Democrats received a colossal gift last November when Republicans on the Alabama Supreme Court ramrodded an 8-1 decision that overturned most of a $3.6 billion judgment in favor of the State of Alabama and against oil giant ExxonMobil.
Will Democrats be able to take advantage of this gift at election time? That is the focus of an intriguing story by Bob Lowry of The Huntsville Times.
The November 2008 election will include only one state supreme court race--Republican Greg Shaw against Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur.
Paseur seems like an attractive candidate, but I've yet to see evidence that she wants to make the ExxonMobil ruling a major campaign issue. If she doesn't, she almost certainly will lose--and she will deserve to lose if she doesn't have the spine to tell the truth about the corrupt Republicans who let ExxonMobil get away with a $3.6 billion highway robbery.
The ExxonMobil ruling is about as grotesque an example of judicial malfeasance as one can imagine. In fact, we have stated numerous times here at Legal Schnauzer that the eight Republicans who voted to overturn the jury verdict (with Chief Justice and lone Democrat Sue Bell Cobb casting the only dissent) almost certainly committed federal crimes in letting their oil buddies off the hook.
We have illustrated the heroic actions of Sue Bell Cobb in standing up for justice in the ExxonMobil case. If you really want to understand the ExxonMobil screw job, check out her dissent here. It begins on page 100 of the 125-page ruling.
Former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman put the ExxonMobil ruling in perspective when he released a statement about the case yesterday:
The Exxon Case is a very good issue for the Supreme Court race in 2008. It spotlights the lopsided imbalance on the State Supreme Court.
The Court has been stacked, election after election, with large corporate-backed candidates. Today, the people have only one voice on the Court, Sue Bell Cobb. The people desperately need another voice, the voice of Debroah Passeur.
In 1996, Kenneth Ingram had a politically astute anti-corporate, populist offensive when he ran headlong into Karl Rove's slimy corporate funded campaign. That was the election where Rove used Republican Harold See and untruthful TV ads paid for by large corporate interests, as a weapon of mass political destruction.
Unfortunately for Democrats, Justice Ingram's strong populist anti corporate message was not the focus of Kenneth's TV ad campaign.
Siegelman seems to be saying that Paseur has a made-to-order campaign issue with which to bash Republicans about the head. And she needs to make hay of a populist, anti-corporate message in her TV ads. If she can use the ExxonMobil ruling to win her race, Democrats in future races should be able to follow suit.
But if Paseur is timid and chooses not to spotlight the ExxonMobil ruling, she will lose. And Alabama will remain in the clutches of corporate fat cats for the foreseeable future.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Will Roller-Coaster Death Spawn a Lawsuit?
We raised the following question yesterday in the wake of a fatal roller-coaster accident at Six Flags Over Georgia: Will the accident lead to a lawsuit even though the victim, 17-year-old Asia Leeshawn Ferguson IV, evidently used stunningly poor judgment that led to his death?
More information now is available about the case, and it becomes even more sad as you learn about the young man and his family. A few thoughts on a tragedy that should not have happened:
* The lawsuit question probably will remain open for a while. The victim's father, Asia Ferguson III, told the Associated Press: "We're not clear on what happened. All we know is that we don't blame anybody." In the Columbia, South Carolina, newspaper, however, the family's pastor said they intend to hire a private detective. When asked about the possibility of a lawsuit, the pastor said, "We just want to know the facts."
* Press reports indicate that the Fergusons are the kind of family most anyone would like to have as next-door neighbors. Asia Ferguson IV was described as "happy go lucky" and "a good kid." He sang tenor and played drums in the church choir. He liked to play pick-up basketball. He planned to join the National Guard and attend college. His father is a deacon at the church, and his mother is church secretary and assistant to an executive at an insurance company.
* The Fergusons lived in Springfield, South Carolina, and the largest local newspaper, the Orangeburg Times & Democrat, had this report.
* What would cause an otherwise bright 17-year-old boy to climb two fences and ignore multiple warning signs to enter an area that clearly was dangerous? Regular readers know that I engage in dime-store psychology from time to time. And I can't resist the urge to weigh in on the psychology behind this event. We live in what I call "The Age of Distraction." Almost everywhere you turn, people are babbling on cell phones, listing to iPods, checking on Blackberrys, multitasking, and so on. We seem to have forgotten that the world is a crowded place, and it can be dangerous--particularly when you aren't paying attention to what's going on around you. My guess is that Asia Ferguson IV had a cell phone, an iPod, or both with him at the time of his death. There is no indication that either device directly contributed to his death. But have we all become so attuned to the jingly, jangly devices all around us that they have clouded our judgment? Are we so tuned into to electronica that we have tuned out to potential dangers that can take our lives--or the lives of other innocent people?
More information now is available about the case, and it becomes even more sad as you learn about the young man and his family. A few thoughts on a tragedy that should not have happened:
* The lawsuit question probably will remain open for a while. The victim's father, Asia Ferguson III, told the Associated Press: "We're not clear on what happened. All we know is that we don't blame anybody." In the Columbia, South Carolina, newspaper, however, the family's pastor said they intend to hire a private detective. When asked about the possibility of a lawsuit, the pastor said, "We just want to know the facts."
* Press reports indicate that the Fergusons are the kind of family most anyone would like to have as next-door neighbors. Asia Ferguson IV was described as "happy go lucky" and "a good kid." He sang tenor and played drums in the church choir. He liked to play pick-up basketball. He planned to join the National Guard and attend college. His father is a deacon at the church, and his mother is church secretary and assistant to an executive at an insurance company.
