the Neurodiversity case and the Legal Schnauzer case.
* Seidel is not a party to a lawsuit, but she is being ordered to testify under oath and provide documentation. I was sued, and therefore was a party, and the suit came after I was the victim of a crime. When the perpetrator was acquitted in criminal court, he sued me for malicious prosecution.
* Seidel became involved in a legal entanglement as a result of her blog. I started a blog as a result of my legal entanglement.
* Seidel has justifiable concerns about the subpoena she received. Based on my experiences in civil litigation, I understand that statements made in a deposition, or documents that are produced, can be used to add the deponent as a party. Hope that doesn't happen here, and based on a quick reading of the material, I don't see any reason to think that will happen. It seems that one of the parties is stretching by asking her to testify. If she is quite removed from the issues in the case, and that appears to be the situation, she shouldn't have much to worry about. But depositions can be used as a tool to expand litigation, dragging other parties into the fray.
* Thankfully, I don't see any signs that the justice system itself is acting improperly in Seidel's case. And I'm not a judge, but I think she has a fairly strong case for having the subpoena quashed. In my case, the justice system itself is corrupt--and has been from the outset of the case. Unlawful rulings by judges caused a lawsuit that had to be dismissed in six to eight months time to drag on for about five years, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars.
Now the justice system is taking unlawful steps to seize my property in a pretty clear attempt to get me to stop blogging about the judicial corruption I've witnessed. Judges don't like it when you air their dirty laundry for everyone to see. And lawyers, who profit from the system the way it is, also want to keep the sleazy side of their profession under wraps.
* Again thankfully, I don't think anyone is trying to get Seidel to quit blogging. I haven't studied her case extensively, so perhaps I'm missing something. But I'm hopeful this is just an irritation and not an attack on her rights to publish. It appears the plaintiff is the one seeking her testimony in the lawsuit. That makes me think perhaps the plaintiff filed a weak case and is pulling out all kinds of stops in an effort to keep things afloat.
* Neurodiversity looks like an interesting blog, with a devoted, well-informed readership. I look forward to following the site, and I wish Seidel well in keeping the legal system out of her hair.
Left in Alabama reports on a challenge facing Kathleen Seidel at the Neurodiversity Weblog. Seidel has received a subpoena instructing her to appear for a deposition and produce documents related to a personal-injury lawsuit.
Seidel is not a party to the lawsuit, and you can read her motion to quash the subpoena at her blog. She is claiming that the subpoena is unconstitutional, and I think she makes a strong argument.
Looks like Seidel, like yours truly, is having to represent herself. Based on her motion to quash, I'd say she's doing a pretty darn good job.
A few differences come to mind about the Neurodiversity case and the Legal Schnauzer case.
* Seidel is not a party to a lawsuit, but she is being ordered to testify under oath and provide documentation. I was sued, and therefore was a party, and the suit came after I was the victim of a crime. When the perpetrator was acquitted in criminal court, he sued me for malicious prosecution.
* Seidel became involved in a legal entanglement as a result of her blog. I started a blog as a result of my legal entanglement.
* Seidel has justifiable concerns about the subpoena she received. Based on my experiences in civil litigation, I understand that statements made in a deposition, or documents that are produced, can be used to add the deponent as a party. Hope that doesn't happen here, and based on a quick reading of the material, I don't see any reason to think that will happen. It seems that one of the parties is stretching by asking her to testify. If she is quite removed from the issues in the case, and that appears to be the situation, she shouldn't have much to worry about. But depositions can be used as a tool to expand litigation, dragging other parties into the fray.
* Thankfully, I don't see any signs that the justice system itself is acting improperly in Seidel's case. And I'm not a judge, but I think she has a fairly strong case for having the subpoena quashed. In my case, the justice system itself is corrupt--and has been from the outset of the case. Unlawful rulings by judges caused a lawsuit that had to be dismissed in six to eight months time to drag on for about five years, costing me and Alabama taxpayers thousands of dollars.
Now the justice system is taking unlawful steps to seize my property in a pretty clear attempt to get me to stop blogging about the judicial corruption I've witnessed. Judges don't like it when you air their dirty laundry for everyone to see. And lawyers, who profit from the system the way it is, also want to keep the sleazy side of their profession under wraps.
* Again thankfully, I don't think anyone is trying to get Seidel to quit blogging. I haven't studied her case extensively, so perhaps I'm missing something. But I'm hopeful this is just an irritation and not an attack on her rights to publish. It appears the plaintiff is the one seeking her testimony in the lawsuit. That makes me think perhaps the plaintiff filed a weak case and is pulling out all kinds of stops in an effort to keep things afloat.
* Neurodiversity looks like an interesting blog, with a devoted, well-informed readership. I look forward to following the site, and I wish Seidel well in keeping the legal system out of her hair.
Wayne Madsen Pulls a Gotcha on Rove
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen caught Karl Rove in a lie while the former "Bush's Brain" was ranting in GQ about Alabama Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson.
Rove had claimed that Simpson was a "lunatic" and a "loon" and specifically said she was wrong in her reference to Republican headquarters in Virginia. But Madsen, who runs the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), reports that Rove is the one with the faulty memory:
In the interview, Rove falsely claims that Bush-Cheney Transition headquarters was in Austin, Texas in January 2001 when it was, in fact, in an office in McLean, Virginia that was formerly used by Dick Cheney as a Halliburton office.
Madsen follows up with this interesting nugget:
WMR previously reported that at least one phone call originated from the McLean transition office to the Pamela Martin & Associates escort service.
Madsen provides details about Power Line, a right-wing blog that Rove touted in his GQ interview. Turns out Power Line has some interesting ties to the Martin escort service--and so evidently does Vice President Dick Cheney:
PowerLine is run by three former fellows of the neocon Claremont Institute in California. Its most well-known blogger is Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld attorney Paul Mirengoff. Akin Gump's headquarters are located in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, a popular "entertainment" area that has been frequented on a number of occasions by Rove.
It is noteworthy that an Akin Gump legal secretary was suspended last May after it was discovered that she was an escort for the Pamela Martin escort agency, which counted Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, US Agency for International Development director Randy Tobias, and Dick Cheney military strategy adviser Harlan Ullman as clients. WMR also reported that Cheney, himself, was a client of the agency when he served as CEO of Halliburton.
Perhaps most interesting to folks in Alabama is Madsen's report that Republicans are planning to claim that Simpson used the ChoicePoint data-mining firm to illegally obtain a credit report on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman trial. ChoicePoint, by the way, has interesting ties to the 2000 presidential election. Madsen reports that a Fuller representative is pressuring ChoicePoint to go along with the false claim that Simpson acted illegally in obtaining credit information on Fuller. Toll-road projects evidently are at the heart of GOP concerns over the matter:
The GOP in Alabama, using its influence peddlers at the Press Register, is reportedly planning to claim that Simpson illegally obtained from the data mining firm Choice Point a credit report on US Judge Mark Fuller, the scandal-tainted judge who presided over the Siegelman case and ordered Siegelman directly to prison following his conviction. ChoicePoint is the firm that was charged with assisting Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to purge and cage voters lists in the 2000 Florida presidential election that propelled George W. Bush into the White House.
WMR has learned that Fuller is being probed by investigative journalists targeting his financial interests in Alabama toll road projects, contracts that involve ChoicePoint. WMR has also learned that a representative for Fuller contacted ChoicePoint and said their contracts on the toll road projects could be jeopardized if the firm did not cooperate in the false claim that Simpson "illegally" obtained financial information on Fuller from the firm.
Rove had claimed that Simpson was a "lunatic" and a "loon" and specifically said she was wrong in her reference to Republican headquarters in Virginia. But Madsen, who runs the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), reports that Rove is the one with the faulty memory:
In the interview, Rove falsely claims that Bush-Cheney Transition headquarters was in Austin, Texas in January 2001 when it was, in fact, in an office in McLean, Virginia that was formerly used by Dick Cheney as a Halliburton office.
Madsen follows up with this interesting nugget:
WMR previously reported that at least one phone call originated from the McLean transition office to the Pamela Martin & Associates escort service.