* The Fergusons lived in Springfield, South Carolina, and the largest local newspaper, the Orangeburg Times & Democrat, had this report.
* What would cause an otherwise bright 17-year-old boy to climb two fences and ignore multiple warning signs to enter an area that clearly was dangerous? Regular readers know that I engage in dime-store psychology from time to time. And I can't resist the urge to weigh in on the psychology behind this event. We live in what I call "The Age of Distraction." Almost everywhere you turn, people are babbling on cell phones, listing to iPods, checking on Blackberrys, multitasking, and so on. We seem to have forgotten that the world is a crowded place, and it can be dangerous--particularly when you aren't paying attention to what's going on around you. My guess is that Asia Ferguson IV had a cell phone, an iPod, or both with him at the time of his death. There is no indication that either device directly contributed to his death. But have we all become so attuned to the jingly, jangly devices all around us that they have clouded our judgment? Are we so tuned into to electronica that we have tuned out to potential dangers that can take our lives--or the lives of other innocent people?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Alabama's Right-Wing Press Will Never "Get" the Siegelman Case
The right-wing types who dominate Alabama's mainstream press evidently are incapable of understanding critical issues presented by the Don Siegelman prosecution and the evolving Bush Justice Department scandal.
The latest example comes from an editorial in today's Birmingham News about reports that the Justice Department used political criteria to decide who would get hired for prestigious honors and internship programs. An internal audit showed that outstanding applicants were culled simply because they had connections to progressive politicians or programs.
"Dumb," writes the News. "There's just no better word to describe the U.S. Justice Department's use of bogus political criteria to decide who would get hired to work in its offices."
Actually there is a word that better describes this activity. It's "corrupt."
This is the tip of a corrupt iceberg that only will become fully visible if Congress ever truly gets down to the task of fumigating the cesspool created by loyal Bushies at Justice.
Editorial writers at the News, however, cannot understand it. They hint that Siegelman is an opportunist when he uses the recent report to help validate his charges of political prosecution.
The News braintrust has the gall to write the following: "This is not the first time the Bush administration's own folly has bolstered Siegelman's wild claims of political prosecution."
Wild claims?
If the News' honchos pulled their heads out of their collective fannies long enough, they might try reading U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's pathetic memorandum opinion regarding Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal. This document shows that even Fuller himself, the judge who ramrodded the Siegelman case, cannot justify the guilty verdict reached in the case.
Then the News' editorial gets even nuttier:
"As this newspaper has said, these dismissals (of nine U.S. attorneys) at the very least make it harder to flat-out dismiss Siegelman's claims. That's true even for those of us who believe he was justly prosecuted and convicted for selling a seat on a state board in exchange for a political contribution."
How sad that a major newspaper has to resort to saying it is among those who "believe" Siegelman was justly prosecuted. How about getting off your conservative duffs and doing some investigation? The Siegelman case is not about what anyone "believes;" it's about the rule of law.
A good place to start in understanding the law in the Siegelman case is this post from the White Collar Crime Prof blog. It provides important analysis of McCormick v. United States, which is central to the Siegelman appeal and shines light on this question: When can a campaign contribution become the basis for a prosecution on extortion, bribery, or mail fraud charges?
Is it possible that Alabama's right-wing press types will ever educate themselves about the facts and the law in the Siegelman case? The answer to that question is almost certainly "no." That's because anyone who is remotely objective and makes any attempt to grasp the facts and law surrounding the Siegelman case will conclude that the former governor was railroaded.
That conclusion would upset the closely held conservative world view of the News' honchos, so we won't hold our breath waiting for them to come to their senses.
We do know this: The fact that News editorial writers still are talking about what they "believe" regarding the Siegelman prosecution only illustrates how pathetic the paper's reporting on the case has been.
The latest example comes from an editorial in today's Birmingham News about reports that the Justice Department used political criteria to decide who would get hired for prestigious honors and internship programs. An internal audit showed that outstanding applicants were culled simply because they had connections to progressive politicians or programs.
"Dumb," writes the News. "There's just no better word to describe the U.S. Justice Department's use of bogus political criteria to decide who would get hired to work in its offices."
Actually there is a word that better describes this activity. It's "corrupt."
This is the tip of a corrupt iceberg that only will become fully visible if Congress ever truly gets down to the task of fumigating the cesspool created by loyal Bushies at Justice.
Editorial writers at the News, however, cannot understand it. They hint that Siegelman is an opportunist when he uses the recent report to help validate his charges of political prosecution.
The News braintrust has the gall to write the following: "This is not the first time the Bush administration's own folly has bolstered Siegelman's wild claims of political prosecution."
Wild claims?
If the News' honchos pulled their heads out of their collective fannies long enough, they might try reading U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's pathetic memorandum opinion regarding Siegelman's imprisonment pending appeal. This document shows that even Fuller himself, the judge who ramrodded the Siegelman case, cannot justify the guilty verdict reached in the case.
Then the News' editorial gets even nuttier:
"As this newspaper has said, these dismissals (of nine U.S. attorneys) at the very least make it harder to flat-out dismiss Siegelman's claims. That's true even for those of us who believe he was justly prosecuted and convicted for selling a seat on a state board in exchange for a political contribution."
How sad that a major newspaper has to resort to saying it is among those who "believe" Siegelman was justly prosecuted. How about getting off your conservative duffs and doing some investigation? The Siegelman case is not about what anyone "believes;" it's about the rule of law.