Madsen provides details about Power Line, a right-wing blog that Rove touted in his GQ interview. Turns out Power Line has some interesting ties to the Martin escort service--and so evidently does Vice President Dick Cheney:
PowerLine is run by three former fellows of the neocon Claremont Institute in California. Its most well-known blogger is Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld attorney Paul Mirengoff. Akin Gump's headquarters are located in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, a popular "entertainment" area that has been frequented on a number of occasions by Rove.
It is noteworthy that an Akin Gump legal secretary was suspended last May after it was discovered that she was an escort for the Pamela Martin escort agency, which counted Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter, US Agency for International Development director Randy Tobias, and Dick Cheney military strategy adviser Harlan Ullman as clients. WMR also reported that Cheney, himself, was a client of the agency when he served as CEO of Halliburton.
Perhaps most interesting to folks in Alabama is Madsen's report that Republicans are planning to claim that Simpson used the ChoicePoint data-mining firm to illegally obtain a credit report on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman trial. ChoicePoint, by the way, has interesting ties to the 2000 presidential election. Madsen reports that a Fuller representative is pressuring ChoicePoint to go along with the false claim that Simpson acted illegally in obtaining credit information on Fuller. Toll-road projects evidently are at the heart of GOP concerns over the matter:
The GOP in Alabama, using its influence peddlers at the Press Register, is reportedly planning to claim that Simpson illegally obtained from the data mining firm Choice Point a credit report on US Judge Mark Fuller, the scandal-tainted judge who presided over the Siegelman case and ordered Siegelman directly to prison following his conviction. ChoicePoint is the firm that was charged with assisting Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris to purge and cage voters lists in the 2000 Florida presidential election that propelled George W. Bush into the White House.
WMR has learned that Fuller is being probed by investigative journalists targeting his financial interests in Alabama toll road projects, contracts that involve ChoicePoint. WMR has also learned that a representative for Fuller contacted ChoicePoint and said their contracts on the toll road projects could be jeopardized if the firm did not cooperate in the false claim that Simpson "illegally" obtained financial information on Fuller from the firm.
How Out of Touch are Alabamians?
What to make about two recent polls--one about presidential politics and one about the national mood? The polls raise this question: Are Alabamians clueless, deeply out of touch, schizophrenic, myopic, or some combination of all the above.
First, we have a poll showing that Republican John McCain would beat either Democratic contender (Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) by 20-plus percentage points in Alabama.
Then, we have a New York Times/CBS News poll showing that 81 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the direction the country is taking. That's the highest figure the poll has seen since it began asking about the topic in the early 1990s. The poll shows that concerns about the economy are forefront in the minds of many Americans. Only 21 percent said the economy was in good shape, and 78 percent said the country was worse off than it was five years ago.
So folks are deeply concerned about the economy, and McCain has shown no indication that his economic policies would be much different from those of George W. Bush, the president who got us into this mess. And yet, Alabamians overwhelmingly support McCain.
Are Alabamians out to lunch? Well, I'm not sure that's the case. Maybe they are schizoid. Alabamians say they, too, are concerned about the economy, with 45 percent saying that is the No. 1 issue in the election. So Alabamians are concerned about the economy, but they overwhelmingly support a candidate who admits that economic issues are not his strong suit.
What's going on? My theory is that racial fear still carries the day in the Deep South, and that fear drives the schizophrenia that shows up in polls. As we noted in an earlier post, Paul Krugman of the The New York Times is right on the money when he says the race card has paid off big time for Republicans.
Since Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign with a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, that emphasized "states' rights," many white Americans--in the South and elsewhere--have automatically cast their lot with the GOP. In Alabama, at least, white Americans still are voting for the GOP in a reflexive fashion, even when the Republican candidate apparently has nothing to offer on what they say is the No. 1 issue.
Our country is heading off an economic and foreign-policy cliff, and the fall is going to be long and painful. But evidently, Alabamians want to make sure they are at the front of the line when we start our free fall.
First, we have a poll showing that Republican John McCain would beat either Democratic contender (Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama) by 20-plus percentage points in Alabama.
Then, we have a New York Times/CBS News poll showing that 81 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the direction the country is taking. That's the highest figure the poll has seen since it began asking about the topic in the early 1990s. The poll shows that concerns about the economy are forefront in the minds of many Americans. Only 21 percent said the economy was in good shape, and 78 percent said the country was worse off than it was five years ago.
So folks are deeply concerned about the economy, and McCain has shown no indication that his economic policies would be much different from those of George W. Bush, the president who got us into this mess. And yet, Alabamians overwhelmingly support McCain.
Are Alabamians out to lunch? Well, I'm not sure that's the case. Maybe they are schizoid. Alabamians say they, too, are concerned about the economy, with 45 percent saying that is the No. 1 issue in the election. So Alabamians are concerned about the economy, but they overwhelmingly support a candidate who admits that economic issues are not his strong suit.
What's going on? My theory is that racial fear still carries the day in the Deep South, and that fear drives the schizophrenia that shows up in polls. As we noted in an earlier post, Paul Krugman of the The New York Times is right on the money when he says the race card has paid off big time for Republicans.
Since Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign with a speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, that emphasized "states' rights," many white Americans--in the South and elsewhere--have automatically cast their lot with the GOP. In Alabama, at least, white Americans still are voting for the GOP in a reflexive fashion, even when the Republican candidate apparently has nothing to offer on what they say is the No. 1 issue.
Our country is heading off an economic and foreign-policy cliff, and the fall is going to be long and painful. But evidently, Alabamians want to make sure they are at the front of the line when we start our free fall.
Alice Martin Screws Up Big Time
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, evidently could mess up a one-car funeral.
Martin's latest imbroglio, her botched case against Huntsville defense contractor Axion Corp., reminds me of a classic scene from Animal House, where Dean Wormer tells Kent Dorfman: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Our advice for Queen Alice: "Dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent is no way to go through life, girl."
We will prove soon here at Legal Schnauzer that Martin is dishonest and corrupt. Actually, it's more accurate to say that we will add to the growing body of evidence that Martin is dishonest and corrupt.
Of course, the body of evidence regarding Martin's incompetence is growing to mountainous proportions. She brought a case against former Alabama governor Don Siegelman that was so weak a federal judge tossed it out of court pronto. She had what appeared to be a slam-dunk accounting fraud case against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy and managed to screw that up.
What doo-doo has Martin stepped into now? First, she brought a weak case claiming that Axion was involved in illegal arms export. Specifically, she claimed the company, led by Iranian-born U.S. citizen Alex Latifi, broke the law by sending a Chinese manufacturing partner drawings of vibration dampeners that attach to the propeller assembly of the U.S. Army's blackhawk helicopter.
Birmingham U.S. District Judge Inge Johnson threw out the case after seven days. Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported on the Axion case here.
Now, Johnson has ruled that Axion is entitled to government reimbursement for legal fees, filing costs, and money spent on expert witnesses during the October 2007 trial. Latifi is expected to recover about $500,000 in expenses. The fees were awarded under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, a 2000 law designed "to give owners innocent of any wrongdoing the means to recover their property and make themselves whole after wrongful government seizures."
Hmmm, wrongful government seizures? That's a topic of major importance here at Legal Schnauzer. And we are about to provide more details about my own experience with that topic.
Martin's latest imbroglio, her botched case against Huntsville defense contractor Axion Corp., reminds me of a classic scene from Animal House, where Dean Wormer tells Kent Dorfman: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
Our advice for Queen Alice: "Dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent is no way to go through life, girl."
We will prove soon here at Legal Schnauzer that Martin is dishonest and corrupt. Actually, it's more accurate to say that we will add to the growing body of evidence that Martin is dishonest and corrupt.
Of course, the body of evidence regarding Martin's incompetence is growing to mountainous proportions. She brought a case against former Alabama governor Don Siegelman that was so weak a federal judge tossed it out of court pronto. She had what appeared to be a slam-dunk accounting fraud case against former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy and managed to screw that up.
What doo-doo has Martin stepped into now? First, she brought a weak case claiming that Axion was involved in illegal arms export. Specifically, she claimed the company, led by Iranian-born U.S. citizen Alex Latifi, broke the law by sending a Chinese manufacturing partner drawings of vibration dampeners that attach to the propeller assembly of the U.S. Army's blackhawk helicopter.