A good place to start in understanding the law in the Siegelman case is this post from the White Collar Crime Prof blog. It provides important analysis of McCormick v. United States, which is central to the Siegelman appeal and shines light on this question: When can a campaign contribution become the basis for a prosecution on extortion, bribery, or mail fraud charges?
Is it possible that Alabama's right-wing press types will ever educate themselves about the facts and the law in the Siegelman case? The answer to that question is almost certainly "no." That's because anyone who is remotely objective and makes any attempt to grasp the facts and law surrounding the Siegelman case will conclude that the former governor was railroaded.
That conclusion would upset the closely held conservative world view of the News' honchos, so we won't hold our breath waiting for them to come to their senses.
We do know this: The fact that News editorial writers still are talking about what they "believe" regarding the Siegelman prosecution only illustrates how pathetic the paper's reporting on the case has been.
Herd Gets Thinned, Lawsuit to Follow
Today's news brings a classic "thinning-the-herd" story, and we suspect an outrageous lawsuit is sure to follow.
Here's the story: A 17-year-old boy decided it would be a good idea to scale two six-foot fences, and pass numerous signs saying the area was off limits and dangerous, in order to retrieve a hat he had lost while riding the Batman roller coaster at Six Flags Over Georgia near Atlanta. In the process of trying to retrieve the hat, the youth was decapitated when a roller coaster car struck him. The teen was identified as Asia Leeshawn Ferguson, of Springfield, South Carolina, who was at the park with his parents on a church trip.
Here is what should happen: Ferguson's parents, after having time to grieve and bury their son, should call a press conference and say something like this: "We are heartbroken at the tragic death of our son, but we want the public to know that no one associated with Six Flags Over Georgia was responsible for this accident. Asia knew better than to scale two fences and enter an area that clearly was marked as dangerous. For reasons we never will understand, he chose to ignore those warnings, and it cost him his life. We hope other parents will take this story and use it to help teach their children about the importance of respecting safety warnings. Our hope and prayer is that Asia's tragic mistake might help other young people to live long, healthy lives. We are deeply grateful to officials at Six Flags, and other members of the public, who assisted us on the day of Asia's death and have comforted us in this time of grief."
If I were head of Six Flags, and Ferguson's parents did this, I would quietly write them a generous check, as a way of saying thank you for taking responsibility and doing the right thing.
Here is what probably will happen: Sometime soon--probably within two months--a lawyer will file a lawsuit on behalf of Ferguson's family, claiming Six Flags and its personnel were negligent. The lawsuit will claim the fences were not high enough, there weren't enough fences, there weren't enough warning signs, etc. Facing the prospect of lengthy and expensive discovery, and fearing possible negative publicity, Six Flags and its insurers will cave in and pay the family tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of dollars.
What a country.
This is the kind of case that makes trial lawyers look bad, and since trial lawyers tend to support the Democratic Party, it also can make the Democratic Party look bad. I certainly have no love for the corporate types who run Six Flags. But for the good of our country, I hope trial lawyers show some common sense and stay away from this case.
Here's the story: A 17-year-old boy decided it would be a good idea to scale two six-foot fences, and pass numerous signs saying the area was off limits and dangerous, in order to retrieve a hat he had lost while riding the Batman roller coaster at Six Flags Over Georgia near Atlanta. In the process of trying to retrieve the hat, the youth was decapitated when a roller coaster car struck him. The teen was identified as Asia Leeshawn Ferguson, of Springfield, South Carolina, who was at the park with his parents on a church trip.
Here is what should happen: Ferguson's parents, after having time to grieve and bury their son, should call a press conference and say something like this: "We are heartbroken at the tragic death of our son, but we want the public to know that no one associated with Six Flags Over Georgia was responsible for this accident. Asia knew better than to scale two fences and enter an area that clearly was marked as dangerous. For reasons we never will understand, he chose to ignore those warnings, and it cost him his life. We hope other parents will take this story and use it to help teach their children about the importance of respecting safety warnings. Our hope and prayer is that Asia's tragic mistake might help other young people to live long, healthy lives. We are deeply grateful to officials at Six Flags, and other members of the public, who assisted us on the day of Asia's death and have comforted us in this time of grief."
If I were head of Six Flags, and Ferguson's parents did this, I would quietly write them a generous check, as a way of saying thank you for taking responsibility and doing the right thing.
Here is what probably will happen: Sometime soon--probably within two months--a lawyer will file a lawsuit on behalf of Ferguson's family, claiming Six Flags and its personnel were negligent. The lawsuit will claim the fences were not high enough, there weren't enough fences, there weren't enough warning signs, etc. Facing the prospect of lengthy and expensive discovery, and fearing possible negative publicity, Six Flags and its insurers will cave in and pay the family tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of dollars.
What a country.
This is the kind of case that makes trial lawyers look bad, and since trial lawyers tend to support the Democratic Party, it also can make the Democratic Party look bad. I certainly have no love for the corporate types who run Six Flags. But for the good of our country, I hope trial lawyers show some common sense and stay away from this case.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Y'all Politics Serves Up Some Rubbish
I generally try to avoid the right-wing blogosphere. There might be some thoughtful right-winger types out there, but they haven't come to my attention.
What did come to my attention recently was a blog called Y'all Politics, which apparently is based in Mississippi. Don't know much about Y'all Politics, but it seems to be the handiwork of a fellow named Alan Lange.
Based on a recent post about the Paul Minor case, Mr. Lange is one of those who does not let the facts get in the way of a good right-wing storyline.
Lange goes after Larisa Alexandrovna and her recent in-depth piece on the Minor case, which was published at Raw Story and Huffington Post.
This was the latest of several excellent long-form pieces that Alexandrovna has written about the Minor prosecution, which saw a successful trial attorney and Democratic financial supporter (Paul Minor) and two former state judges (Wes Teel and John Whitfield) wind up in federal prison for crimes they did not commit. Alexandrovna not only has provided valuable insight about the Minor case, but she has shown how it ties into the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the broader Bush Justice Department scandal, currently the subject of a Congressional investigation.
Alexandrovna is right on target with both her facts and her analysis. I know because I've invested a major chunk of time in researching and writing about the Minor case, which resulted in a series of roughly 25 posts we called "Mississippi Churning." Our Legal Schnauzer work on the Minor case can be viewed here.
Y'all Politics dismisses Alexandrovna's work as a "puff piece" that is "pro felon." Lange, or whoever the writer might be, provides no facts to back that up.
What does the writer provide for us? A link to the indictment in the Minor case, by golly. The message? If the government indicts you, you are guilty. What a very American concept?
And oh, the writer provides us with a scene in which Paul Minor evidently was intoxicated. We get no clue as to the source of this story. And we certainly get no indication as to why it is relevant. Are people convicted and sent to federal prison for being intoxicated at some point in their lives? If so, we really are going to need more federal prisons. That building binge should help pull us out of the Bush economic tailspin.
If Mr. Lange wrote this piece, his most charming sentence comes when he notes that Ms. Alexandrovna "ain't from around here." Nice to know that xenophobia is alive and well in the Deep South.
Mr. Lange reminds me of that old lawyer's tale: If the facts are in your favor, pound on the facts; if the law is in your favor, pound on the law; if neither one is in your favor, pound on the table.
Mr. Lange appears to be one heck of a table pounder.
The law is this: You cannot have a bribery or honest-services mail fraud conviction in the Minor case because the underlying state court cases were decided correctly. Minor's clients won those cases because the facts and the law were on their sides, and by law, that means the cases were not decided because of loan guarantees the judges received from Minor. (Such financial favors are legal under Mississippi law; I don't think they should be legal, but they are. And they are common practice in many states.)
The facts are these: U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee, intentionally gave the jury improper instructions, and those bogus instructions virtually ensured that the defendants would be found guilty--contrary to the actual law.
Ms. Alexandrova is providing critical insight on one portion of the evolving Bush Justice Department story, which someday is likely to be known as the worst scandal in our nation's history. Y'all Politics, in the meantime, apparently will keep its head firmly buried in the Mississippi Mud.
What did come to my attention recently was a blog called Y'all Politics, which apparently is based in Mississippi. Don't know much about Y'all Politics, but it seems to be the handiwork of a fellow named Alan Lange.
Based on a recent post about the Paul Minor case, Mr. Lange is one of those who does not let the facts get in the way of a good right-wing storyline.
Lange goes after Larisa Alexandrovna and her recent in-depth piece on the Minor case, which was published at Raw Story and Huffington Post.
This was the latest of several excellent long-form pieces that Alexandrovna has written about the Minor prosecution, which saw a successful trial attorney and Democratic financial supporter (Paul Minor) and two former state judges (Wes Teel and John Whitfield) wind up in federal prison for crimes they did not commit. Alexandrovna not only has provided valuable insight about the Minor case, but she has shown how it ties into the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the broader Bush Justice Department scandal, currently the subject of a Congressional investigation.
Alexandrovna is right on target with both her facts and her analysis. I know because I've invested a major chunk of time in researching and writing about the Minor case, which resulted in a series of roughly 25 posts we called "Mississippi Churning." Our Legal Schnauzer work on the Minor case can be viewed here.
Y'all Politics dismisses Alexandrovna's work as a "puff piece" that is "pro felon." Lange, or whoever the writer might be, provides no facts to back that up.
What does the writer provide for us? A link to the indictment in the Minor case, by golly. The message? If the government indicts you, you are guilty. What a very American concept?
And oh, the writer provides us with a scene in which Paul Minor evidently was intoxicated. We get no clue as to the source of this story. And we certainly get no indication as to why it is relevant. Are people convicted and sent to federal prison for being intoxicated at some point in their lives? If so, we really are going to need more federal prisons. That building binge should help pull us out of the Bush economic tailspin.
If Mr. Lange wrote this piece, his most charming sentence comes when he notes that Ms. Alexandrovna "ain't from around here." Nice to know that xenophobia is alive and well in the Deep South.
Mr. Lange reminds me of that old lawyer's tale: If the facts are in your favor, pound on the facts; if the law is in your favor, pound on the law; if neither one is in your favor, pound on the table.
Mr. Lange appears to be one heck of a table pounder.
The law is this: You cannot have a bribery or honest-services mail fraud conviction in the Minor case because the underlying state court cases were decided correctly. Minor's clients won those cases because the facts and the law were on their sides, and by law, that means the cases were not decided because of loan guarantees the judges received from Minor. (Such financial favors are legal under Mississippi law; I don't think they should be legal, but they are. And they are common practice in many states.)
The facts are these: U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee, intentionally gave the jury improper instructions, and those bogus instructions virtually ensured that the defendants would be found guilty--contrary to the actual law.