Birmingham U.S. District Judge Inge Johnson threw out the case after seven days. Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported on the Axion case here.
Now, Johnson has ruled that Axion is entitled to government reimbursement for legal fees, filing costs, and money spent on expert witnesses during the October 2007 trial. Latifi is expected to recover about $500,000 in expenses. The fees were awarded under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, a 2000 law designed "to give owners innocent of any wrongdoing the means to recover their property and make themselves whole after wrongful government seizures."
Hmmm, wrongful government seizures? That's a topic of major importance here at Legal Schnauzer. And we are about to provide more details about my own experience with that topic.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Corruption in Real Time
When journalists write about corrupt activities, they usually are focusing on events that took place somewhere in the past. Usually, stories are about events that took place at least a few weeks or months previously.
But we have a rare opportunity here at Legal Schnauzer. We can report on corruption in real time--about unlawful activity that is going on right now.
As I've reported previously, Shelby County authorities have informed me that they intend to proceed with a sheriff's sale of my home--on a $1,500 "judgment"--even though I have filed a notarized Claim of Exemption. I filed the claim on Tuesday, and the sale is scheduled for noon on Monday (April 7) at the Shelby County Courthouse.
I've discovered an interesting article titled "Judgment Enforcement." It is written by Birmingham attorney Sara J. Senesac. Here is what she writes about the force of a Claim of Exemption.
The debtor may claim the property executed upon exempt at any time after levy or seizure but prior to sale of such property, by filing a notarized claim of exemption with the sheriff and a copy with the clerk of the court. (This is what I did.) Filing of a claim of exemption STAYS the sale of any property claimed exempt which has not previously been sold, unless the creditor successfully contests the claim. Ala. R. Civ. P. 69(d).
Senesac goes on to state that if a contest is filed by the creditor, a hearing will be scheduled and the contests shall be tried and determined.
The law is clear. My house cannot be sold until a contest has been filed and a hearing has been held, neither of which has been done evidently.
But we have a rare opportunity here at Legal Schnauzer. We can report on corruption in real time--about unlawful activity that is going on right now.
As I've reported previously, Shelby County authorities have informed me that they intend to proceed with a sheriff's sale of my home--on a $1,500 "judgment"--even though I have filed a notarized Claim of Exemption. I filed the claim on Tuesday, and the sale is scheduled for noon on Monday (April 7) at the Shelby County Courthouse.
I've discovered an interesting article titled "Judgment Enforcement." It is written by Birmingham attorney Sara J. Senesac. Here is what she writes about the force of a Claim of Exemption.
The debtor may claim the property executed upon exempt at any time after levy or seizure but prior to sale of such property, by filing a notarized claim of exemption with the sheriff and a copy with the clerk of the court. (This is what I did.) Filing of a claim of exemption STAYS the sale of any property claimed exempt which has not previously been sold, unless the creditor successfully contests the claim. Ala. R. Civ. P. 69(d).
Senesac goes on to state that if a contest is filed by the creditor, a hearing will be scheduled and the contests shall be tried and determined.
The law is clear. My house cannot be sold until a contest has been filed and a hearing has been held, neither of which has been done evidently.
The Trouble With Homestead Exemptions
Looks like I was wrong about the portion of a recent post dealing with homestead exemptions.
From reading the statute and an article written by an Alabama attorney, it appeared to me that Alabama's homestead exemption of $5,000 would protect someone like me against a judgment of $1,500. But an attorney who I think knows what he's talking about has told me it is just the opposite--that I would only be protected if my house was worth under $5,000. The part over $5,000, my correspondent says, is not exempt. And seeing as how my house is worth more than $5,000, I'm not exempt under the homestead exemption.
At least, that's the way it appears at this point. No one likes being wrong about something, but I can give myself a break given the confusing language of the statute--and the absurdity of someone trying to go after your house over a $1,500 judgment.
If any readers have additional insights about homestead exemptions, I would welcome the input.
I'm still exempt from the efforts to seize my property, I believe, on numerous due process and procedural grounds. Below is the Claim of Exemption that I filed, and I believe it still has merit on several counts. And regardless of the merits in my claim, a contest must be filed by the other party and a hearing held before authorities proceed with their sheriff's sale.
My Claim of Exemption, by law, puts a stay on the proceedings. But as I noted in the previous post, Shelby County folks evidently plan to move forward anyway.
-----------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FORM
My name is Roger Shuler, and I am the defendant in the case Mike McGarity v. Roger Shuler, Civil Action CV 00-1248. I received a writ of execution, signed by clerk Mary Harris on September 21, 2007, stating that I owed a judgment in the amount of $2,229.64. I received a sheriff's notice of levy on February 8, 2008. On February 29, 2008, I received a notice of sheriff's sale, informing me that my home is to be sold at auction at noon on April 7, 2008, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse.
Pursuant to Rule 69 (d) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, I state as follows:
* Under Code of Alabama 6-10-2, my home (real estate at 5204 Logan Drive) is exempt from levy and sale in this matter. Section 6-10-2 states: "The homestead of every resident of this state, with the improvements and appurtenances, not exceeding in value & dollar 5,000 and in area 160 acres, shall be to the extent of any interest he or she may have therein, whether a fee or less estate or whether held in common or in severalty, exempt from levy and value under execution or other process for the collection of debts during his or her life expectancy."
• Pursuant to Greene v. Connelly, 628 So. 2d 346 (Ala., 1993), the judgment in this matter is void because the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
* I've received no word that a certificate of judgment has been filed in this matter as required by Code of Alabama 6-9-211.
* The sale in this matter is due to be stayed because the subject property is exempt.
_____________________
Roger Shuler
Pro Se
_____________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ___________________
From reading the statute and an article written by an Alabama attorney, it appeared to me that Alabama's homestead exemption of $5,000 would protect someone like me against a judgment of $1,500. But an attorney who I think knows what he's talking about has told me it is just the opposite--that I would only be protected if my house was worth under $5,000. The part over $5,000, my correspondent says, is not exempt. And seeing as how my house is worth more than $5,000, I'm not exempt under the homestead exemption.
At least, that's the way it appears at this point. No one likes being wrong about something, but I can give myself a break given the confusing language of the statute--and the absurdity of someone trying to go after your house over a $1,500 judgment.
If any readers have additional insights about homestead exemptions, I would welcome the input.
I'm still exempt from the efforts to seize my property, I believe, on numerous due process and procedural grounds. Below is the Claim of Exemption that I filed, and I believe it still has merit on several counts. And regardless of the merits in my claim, a contest must be filed by the other party and a hearing held before authorities proceed with their sheriff's sale.
My Claim of Exemption, by law, puts a stay on the proceedings. But as I noted in the previous post, Shelby County folks evidently plan to move forward anyway.
-----------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FORM
My name is Roger Shuler, and I am the defendant in the case Mike McGarity v. Roger Shuler, Civil Action CV 00-1248. I received a writ of execution, signed by clerk Mary Harris on September 21, 2007, stating that I owed a judgment in the amount of $2,229.64. I received a sheriff's notice of levy on February 8, 2008. On February 29, 2008, I received a notice of sheriff's sale, informing me that my home is to be sold at auction at noon on April 7, 2008, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse.
Pursuant to Rule 69 (d) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, I state as follows:
* Under Code of Alabama 6-10-2, my home (real estate at 5204 Logan Drive) is exempt from levy and sale in this matter. Section 6-10-2 states: "The homestead of every resident of this state, with the improvements and appurtenances, not exceeding in value & dollar 5,000 and in area 160 acres, shall be to the extent of any interest he or she may have therein, whether a fee or less estate or whether held in common or in severalty, exempt from levy and value under execution or other process for the collection of debts during his or her life expectancy."
• Pursuant to Greene v. Connelly, 628 So. 2d 346 (Ala., 1993), the judgment in this matter is void because the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
* I've received no word that a certificate of judgment has been filed in this matter as required by Code of Alabama 6-9-211.
* The sale in this matter is due to be stayed because the subject property is exempt.
_____________________
Roger Shuler
Pro Se
_____________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: ___________________
Republicans With Rabies
What's it like when Republicans, particularly the Southern variety, get rabies and start foaming at the mouth. Evidently, we are in the process of finding out.
On the regional and national stage, we have a couple of examples. And we will get to those in a moment.
But first, I have an example that hits close to home. In a post yesterday, I noted that I had filed a Claim of Exemption form that "should," if the law means anything, put a halt to the threats by Shelby County GOPers to seize and auction my house.
Of course, I noted that the law has not been applied correctly from the outset of my legal sojourn, so I certainly didn't expect it to start being correctly applied now. And I was right about that.
When I got home last night I had a voice message from Deputy Bubba Caudill (think I finally figured out how to spell his name). Bubba informed me that "a judge" had told him that, even though I had filed a Claim of Exemption form, they were proceeding with the sale of my house on Monday.
After receiving some insight from a reputable attorney, and conducting some more extensive research myself, I think I was wrong about one aspect of yesterday's post. (More on that coming up.) But I was right about this: Once I filed a Claim of Exemption, Alabama law gives the opposing party 10 days to file a contest and then a hearing must be held.
Based on Bubba's phone call, it looks like no contest will be filed and no hearing will be held--just as no Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions was served on me, as required by law. As I've said on numerous occasions, little things like due process mean nothing in Alabama--not when Republicans are in charge.
What has the GOPers so rabid that they would so blatantly trample Alabama Civil Procedure in a rush to seize my house? Good question. Is it the 60 Minutes story on the Don Siegelman case that ran a few weeks back--and the second part that evidently is coming up Sunday? Is it the thought that the Bush Reign of Error is coming to an end and GOP presidential nominee John McCain does not excite the conservative base? Is it the concern that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee and will be more difficult to trash than the opponent GOPers were expecting, Hillary Clinton?
Whatever the cause, I'm not the only person feeling the frothing, foaming wrath of Republicans who appear to be losing a grip . . .
John W. Goff Indictment
News comes today that Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff has been indicted on 26 counts of fraudulently collecting workman's compensation insurance premiums.
Goff, of course, filed a lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they had taken unlawful steps to ruin one of his companies. Scott Horton, of Harper's, and others have reported that Riley appeared to be pushing the U.S. Justice Department for a criminal investigation in retaliation for the Goff lawsuit. Riley's fear was that he would be forced to testify about the sources of his election funds.
I certainly have no insight on the merit of the government's case against Goff. But a couple of things are curious. Twenty-three of the 26 counts are for mail fraud. That follows a pattern we've seen in the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. And it seems odd that a Republican-led justice department would point out in its press release that Goff had lived a lavish lifestyle. Do Republicans think there is something wrong with lavish lifestyles?
Of course, the biggest curiosity is that the federal investigation evidently did not start until Goff had filed a lawsuit against Riley. Just like an effort to seize my home did not start until I began blogging about corruption by Republican judges in Alabama.
Rove vs. Jill Simpson
Former Bush advisor Karl Rove goes after Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson in a GQ interview. Rove calls Simpson a "complete lunatic" and a "loon" and cites the right-wing blog Power Line as a source for information on Simpson.
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, has some interesting background on the Rove interview, noting numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his statements.
The Wayne Madsen Reports (WMR) writes that the Alabama GOP is preparing to claim that Simpson illegally obtained a credit report on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Siegelman case. WMR also reports that a number of investigative journalists are looking into Fuller's financial interests.
Rove apparently has enlisted his journalistic friends at Newhouse publications and in the right-wing blogosphere, WMR reports, because he is "having fits" over news reports about Simpson, Siegelman, Fuller and the GOP conspiracy to imprison Siegelman.
On the regional and national stage, we have a couple of examples. And we will get to those in a moment.
But first, I have an example that hits close to home. In a post yesterday, I noted that I had filed a Claim of Exemption form that "should," if the law means anything, put a halt to the threats by Shelby County GOPers to seize and auction my house.
Of course, I noted that the law has not been applied correctly from the outset of my legal sojourn, so I certainly didn't expect it to start being correctly applied now. And I was right about that.
When I got home last night I had a voice message from Deputy Bubba Caudill (think I finally figured out how to spell his name). Bubba informed me that "a judge" had told him that, even though I had filed a Claim of Exemption form, they were proceeding with the sale of my house on Monday.
After receiving some insight from a reputable attorney, and conducting some more extensive research myself, I think I was wrong about one aspect of yesterday's post. (More on that coming up.) But I was right about this: Once I filed a Claim of Exemption, Alabama law gives the opposing party 10 days to file a contest and then a hearing must be held.
Based on Bubba's phone call, it looks like no contest will be filed and no hearing will be held--just as no Notice of Right to Claim Exemptions was served on me, as required by law. As I've said on numerous occasions, little things like due process mean nothing in Alabama--not when Republicans are in charge.
What has the GOPers so rabid that they would so blatantly trample Alabama Civil Procedure in a rush to seize my house? Good question. Is it the 60 Minutes story on the Don Siegelman case that ran a few weeks back--and the second part that evidently is coming up Sunday? Is it the thought that the Bush Reign of Error is coming to an end and GOP presidential nominee John McCain does not excite the conservative base? Is it the concern that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee and will be more difficult to trash than the opponent GOPers were expecting, Hillary Clinton?
Whatever the cause, I'm not the only person feeling the frothing, foaming wrath of Republicans who appear to be losing a grip . . .
John W. Goff Indictment
News comes today that Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff has been indicted on 26 counts of fraudulently collecting workman's compensation insurance premiums.
Goff, of course, filed a lawsuit against Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they had taken unlawful steps to ruin one of his companies. Scott Horton, of Harper's, and others have reported that Riley appeared to be pushing the U.S. Justice Department for a criminal investigation in retaliation for the Goff lawsuit. Riley's fear was that he would be forced to testify about the sources of his election funds.
I certainly have no insight on the merit of the government's case against Goff. But a couple of things are curious. Twenty-three of the 26 counts are for mail fraud. That follows a pattern we've seen in the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. And it seems odd that a Republican-led justice department would point out in its press release that Goff had lived a lavish lifestyle. Do Republicans think there is something wrong with lavish lifestyles?
Of course, the biggest curiosity is that the federal investigation evidently did not start until Goff had filed a lawsuit against Riley. Just like an effort to seize my home did not start until I began blogging about corruption by Republican judges in Alabama.
Rove vs. Jill Simpson
Former Bush advisor Karl Rove goes after Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson in a GQ interview. Rove calls Simpson a "complete lunatic" and a "loon" and cites the right-wing blog Power Line as a source for information on Simpson.
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, has some interesting background on the Rove interview, noting numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies in his statements.
The Wayne Madsen Reports (WMR) writes that the Alabama GOP is preparing to claim that Simpson illegally obtained a credit report on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Siegelman case. WMR also reports that a number of investigative journalists are looking into Fuller's financial interests.
Rove apparently has enlisted his journalistic friends at Newhouse publications and in the right-wing blogosphere, WMR reports, because he is "having fits" over news reports about Simpson, Siegelman, Fuller and the GOP conspiracy to imprison Siegelman.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Law Vs. Jack Booted Thugs
I filed a document at the Shelby County Courthouse yesterday that should put a screeching halt to efforts by Alabama Republicans to unlawfully seize and auction my house.
The operative word in that sentence is "should."
After all, the whole reason this blog started is that the actual law--state law, constitutional law, you name it--means nothing to the Republican judges who control my home county. If cases were decided by the law in Shelby County, the bogus lawsuit against me would have been booted about six years ago and Legal Schnauzer never would have seen the light of day.
But here we are, and my latest effort to interject real law into the Shelby County cesspool is called a Claim of Exemption Form.
There's nothing fancy about this little number. You can put the form together yourself. All you have to do is follow Form 92 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the document that Shelby County authorities conveniently failed to send me.
It would be an understatement to say that Form 92 is an important document when it comes to executions, levies, sheriff sales, and such. It informs the recipient of his right to claim certain property as exempt, and it three times advises the recipient to seek counsel if he is unclear about how to proceed.
That's why the form is REQUIRED by law when authorities serve a writ of execution or notice of levy. Most people have no idea what to do when they receive one of these documents. That's why the government is obligated to present this form. It's part of this concept we call "due process."