Ms. Alexandrova is providing critical insight on one portion of the evolving Bush Justice Department story, which someday is likely to be known as the worst scandal in our nation's history. Y'all Politics, in the meantime, apparently will keep its head firmly buried in the Mississippi Mud.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
An Alabama Portrait of Sleaze in the Age of Rove, Part III
What kind of person is Bill Swatek? What kind of lawyer, an "officer of the court," is Bill Swatek?
Swatek's defense in his perjury trial was that he knew nothing about the hidden tape recorder that opposing lawyers discovered while they were trying to conduct a private meeting. Swatek said it was his client's idea to tape record the opposing lawyers. Do the facts support that contention? Here's a clip about just that question:
How does someone get off on a perjury charge when they have that kind of evidence against them? Hey, this was in Alabama state courts. They are corrupt in 2008, and it looks like something fishy was going on in 1981. Here is a summary:
Swatek's defense in his perjury trial was that he knew nothing about the hidden tape recorder that opposing lawyers discovered while they were trying to conduct a private meeting. Swatek said it was his client's idea to tape record the opposing lawyers. Do the facts support that contention? Here's a clip about just that question:
How does someone get off on a perjury charge when they have that kind of evidence against them? Hey, this was in Alabama state courts. They are corrupt in 2008, and it looks like something fishy was going on in 1981. Here is a summary:
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
A Corrupt Bushie in Alabama, Part V
I was almost finished with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. But she had touted her office's sterling financial operation in our previous installment, so I thought it was important to point out how she could make her financial picture look even better.
I should note that I made a mistake in the first paragraph of the following e-mail. I hinted that the first Siegelman case, in the Northern District of Alabama, involved honest-services mail fraud. But that was incorrect. That case involved charges of health-care fraud. Honest-services mail fraud did not come into play until the second Siegelman case, in the Middle District of Alabama under Leura Canary:
-----------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 29, 2007
Ms. Martin:
Your office attempted to prosecute Mr. Siegelman prior to the prosecution in the middle district. So surely you know what agencies investigated the mail fraud components of that case. Did it involve the U.S. Postal Inspection Service? I don't see how it could have since that agency is not authorized to investigate matters under U.S.Code 1346.
And by the way, are you telling me the U.S. Postal Inspection Service is going to determine if my allegations have merit? An agency that does not have authority to look into 1346 cases is going to determine the merit of a 1346 case?
I'm pleased to hear that your office is run on a financially solid basis. But I would be more pleased if you could explain to me why you forwarded this to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which according to its own Web site, is not the appropriate agency. Are you telling me the postal Web site is in error?
You will be pleased to know that, from a financial perspective, my case should be a windfall for you, the FBI, and the Department of Justice in general. I've already conducted all of the research, and collected all of the documents, that would be required to gain a conviction. You can ship about four lawyers and some 15-16 judges to federal prison and hit them all with hefty fines--at virtually no cost to you!
So as a taxpayer, that's exactly the case I want to see you pursue. It will make your financial record look even better. Based on my conversations with a number of honest lawyers (yes, there actually area few out there), the wrongdoing I've encountered is commonplace and widespread in your jurisdiction and the middle district. If you could forward this information to Mr. Franklin and Ms. Canary at the middle district, I would be most appreciative.
It might require some investigation to uncover all of the cases where average citizens have been cheated by unethical judges and lawyers. That would involve some expense on your part. But you get one or two corrupt judges squealing on the others, and the whole sleazy mess breaks wide open. And think of all those fines and prison terms! If I'm a prosecutor, I'm licking my chops.
On a financial level alone, this is a great opportunity for the USDOJ. I look forward to hearing soon from the FBI--the appropriate agency--so that you can fulfill your promise to send my information to the appropriate agency.
Roger Shuler
--------------------------
(To be continued . . . )
I should note that I made a mistake in the first paragraph of the following e-mail. I hinted that the first Siegelman case, in the Northern District of Alabama, involved honest-services mail fraud. But that was incorrect. That case involved charges of health-care fraud. Honest-services mail fraud did not come into play until the second Siegelman case, in the Middle District of Alabama under Leura Canary:
-----------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 29, 2007
Ms. Martin:
Your office attempted to prosecute Mr. Siegelman prior to the prosecution in the middle district. So surely you know what agencies investigated the mail fraud components of that case. Did it involve the U.S. Postal Inspection Service? I don't see how it could have since that agency is not authorized to investigate matters under U.S.Code 1346.
And by the way, are you telling me the U.S. Postal Inspection Service is going to determine if my allegations have merit? An agency that does not have authority to look into 1346 cases is going to determine the merit of a 1346 case?
I'm pleased to hear that your office is run on a financially solid basis. But I would be more pleased if you could explain to me why you forwarded this to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which according to its own Web site, is not the appropriate agency. Are you telling me the postal Web site is in error?
You will be pleased to know that, from a financial perspective, my case should be a windfall for you, the FBI, and the Department of Justice in general. I've already conducted all of the research, and collected all of the documents, that would be required to gain a conviction. You can ship about four lawyers and some 15-16 judges to federal prison and hit them all with hefty fines--at virtually no cost to you!
So as a taxpayer, that's exactly the case I want to see you pursue. It will make your financial record look even better. Based on my conversations with a number of honest lawyers (yes, there actually area few out there), the wrongdoing I've encountered is commonplace and widespread in your jurisdiction and the middle district. If you could forward this information to Mr. Franklin and Ms. Canary at the middle district, I would be most appreciative.
It might require some investigation to uncover all of the cases where average citizens have been cheated by unethical judges and lawyers. That would involve some expense on your part. But you get one or two corrupt judges squealing on the others, and the whole sleazy mess breaks wide open. And think of all those fines and prison terms! If I'm a prosecutor, I'm licking my chops.
On a financial level alone, this is a great opportunity for the USDOJ. I look forward to hearing soon from the FBI--the appropriate agency--so that you can fulfill your promise to send my information to the appropriate agency.
Roger Shuler
--------------------------
(To be continued . . . )
A Peak Behind the Curtain of Corruption
One small step toward revival of America's diseased justice system comes today with word that Bush loyalists established a five-year program to flood a prestigious hiring program with young conservatives.
The story, by reporter Carrie Johnson at the Washington Post, says the honors program had been under the control of senior career officials. But John Ashcroft, former attorney general under Bush, changed that system.
As a result, critics say, many highly qualified candidates were rejected because they had experience with left-leaning nonprofit organizations or had served under Democratic judges or lawmakers.
Could this story have ramifications in Alabama? The answer appears to be yes. The report by Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Chief H. Marshall Jarrett is the first in a series of investigations about the reach of political considerations in hiring and enforcement at the Bush Justice Department.
Alice Martin and Leura Canary, U.S. attorneys for the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, reportedly are on the list of prosecutors under investigation for launching politically driven cases.
Hopefully, Fine and Jarrett will soon be turning a critical gaze to the horribly warped justice apparatus in the Heart of Dixie.
We have been showing, in our series on Alice Martin, exactly how warped our justice apparatus truly is. We have another segment in our first-person reports coming up next.
The story, by reporter Carrie Johnson at the Washington Post, says the honors program had been under the control of senior career officials. But John Ashcroft, former attorney general under Bush, changed that system.
As a result, critics say, many highly qualified candidates were rejected because they had experience with left-leaning nonprofit organizations or had served under Democratic judges or lawmakers.
Could this story have ramifications in Alabama? The answer appears to be yes. The report by Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility Chief H. Marshall Jarrett is the first in a series of investigations about the reach of political considerations in hiring and enforcement at the Bush Justice Department.
Alice Martin and Leura Canary, U.S. attorneys for the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, reportedly are on the list of prosecutors under investigation for launching politically driven cases.
Hopefully, Fine and Jarrett will soon be turning a critical gaze to the horribly warped justice apparatus in the Heart of Dixie.
We have been showing, in our series on Alice Martin, exactly how warped our justice apparatus truly is. We have another segment in our first-person reports coming up next.
One Less Partisan Hack in Alabama
Brett Blackledge of The Birmingham News, who along with the Mobile Press-Register's Eddie Curran gives new meaning to the term "partisan hack," is leaving our fine state for a gig with the Associated Press in Washington.
Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News has an excellent take on Blackledge's departure, with a hopeful note that it might signal a change toward badly needed media reform in Alabama.
Wilson also takes a delightful jab at Editor Tom Scarritt's Sunday column in The News, which Wilson says specializes in "saying nothing about nothing."
Scarritt's most recent effort was even worse than usual. He actually had the audacity to prattle on about "watchdog journalism," which is like Weird Al Yankovic discussing Tchaikovsky.
Wilson also notes the latest in "the sky is falling" reports about the newspaper industry. Hard to believe that the very editors who have turned away from investigative reporting, seeking accountability from those in power, have to wonder why fewer and fewer people read their fish wrappers.
Can we say "clueless?"
Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News has an excellent take on Blackledge's departure, with a hopeful note that it might signal a change toward badly needed media reform in Alabama.
Wilson also takes a delightful jab at Editor Tom Scarritt's Sunday column in The News, which Wilson says specializes in "saying nothing about nothing."
Scarritt's most recent effort was even worse than usual. He actually had the audacity to prattle on about "watchdog journalism," which is like Weird Al Yankovic discussing Tchaikovsky.
Wilson also notes the latest in "the sky is falling" reports about the newspaper industry. Hard to believe that the very editors who have turned away from investigative reporting, seeking accountability from those in power, have to wonder why fewer and fewer people read their fish wrappers.
Can we say "clueless?"
Monday, June 23, 2008
An Alabama Portrait of Sleaze in the Age of Rove: Part II
Let's continue with our video travelogue of Bill Swatek's sleazy career in the legal profession. The biggest case against him came in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It resulted in him having his license suspended and being tried in criminal court for perjury.
Here's a clip about the actions that got Bill Swatek into some serious doo-doo:
Next we have a clip about the media attention Swatek's perjury prosecution received in 1981:
(To be continued . . . )
Here's a clip about the actions that got Bill Swatek into some serious doo-doo:
Next we have a clip about the media attention Swatek's perjury prosecution received in 1981:
(To be continued . . . )
A Strange Column from Montgomery Advertiser
Aside from Greg Privett at WHNT in Huntsville and Tommy Stevenson at the Tuscaloosa News, Alabama's mainstream media generally have avoided covering the Bush Justice Department and its apparently political prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.
You would think the Montgomery Advertiser would have been all over the story, considering that the action took place in Montgomery and many of the key players still reside in the capital city. But you would be wrong. The Advertiser's coverage would have to improve drastically to reach the level of timid.
But it has reached the level of bizarre, thanks to a recent column by Sebastian Kitchen. I don't know a lot about Kitchen. I believe he used to work for the Mobile Press-Register. It appears that he is a reporter in Montgomery, but his latest effort reads like an op-ed piece.