(By the way, I've received a few interesting comments--which I haven't published--from someone claiming to be a lawyer. Based on how the person writes, I would say they probably are a lawyer. His motives in writing to me are less clear. My correspondent calls the failure to serve me with a Form 92 a "procedural hiccup." That's like saying practicing medicine without passing the board exams is a "slight problem." And my correspondent either doesn't know the law as well as he thinks or he hasn't read this blog very closely because he informs me that my house will be sold on April 7 in a "substantively legal manner." That's like saying O.J. Simpson killed two people in a "substantively legal manner" because, well, he was upset. Just so we're clear: Not one element of this little escapade--the judgment itself, the writ of execution, the notice of levy--has been done in a remotely legal manner. My correspondent seems to buy into the fallacy that because a judge does something, or a sheriff does something, that it has a touch of legal merit. The whole point of this blog--and it comes straight from my personal experience--is that officials in law enforcement are every bit as likely to be corrupt as any other kind of official. And that definitely includes judges.)
Anyway, the threats against me are so over the top, so blatantly bonkers, that I didn't need to consult a lawyer on what to do. And it helps that I've got about eight years of experience in fighting the GOP nutjobs who run Shelby County.
All I needed to know about was Alabama's homestead exemption. It comes under Code of Alabama 6-10-2, which you can read here. For good measure, here's the whole thing:
Section 6-10-2
Homestead exemption - Amount; area.
The homestead of every resident of this state, with the improvements and appurtenances, not exceeding in value $5,000 and in area 160 acres, shall be, to the extent of any interest he or she may have therein, whether a fee or less estate or whether held in common or in severalty, exempt from levy and sale under execution or other process for the collection of debts during his or her life and occupancy and, if he or she leaves surviving him or her a spouse and a minor child, or children, or either, during the life of the surviving spouse and minority of the child, or children, but the area of the homestead shall not be enlarged by reason of any encumbrance thereon or of the character of the estate or interest owned therein by him or her. When a husband and wife jointly own a homestead each is entitled to claim separately the exemption provided herein, to the same extent and value as an unmarried individual. For purposes of this section and Sections 6-10-38 and 6-10-40, a mobile home or similar dwelling if the principal place of residence of the individual claiming the exemption shall be deemed to be a homestead.
(Code 1876, §2820; Code 1886, §2507; Code 1896, §2033; Code 1907, §4160; Code 1923, §7882; Code 1940, T. 7, §625; Acts 1980, No. 80-569, p. 879, §2.)
There's some head-scratching language in that. But the bottom line is this: My portion of our homestead is exempt from levy up to $5,000. A judgment of $1,525 cannot possibly be the basis for the seizure and auction of my house. (My wife is not a part of this lawsuit, but she also has a $5,000 homestead exemption for a total of $10,000. Not surprisingly, Alabama has a pathetic homestead exemption, although some states have no homestead exemption at all. Still, ours is bad and is about 80 years out of date, based on the cost of houses today. That's a subject for another post, another day.)
I will go into more details on this tomorrow and will even post the entire motion that I filed. (Don't worry, it's not long; just thought it might be fun to give you a "virtual tour" of what it's like to be a real-life Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer.)
Here's all we really need to know: This is not complicated law. As bad a lawyer as Bill Swatek is, as horrible a judge as Mike Joiner is (and his compadre in crime Dan Reeves), as incompetent a clerk as Mary Harris might be, and as big a boob as Sheriff Chris Curry apparently is, they all know the law on Alabama's homestead exemption.
They knew the moment this "writ of execution" scheme was concocted, that they were committing fraud. They knew you can't seize a house to satisfy a "judgment" of $1,525--even if the judgment were valid, which this one isn't.
And let's be blunt: These people are frauds. Actually, Mary Harris and Chris Curry might be fairly good public servants--some of the time. But as I've suspected for a long time, it's virtually impossible to serve in a sewer such as Shelby County and not have the stench rub off on you at times.
So what happens now? Well, my criminally inclined neighbor (if he even knows about all of this; I'm not at all sure that he does) has 10 days after receiving notice of my exemption claim to challenge it. If he challenges it, the court will hold a hearing, at which point I'm sure I will be cheated again--as I have been for about eight years now.
But there is one difference now, opposed to all of the other times I've been cheated. I have a reading audience, and you know up front what the law really is. Corrupt Shelby County judges are no longer operating in the dark. The light has found them.
The operative word in that sentence is "should."
After all, the whole reason this blog started is that the actual law--state law, constitutional law, you name it--means nothing to the Republican judges who control my home county. If cases were decided by the law in Shelby County, the bogus lawsuit against me would have been booted about six years ago and Legal Schnauzer never would have seen the light of day.
But here we are, and my latest effort to interject real law into the Shelby County cesspool is called a Claim of Exemption Form.
There's nothing fancy about this little number. You can put the form together yourself. All you have to do is follow Form 92 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which is the document that Shelby County authorities conveniently failed to send me.
It would be an understatement to say that Form 92 is an important document when it comes to executions, levies, sheriff sales, and such. It informs the recipient of his right to claim certain property as exempt, and it three times advises the recipient to seek counsel if he is unclear about how to proceed.
That's why the form is REQUIRED by law when authorities serve a writ of execution or notice of levy. Most people have no idea what to do when they receive one of these documents. That's why the government is obligated to present this form. It's part of this concept we call "due process."
(By the way, I've received a few interesting comments--which I haven't published--from someone claiming to be a lawyer. Based on how the person writes, I would say they probably are a lawyer. His motives in writing to me are less clear. My correspondent calls the failure to serve me with a Form 92 a "procedural hiccup." That's like saying practicing medicine without passing the board exams is a "slight problem." And my correspondent either doesn't know the law as well as he thinks or he hasn't read this blog very closely because he informs me that my house will be sold on April 7 in a "substantively legal manner." That's like saying O.J. Simpson killed two people in a "substantively legal manner" because, well, he was upset. Just so we're clear: Not one element of this little escapade--the judgment itself, the writ of execution, the notice of levy--has been done in a remotely legal manner. My correspondent seems to buy into the fallacy that because a judge does something, or a sheriff does something, that it has a touch of legal merit. The whole point of this blog--and it comes straight from my personal experience--is that officials in law enforcement are every bit as likely to be corrupt as any other kind of official. And that definitely includes judges.)
Anyway, the threats against me are so over the top, so blatantly bonkers, that I didn't need to consult a lawyer on what to do. And it helps that I've got about eight years of experience in fighting the GOP nutjobs who run Shelby County.
All I needed to know about was Alabama's homestead exemption. It comes under Code of Alabama 6-10-2, which you can read here. For good measure, here's the whole thing:
Section 6-10-2
Homestead exemption - Amount; area.
The homestead of every resident of this state, with the improvements and appurtenances, not exceeding in value $5,000 and in area 160 acres, shall be, to the extent of any interest he or she may have therein, whether a fee or less estate or whether held in common or in severalty, exempt from levy and sale under execution or other process for the collection of debts during his or her life and occupancy and, if he or she leaves surviving him or her a spouse and a minor child, or children, or either, during the life of the surviving spouse and minority of the child, or children, but the area of the homestead shall not be enlarged by reason of any encumbrance thereon or of the character of the estate or interest owned therein by him or her. When a husband and wife jointly own a homestead each is entitled to claim separately the exemption provided herein, to the same extent and value as an unmarried individual. For purposes of this section and Sections 6-10-38 and 6-10-40, a mobile home or similar dwelling if the principal place of residence of the individual claiming the exemption shall be deemed to be a homestead.
(Code 1876, §2820; Code 1886, §2507; Code 1896, §2033; Code 1907, §4160; Code 1923, §7882; Code 1940, T. 7, §625; Acts 1980, No. 80-569, p. 879, §2.)
There's some head-scratching language in that. But the bottom line is this: My portion of our homestead is exempt from levy up to $5,000. A judgment of $1,525 cannot possibly be the basis for the seizure and auction of my house. (My wife is not a part of this lawsuit, but she also has a $5,000 homestead exemption for a total of $10,000. Not surprisingly, Alabama has a pathetic homestead exemption, although some states have no homestead exemption at all. Still, ours is bad and is about 80 years out of date, based on the cost of houses today. That's a subject for another post, another day.)