Kitchen's piece is strange because it only offers up a string of questions without attempting to provide any answers. And answers to some of the questions are readily available.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, has a jolly good time at dismantling Kitchen's handiwork. And Wilson is more than happy to provide answers to some of Kitchen's questions.
I find myself being somewhat forgiving of Kitchen, mainly because it appears he is working under weak leadership at the Advertiser. When Wanda Lloyd, an African-American woman, came on board as editor four years ago, it was hailed as a step forward for diversity and news coverage. And Lloyd has an impressive resume.
But I've seen no sign that she is willing to stand up to the mostly white, good old boy power structure that runs Montgomery. Enormous corruption is taking place right under Lloyd's nose, and she has done nothing about it.
I have a hard time blaming Sebastian Kitchen for that.
You would think the Montgomery Advertiser would have been all over the story, considering that the action took place in Montgomery and many of the key players still reside in the capital city. But you would be wrong. The Advertiser's coverage would have to improve drastically to reach the level of timid.
But it has reached the level of bizarre, thanks to a recent column by Sebastian Kitchen. I don't know a lot about Kitchen. I believe he used to work for the Mobile Press-Register. It appears that he is a reporter in Montgomery, but his latest effort reads like an op-ed piece.
Kitchen's piece is strange because it only offers up a string of questions without attempting to provide any answers. And answers to some of the questions are readily available.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, has a jolly good time at dismantling Kitchen's handiwork. And Wilson is more than happy to provide answers to some of Kitchen's questions.
I find myself being somewhat forgiving of Kitchen, mainly because it appears he is working under weak leadership at the Advertiser. When Wanda Lloyd, an African-American woman, came on board as editor four years ago, it was hailed as a step forward for diversity and news coverage. And Lloyd has an impressive resume.
But I've seen no sign that she is willing to stand up to the mostly white, good old boy power structure that runs Montgomery. Enormous corruption is taking place right under Lloyd's nose, and she has done nothing about it.
I have a hard time blaming Sebastian Kitchen for that.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A Corrupt Bushie in Alabama, Part IV
In our previous installment, I challenged U.S. Attorney Alice Martin to explain why she sent my allegations of crimes under 18 U.S. Code 1346 (honest-services mail fraud) to an agency that does not have the jurisdiction to investigate such crimes.
Now, let's watch as Ms. Martin attempts a trick that scoundrels have been trying down through the ages. It's called "change the subject-fast!"
---------------------------------
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 27, 2007
Dear Mr Shuler:
As a taxpayer you will be pleased that we collect 4 times more than we cost taxpayers in an average year. Your complaint has been forwarded to the appropriate agency, which can and will enlist the FBI's assistance if there is merit to your allegations.
You may contact the Middle District of Alabama to inquire as to what agencies investigated the Siegelman matters.
Alice Martin
------------------------------
Notice several clever tactics Ms. Martin uses here:
* Since she has no valid answer to my main question--why did you send my complaint to the United States Postal Inspection Service?--she decides to tout her office's financial tidiness. (This must have been before she decided to go after Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi on bogus charges, a fiasco that is likely to cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.)
* How about that second sentence? Ms. Martin flat out says she sent my complaint to the correct agency. That tells us Ms. Martin is either the most ignorant prosecutor in the history of the solar system or she is a liar of prodigious abilities. While Ms. Martin evidently is not the brightest star in the prosecutorial galaxy, I think even she knows the U.S. Postal Inspection Service cannot investigate a 1346 case. If I, without the first day of law school, could figure that out, you would think a U.S. attorney could figure it out, too. So that leads me to believe that Ms. Martin is a liar of wondrous talents. And that should be no surprise, since she clearly lied under oath (and got away with it) in an employment lawsuit involving former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deidra Brown Fleming.
* Finally, notice how Ms. Martin is in no hurry to answer the question about the Don Siegelman case. In fact, she decides to punt that one to the Middle District of Alabama, where Leura Canary resides. But we don't need to bother checking with Ms. Canary (as if she would tell the truth!) about whether the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was involved in the Siegelman case. A press release from the Department of Justice already has told us that the postal inspectors had nothing to do with investigating the Siegelman case. That's because, by law, they could not investigate possible violations of 18 U.S. Code 1346.
(To be continued . . . )
Now, let's watch as Ms. Martin attempts a trick that scoundrels have been trying down through the ages. It's called "change the subject-fast!"
---------------------------------
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 27, 2007
Dear Mr Shuler:
As a taxpayer you will be pleased that we collect 4 times more than we cost taxpayers in an average year. Your complaint has been forwarded to the appropriate agency, which can and will enlist the FBI's assistance if there is merit to your allegations.
You may contact the Middle District of Alabama to inquire as to what agencies investigated the Siegelman matters.
Alice Martin
------------------------------
Notice several clever tactics Ms. Martin uses here:
* Since she has no valid answer to my main question--why did you send my complaint to the United States Postal Inspection Service?--she decides to tout her office's financial tidiness. (This must have been before she decided to go after Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi on bogus charges, a fiasco that is likely to cost taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars.)
* How about that second sentence? Ms. Martin flat out says she sent my complaint to the correct agency. That tells us Ms. Martin is either the most ignorant prosecutor in the history of the solar system or she is a liar of prodigious abilities. While Ms. Martin evidently is not the brightest star in the prosecutorial galaxy, I think even she knows the U.S. Postal Inspection Service cannot investigate a 1346 case. If I, without the first day of law school, could figure that out, you would think a U.S. attorney could figure it out, too. So that leads me to believe that Ms. Martin is a liar of wondrous talents. And that should be no surprise, since she clearly lied under oath (and got away with it) in an employment lawsuit involving former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deidra Brown Fleming.