I will go into more details on this tomorrow and will even post the entire motion that I filed. (Don't worry, it's not long; just thought it might be fun to give you a "virtual tour" of what it's like to be a real-life Unfrozen Cave Man Lawyer.)
Here's all we really need to know: This is not complicated law. As bad a lawyer as Bill Swatek is, as horrible a judge as Mike Joiner is (and his compadre in crime Dan Reeves), as incompetent a clerk as Mary Harris might be, and as big a boob as Sheriff Chris Curry apparently is, they all know the law on Alabama's homestead exemption.
They knew the moment this "writ of execution" scheme was concocted, that they were committing fraud. They knew you can't seize a house to satisfy a "judgment" of $1,525--even if the judgment were valid, which this one isn't.
And let's be blunt: These people are frauds. Actually, Mary Harris and Chris Curry might be fairly good public servants--some of the time. But as I've suspected for a long time, it's virtually impossible to serve in a sewer such as Shelby County and not have the stench rub off on you at times.
So what happens now? Well, my criminally inclined neighbor (if he even knows about all of this; I'm not at all sure that he does) has 10 days after receiving notice of my exemption claim to challenge it. If he challenges it, the court will hold a hearing, at which point I'm sure I will be cheated again--as I have been for about eight years now.
But there is one difference now, opposed to all of the other times I've been cheated. I have a reading audience, and you know up front what the law really is. Corrupt Shelby County judges are no longer operating in the dark. The light has found them.
Unearthing the Siegelman/Minor Gameplan
A "follow the money" reporting effort by Raw Story illuminates the similarities between the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, says reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane have made a major contribution to public understanding of the Republican Party's plans to take down powerful Democrats in the Deep South.
The Raw Story team has been taking a “follow the money” approach, and they offer a schematic which parallels the Siegelman prosecution in Alabama with the Minor/Diaz prosecutions in Mississippi. The cases reflect a similar unfolding of G.O.P. electoral plans, Abramoff-Scanlon-based electoral finance (supporting Riley in Alabama, and Barbour and G.O.P.-backed judicial candidates in Mississippi), and the deployment of U.S. attorneys to eliminate political adversaries through specious prosecutions.
Horton is struck by the fact that U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, who oversaw the Minor prosecution, once was on the Bush Administration's "hit list" of USAs to be fired.
But Lampton survived. What intervened? Among other things, the Diaz and Minor prosecutions. I have often thought that a comparison of the initial list of 26 with the final list of terminated U.S. attorneys will yield up some interesting facts. The question that list suggests is fairly simple: what, exactly, did a U.S. attorney have to do to survive, once he or she was scheduled to be jettisoned? Both the case of Lampton and that of Milwaukee’s Steven Biskupic suggest an answer: bring a politically motivated prosecution, timed to run alongside an election cycle, all for the greater glory of the Republican Party in its local election exploits.
The shenanigans in Mississippi bring to mind the warnings of Robert H. Jackson, who served as U.S. attorney general in the 1940s. "There can be no doubt that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing alignments and associations," Jackson said. Horton's conclusion?
What we see in the Mississippi prosecutions is the very model of a prosecution conceived and implemented for partisan political purposes. It demonstrates everything that Robert Jackson warned us against.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, says reporters Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane have made a major contribution to public understanding of the Republican Party's plans to take down powerful Democrats in the Deep South.
The Raw Story team has been taking a “follow the money” approach, and they offer a schematic which parallels the Siegelman prosecution in Alabama with the Minor/Diaz prosecutions in Mississippi. The cases reflect a similar unfolding of G.O.P. electoral plans, Abramoff-Scanlon-based electoral finance (supporting Riley in Alabama, and Barbour and G.O.P.-backed judicial candidates in Mississippi), and the deployment of U.S. attorneys to eliminate political adversaries through specious prosecutions.
Horton is struck by the fact that U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, who oversaw the Minor prosecution, once was on the Bush Administration's "hit list" of USAs to be fired.
But Lampton survived. What intervened? Among other things, the Diaz and Minor prosecutions. I have often thought that a comparison of the initial list of 26 with the final list of terminated U.S. attorneys will yield up some interesting facts. The question that list suggests is fairly simple: what, exactly, did a U.S. attorney have to do to survive, once he or she was scheduled to be jettisoned? Both the case of Lampton and that of Milwaukee’s Steven Biskupic suggest an answer: bring a politically motivated prosecution, timed to run alongside an election cycle, all for the greater glory of the Republican Party in its local election exploits.
The shenanigans in Mississippi bring to mind the warnings of Robert H. Jackson, who served as U.S. attorney general in the 1940s. "There can be no doubt that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing alignments and associations," Jackson said. Horton's conclusion?
What we see in the Mississippi prosecutions is the very model of a prosecution conceived and implemented for partisan political purposes. It demonstrates everything that Robert Jackson warned us against.
The Latest on "Double Dipping" in Alabama
Judge Slows Down the Riley Express
The Riley Administration this week had a kink thrown into its apparent plans to help Republicans take over the Alabama Legislature by targeting Democrats who work in the state's two-year college system.
A Montgomery County judge halted implementation of a new Alabama Board of Education policy that forced legislators with jobs in the two-year system to eat up vacation time while carrying out legislative duties.
Judge Johnny Hardwick's order temporarily freezes a policy that by 2010 would force legislators to choose between their two-year jobs and elected offices.
Bradley Byrne, chancellor of the two-year system, recently ordered implementation of the new policy. But Hardwick ordered Byrne to return to the old practice that allowed lawmakers to use flex time while serving in the legislature.
Hardwick reacted angrily when questioned repeatedly by lawyers for Riley and Byrne. The lawyers claimed the board never had an official flex-time policy.
"Something was being done before Mr. Byrne became chancellor," Hardwick said. "You're going to go back to doing it the way it was before this policy was in place. The people (lawmakers) need to know so their constituents won't be disenfranchised and their livelihoods won't be jeopardized."
Is Mark Fuller a Double Dipper?
Alabama Republicans, and the Bush Justice Department, seem terribly concerned about educators (mostly Democrats) who serve in the state legislature.
But are GOPers concerned about federal judges who are double dippers? Evidently not, at least when that federal judge is Bush appointee Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman prosecution.
We know that Fuller receives a handsome salary from the federal government as a U.S. judge. We also know that Fuller rakes in a significant amount from his role as chairman and CEO of Colorado-based Doss Aviation, which relies heavily on contracts from . . . the federal government.
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has indicted Alabama legislator Sue Schmitz for apparently splitting her work time between her state teaching job and her legislative role. Somehow, Martin managed to find a federal crime in Schmitz' activities.
But what about Fuller's activities? He seems to split his time between his role as federal judge and his role as federal contractor. Is there a federal crime here? Isn't Mark Fuller every bit the double dipper that some Alabama legislators are alleged to be?
The Riley Administration this week had a kink thrown into its apparent plans to help Republicans take over the Alabama Legislature by targeting Democrats who work in the state's two-year college system.
A Montgomery County judge halted implementation of a new Alabama Board of Education policy that forced legislators with jobs in the two-year system to eat up vacation time while carrying out legislative duties.
Judge Johnny Hardwick's order temporarily freezes a policy that by 2010 would force legislators to choose between their two-year jobs and elected offices.
Bradley Byrne, chancellor of the two-year system, recently ordered implementation of the new policy. But Hardwick ordered Byrne to return to the old practice that allowed lawmakers to use flex time while serving in the legislature.
Hardwick reacted angrily when questioned repeatedly by lawyers for Riley and Byrne. The lawyers claimed the board never had an official flex-time policy.
"Something was being done before Mr. Byrne became chancellor," Hardwick said. "You're going to go back to doing it the way it was before this policy was in place. The people (lawmakers) need to know so their constituents won't be disenfranchised and their livelihoods won't be jeopardized."
Is Mark Fuller a Double Dipper?
Alabama Republicans, and the Bush Justice Department, seem terribly concerned about educators (mostly Democrats) who serve in the state legislature.
But are GOPers concerned about federal judges who are double dippers? Evidently not, at least when that federal judge is Bush appointee Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Don Siegelman prosecution.
We know that Fuller receives a handsome salary from the federal government as a U.S. judge. We also know that Fuller rakes in a significant amount from his role as chairman and CEO of Colorado-based Doss Aviation, which relies heavily on contracts from . . . the federal government.
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has indicted Alabama legislator Sue Schmitz for apparently splitting her work time between her state teaching job and her legislative role. Somehow, Martin managed to find a federal crime in Schmitz' activities.
But what about Fuller's activities? He seems to split his time between his role as federal judge and his role as federal contractor. Is there a federal crime here? Isn't Mark Fuller every bit the double dipper that some Alabama legislators are alleged to be?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Is Disbarment a Deterrent?
News recently came that Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, had been disbarred.
The disbarment came as a result of Libby's convictions last year for perjury and obstruction of justice in a White House leak investigation.
The issues of disbarment and lawyer discipline are of considerable interest here at Legal Schnauzer. A central figure in our story, Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, has faced serious and repeated discipline during his almost 30-year legal career.
Swatek has had his license suspended. And like Libby, Swatek faced criminal charges of perjury. Unlike Libby, Swatek somehow managed to get off--even though public documents point overwhelmingly to his guilt.
Escaping a felony conviction allowed Swatek to avoid disbarment. But even if Swatek had been disbarred, would that have kept me--and a number of his own clients--from being victimized?
My research indicates the answer to that question is probably no. And that is an indictment of a justice system that has a preposterously weak system for disciplining lawyers. In fact, it's barely better than no discipline system at all.
How terrible is the system for trying to keep lawyers in line? Consider Libby's crimes. Our justice system is built on the notion that people must tell the truth under oath. If that notion is abused, particularly by lawyers who are sworn to uphold the law, our system collapses. A lawyer who lies under oath is equivalent to a doctor intentionally making patients sick.
What would happen to a doctor who was found to have intentionally made patients sick? I'm not an expert on the subject, but my guess is such a doctor would be disqualified from the profession permanently.
How was Scooter Libby punished for an equivalent crime in the legal profession. He will be disbarred until at least 2012. So he's probably looking at four whole years of not practicing law. Four years for lying under oath!
What about Bill Swatek? In the early 1980s, the Alabama State Bar found Swatek guilty of acts involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation." The Bar also found that Swatek had engaged in conduct that "adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
So the State Bar found that Bill Swatek was dishonest and essentially unfit to practice law. And what was his big punishment? His license was suspended for 60 days--you heard that right, 60 whole days! And he's been disciplined twice more since then! And one of those cases involved five complaints rolled into one!
(Sorry for all of the exclamation points. I'm hyperventilating here.)
Swatek then faced criminal charges for perjury. In a decision that rivals the O.J. Simpson verdict, Swatek was found not guilty--and that evidently allowed him to avoid disbarment. Many more details are coming on Swatek's criminal trial and his numerous run-ins with the Alabama State Bar.
Even had he been disbarred, Swatek probably would have gotten his bar card back after a few years. So folks like me still would have been cheated by a lawyer who should have been drummed out of the profession years ago.
Here's what's so appalling about the current state of our justice system. At worst, you would think the legal profession would treat Swatek like a pariah. But, nooooooooo!
Shelby County judges give him every break in the book--and quite a few breaks that aren't in the book. They repeatedly make unlawful rulings to Swatek's benefit. And even the Shelby County clerk and sheriff sign off on bogus actions at Swatek's behest without batting an eye. And this is a lawyer with a 30-year record of acting corruptly!
Has Bill Swatek changed as a result of all the "discipline" that has been heaped upon him for his various transgressions? Our story will show that he hasn't changed one bit. Our story will show that he is still unfit to practice law.
Lawyers like Bill Swatek are not remotely afraid of the legal profession's disciplinary system. I'm just one of many citizens who have paid a major price for that.
Trust me when I tell you that you will not believe some of the things Bill Swatek has done in his legal "career." He has committed acts so bizarre, so corrupt, so over-the-top that I could not possibly make them up.
Thankfully, I don't need to make them up because they are all true--and they are right in the public record for anyone to read. But you don't have to go digging through the archives to find out just what a sleazebag Bill Swatek truly is. I've done all of that for you, and I will share these goodies here at Legal Schnauzer in the near future.
But keep this in mind: Bill Swatek, this guy who has committed mind-bogglingly corrupt and incompetent acts, stuff the most imaginative novelist could not think up, is an "officer of the court" in Alabama. As such, he has the power to sign off on documents that cause the Shelby County Sheriff to threaten an unlawful seizure of my house.
Here's something else to keep in mind: For years, we've heard Republican operatives drone on about how "character counts." Well, Bill Swatek is the father of a prominent Republican operative, Dax Swatek. And Dax Swatek has direct ties to many key figures in the Don Siegelman saga--Bill Canary, Bob Riley, Alice Martin, etc.
So what are Republicans talking about when they chant, "Character counts?"
Keep reading Legal Schnauzer, and you will find out what kind of character Bill Swatek has. And his slimy tentacles connect to the very top of Republican political circles in Alabama.
The disbarment came as a result of Libby's convictions last year for perjury and obstruction of justice in a White House leak investigation.
The issues of disbarment and lawyer discipline are of considerable interest here at Legal Schnauzer. A central figure in our story, Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, has faced serious and repeated discipline during his almost 30-year legal career.
Swatek has had his license suspended. And like Libby, Swatek faced criminal charges of perjury. Unlike Libby, Swatek somehow managed to get off--even though public documents point overwhelmingly to his guilt.
Escaping a felony conviction allowed Swatek to avoid disbarment. But even if Swatek had been disbarred, would that have kept me--and a number of his own clients--from being victimized?
My research indicates the answer to that question is probably no. And that is an indictment of a justice system that has a preposterously weak system for disciplining lawyers. In fact, it's barely better than no discipline system at all.
How terrible is the system for trying to keep lawyers in line? Consider Libby's crimes. Our justice system is built on the notion that people must tell the truth under oath. If that notion is abused, particularly by lawyers who are sworn to uphold the law, our system collapses. A lawyer who lies under oath is equivalent to a doctor intentionally making patients sick.
What would happen to a doctor who was found to have intentionally made patients sick? I'm not an expert on the subject, but my guess is such a doctor would be disqualified from the profession permanently.
How was Scooter Libby punished for an equivalent crime in the legal profession. He will be disbarred until at least 2012. So he's probably looking at four whole years of not practicing law. Four years for lying under oath!
What about Bill Swatek? In the early 1980s, the Alabama State Bar found Swatek guilty of acts involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation." The Bar also found that Swatek had engaged in conduct that "adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
So the State Bar found that Bill Swatek was dishonest and essentially unfit to practice law. And what was his big punishment? His license was suspended for 60 days--you heard that right, 60 whole days! And he's been disciplined twice more since then! And one of those cases involved five complaints rolled into one!
(Sorry for all of the exclamation points. I'm hyperventilating here.)
Swatek then faced criminal charges for perjury. In a decision that rivals the O.J. Simpson verdict, Swatek was found not guilty--and that evidently allowed him to avoid disbarment. Many more details are coming on Swatek's criminal trial and his numerous run-ins with the Alabama State Bar.
Even had he been disbarred, Swatek probably would have gotten his bar card back after a few years. So folks like me still would have been cheated by a lawyer who should have been drummed out of the profession years ago.
Here's what's so appalling about the current state of our justice system. At worst, you would think the legal profession would treat Swatek like a pariah. But, nooooooooo!
Shelby County judges give him every break in the book--and quite a few breaks that aren't in the book. They repeatedly make unlawful rulings to Swatek's benefit. And even the Shelby County clerk and sheriff sign off on bogus actions at Swatek's behest without batting an eye. And this is a lawyer with a 30-year record of acting corruptly!
Has Bill Swatek changed as a result of all the "discipline" that has been heaped upon him for his various transgressions? Our story will show that he hasn't changed one bit. Our story will show that he is still unfit to practice law.
Lawyers like Bill Swatek are not remotely afraid of the legal profession's disciplinary system. I'm just one of many citizens who have paid a major price for that.
Trust me when I tell you that you will not believe some of the things Bill Swatek has done in his legal "career." He has committed acts so bizarre, so corrupt, so over-the-top that I could not possibly make them up.
Thankfully, I don't need to make them up because they are all true--and they are right in the public record for anyone to read. But you don't have to go digging through the archives to find out just what a sleazebag Bill Swatek truly is. I've done all of that for you, and I will share these goodies here at Legal Schnauzer in the near future.
But keep this in mind: Bill Swatek, this guy who has committed mind-bogglingly corrupt and incompetent acts, stuff the most imaginative novelist could not think up, is an "officer of the court" in Alabama. As such, he has the power to sign off on documents that cause the Shelby County Sheriff to threaten an unlawful seizure of my house.
Here's something else to keep in mind: For years, we've heard Republican operatives drone on about how "character counts." Well, Bill Swatek is the father of a prominent Republican operative, Dax Swatek. And Dax Swatek has direct ties to many key figures in the Don Siegelman saga--Bill Canary, Bob Riley, Alice Martin, etc.
So what are Republicans talking about when they chant, "Character counts?"
Keep reading Legal Schnauzer, and you will find out what kind of character Bill Swatek has. And his slimy tentacles connect to the very top of Republican political circles in Alabama.
Tying the Siegelman, Minor Cases Together
Are there connections between the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi?
Both involved prominent Democrats in Deep South states, pursued by Republican-led prosecutors on charges that seemed flimsy at best.
Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane of Raw Story look into the two cases and find many similarities. It's almost as if the two cases were pulled from the same playbook.
Among the key points:
* Tribal casinos were central to both--In Alabama, Siegelman wanted to start an education lottery, threatening the business of the neighboring Mississippi Choctaws. In Mississippi, Minor defendant Oliver Diaz ruled in favor of more regulation of tribal casinos.
* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was central to both--It has been well established that the U.S. Chamber put financial clout behind efforts by Karl Rove and Bill Canary to turn Alabama's courts pro-business. Raw Story points to similar activity in Mississippi. "Despite its seemingly bipartisan name, the Chamber of Commerce has operated as a pro-Republican powerhouse since the fervently anti-regulation Thomas J. Donahue became president in 1997," the authors write. They note that Donahue and Bill Canary are friends, and Donahue played a major role in placing Canary as head of the Business Council of Alabama. Canary later would become famous for his quote that "my girls" would "take care of Don Siegelman."
* Tobacco litigation played a central role in both--The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent more than $1 million in 2000 to help elect pro-business judges to the Mississippi Supreme Court. This came after a 1997 tobacco settlement and followed a pattern used by Rove and Canary in Alabama.
* Using an FBI investigation to affect elections in both--News of an FBI investigation about possible judicial misconduct leaked to Mississippi papers in October 2002. "Overnight, donations by lawyers like Minor became 'radioactive,'" the authors write, "and six pro-business Republican judges were elected." Similar tactics were used in Alabama against Siegelman.
* Questionable recusals in both--In Mississippi, prosecutor Dunn Lampton claimed that he had recused himself and that Washington lawyers were taking the leading role. He later acknowledged he had not recused himself. A similar situation occurred with prosecutor Leura Canary in Alabama.
* Signs of prosecutorial bias in both--In Alabama, Leura Canary's husband, Bill Canary, served as an advisor to Bob Riley, Siegelman's opponent. In Mississippi, Paul Minor had successfully sued several companies associated with Lampton's family members and contributors to his unsuccessful bid for a Congressional seat.
Both involved prominent Democrats in Deep South states, pursued by Republican-led prosecutors on charges that seemed flimsy at best.
Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane of Raw Story look into the two cases and find many similarities. It's almost as if the two cases were pulled from the same playbook.
Among the key points:
* Tribal casinos were central to both--In Alabama, Siegelman wanted to start an education lottery, threatening the business of the neighboring Mississippi Choctaws. In Mississippi, Minor defendant Oliver Diaz ruled in favor of more regulation of tribal casinos.
* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was central to both--It has been well established that the U.S. Chamber put financial clout behind efforts by Karl Rove and Bill Canary to turn Alabama's courts pro-business. Raw Story points to similar activity in Mississippi. "Despite its seemingly bipartisan name, the Chamber of Commerce has operated as a pro-Republican powerhouse since the fervently anti-regulation Thomas J. Donahue became president in 1997," the authors write. They note that Donahue and Bill Canary are friends, and Donahue played a major role in placing Canary as head of the Business Council of Alabama. Canary later would become famous for his quote that "my girls" would "take care of Don Siegelman."
* Tobacco litigation played a central role in both--The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent more than $1 million in 2000 to help elect pro-business judges to the Mississippi Supreme Court. This came after a 1997 tobacco settlement and followed a pattern used by Rove and Canary in Alabama.
* Using an FBI investigation to affect elections in both--News of an FBI investigation about possible judicial misconduct leaked to Mississippi papers in October 2002. "Overnight, donations by lawyers like Minor became 'radioactive,'" the authors write, "and six pro-business Republican judges were elected." Similar tactics were used in Alabama against Siegelman.
* Questionable recusals in both--In Mississippi, prosecutor Dunn Lampton claimed that he had recused himself and that Washington lawyers were taking the leading role. He later acknowledged he had not recused himself. A similar situation occurred with prosecutor Leura Canary in Alabama.
* Signs of prosecutorial bias in both--In Alabama, Leura Canary's husband, Bill Canary, served as an advisor to Bob Riley, Siegelman's opponent. In Mississippi, Paul Minor had successfully sued several companies associated with Lampton's family members and contributors to his unsuccessful bid for a Congressional seat.
Should Siegelman Testify Before Congress?
When we learned last week that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee wanted to hear testimony from former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, I thought it was a grand idea.
Siegelman would get to tell his story of political prosecution, bringing the issue to national attention.
But U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) is saying, "Not so fast." And I think Davis has a point.
Maybe that's why Artur Davis is a U.S. congressman, and I'm . . . well, I'm your Legal Schnauzer.
Davis said he was not consulted by the committee about the idea of having Siegelman appear. If he had been consulted, Davis would have said that such an appearance could harm the former governor's criminal defense and steer the committee away from its primary mission: investigation of political influence in the U.S. Justice Department.
Davis said he would prefer to call former White House advisor Karl Rove. Siegelman's testimony would have limited value, Davis said. "The sole purpose of his testimony would be a prolonged assertion of his innocence" and would not shed new light on "whether there were improper contacts with Department of Justice employees by political forces and whether these contacts led to a prosecution that would not have been brought otherwise."
I think Davis is exhibiting clear-headed thinking here. If you want to get to the bottom of a conspiracy to commit murder, you're not likely to learn a lot by talking to the target. It's far better to question those on the other side, the ones instigating the conspiracy. That means Karl Rove should be at the top of the committee's witness list.
Here's someone else the committee should talk to: Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. On the offensive side, Martin was the prosecutor who first went after Siegelman. And on the defensive side, I have clear evidence of her covering up the crimes of Republican judges in Alabama state court.
Testimony from Karl Rove and Alice Martin--I can't think of a better place for the committee to start.
Siegelman would get to tell his story of political prosecution, bringing the issue to national attention.
But U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) is saying, "Not so fast." And I think Davis has a point.
Maybe that's why Artur Davis is a U.S. congressman, and I'm . . . well, I'm your Legal Schnauzer.
Davis said he was not consulted by the committee about the idea of having Siegelman appear. If he had been consulted, Davis would have said that such an appearance could harm the former governor's criminal defense and steer the committee away from its primary mission: investigation of political influence in the U.S. Justice Department.
Davis said he would prefer to call former White House advisor Karl Rove. Siegelman's testimony would have limited value, Davis said. "The sole purpose of his testimony would be a prolonged assertion of his innocence" and would not shed new light on "whether there were improper contacts with Department of Justice employees by political forces and whether these contacts led to a prosecution that would not have been brought otherwise."
I think Davis is exhibiting clear-headed thinking here. If you want to get to the bottom of a conspiracy to commit murder, you're not likely to learn a lot by talking to the target. It's far better to question those on the other side, the ones instigating the conspiracy. That means Karl Rove should be at the top of the committee's witness list.
Here's someone else the committee should talk to: Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. On the offensive side, Martin was the prosecutor who first went after Siegelman. And on the defensive side, I have clear evidence of her covering up the crimes of Republican judges in Alabama state court.
Testimony from Karl Rove and Alice Martin--I can't think of a better place for the committee to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)