* Finally, notice how Ms. Martin is in no hurry to answer the question about the Don Siegelman case. In fact, she decides to punt that one to the Middle District of Alabama, where Leura Canary resides. But we don't need to bother checking with Ms. Canary (as if she would tell the truth!) about whether the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was involved in the Siegelman case. A press release from the Department of Justice already has told us that the postal inspectors had nothing to do with investigating the Siegelman case. That's because, by law, they could not investigate possible violations of 18 U.S. Code 1346.
(To be continued . . . )
Friday, June 20, 2008
Progress in the Paul Minor Case?
The Paul Minor case has a special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer. And word comes today we have reached a landmark on the road to possible justice in a case that can only be described as gruesome.
Attorneys for Minor have filed an appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. We will look at some of the key issues on appeal in a moment. But first, a word about why this case matters so much to us--and why it should matter to all Americans.
Our blog, which recently passed its first birthday, has focused primarily on three cases--two criminal prosecutions in federal court (the Minor case in Mississippi and the Don Siegelman case in Alabama) and one civil case in state court (my own legal travesty in Alabama).
The three cases might not seem to have much in common at first glance. But a common thread runs through them all: They all feature wrongdoing driven by people who are in, or have unusual connections to, the Bush Justice Department.
So what makes the Minor case special here in SchnauzerLand? Several things:
* Until I heard about the Minor case and began researching the issues involved in it, I did not fully understand how badly I had been cheated in my own case. And I did not begin to understand how badly Don Siegelman had been cheated in his case.
* Because of the Minor case, I became aware of, and developed a layman's understanding of, honest-services mail fraud. And that criminal charge is central to all three of our featured cases. In the Minor and Siegelman cases, the charge was improperly applied to help produce convictions that are not remotely grounded in law. In my case, real, honest-to-God honest-service mail fraud is present in copious amounts--and the Bush Justice Department ignores it because the wrongdoing involves "loyal Bushie" Republicans. That's what our justice system has come to over the past seven-plus years: Innocent people are convicted for political reasons and guilty people are not even investigated for political reasons. Praise be to Karl Rove.
* The Minor case has a personal element that illustrates the monstrous nature of some people connected to the Bush Justice Department. Paul Minor's wife is dying of cancer, but he has been held in federal prison pending appeal. Minor's codefendants, former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, have significant health issues of their own or in their immediate families. And yet, they too are being held in federal prison pending appeal. Now I can hear some folks calling me a "bleeding heart" for suggesting that the Minor defendants should receive consideration because of family health matters. And that certainly is part of my argument. But when you study the transcript and the case law as I have, you see that these gentlemen are innocent--and never should have been prosecuted, much less imprisoned. That's what makes certain Bushies--prosecutor Dunn Lampton and Judge Henry Wingate, in this case--particularly monstrous.
* Don Siegelman has been released pending appeal, and that is a sign of hope for folks who care about justice. But the plight of the Minor defendants should remind us: The spirit of Josef Stalin still lives in George W. Bush's America. And to think that Dubya never would have come close to winning the White House without the "Christian" vote. Makes you wonder what's going on in our churches.
What about the Minor appeal itself? Joe Doss, an Episcopal Bishop and friend/supporter of Paul Minor and his codefendants, issued a press release that definitely is worth reading in its entirety--not only for the legal points it makes but for the moral outrage it expresses:
Free America's Political Prisoners
For Immediate Release
June 20, 2008
Contact: Bishop Joe Doss
Bishop.Doss@gmail.com
Paul Minor Appeals Unjust Conviction
Minor seeks release on bond with wife's death imminent
Attorneys for Paul Minor have filed an appeal of his conviction with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief outlines the following issues that warrant reversal of Mr. Minor's conviction:
* The District Court committed reversible error when it did not properly instruct the jury on the legal requirements for a bribery conviction, thus permitting the jury to convict Mr. Minor for conduct that was neither charged in the indictment nor considered bribery under federal law.
* The District Court committed reversible error when it prevented Mr. Minor from presenting crucial, relevant evidence that would have rebutted the charges. Specifically, Mr. Minor--charged for attempting to bribe Judge Whitfield--was not allowed to show the jury that he did not file his more significant cases in Judge Whitfield's court.
* The District court committed reversible error by not dismissing bribery charges against Mr. Minor because the evidence did not meet threshold of the federal bribery statute and the jury was improperly instructed on this fact.
Statement of Bishop Joe Doss of Free America's Political Prisoners:
It should be abhorrent to every American citizen that a man is forced to remain in prison while--as his appeal brief so clearly shows--there are glaring questions surrounding how this case was investigated, prosecuted and tried.
Paul Minor carries the additional burden of knowing that his wife is dying of cancer and has been given only a short time to live. His unjust incarceration makes it very likely that he will never see her again. Paul's release on bond pending appeal is not only legally justified, but considering the imminent death of his wife Sylvia, it is mandated if this process is to salvage a scintilla of basic human decency.
It stands in direct contrast to everything that this country professes to stand for that Paul Minor has not been allowed to remain free on appeal while the prosecutor who brought the bogus charges against him is himself currently under investigation by the U.S. Congress and the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.
The fact that the prosecutor and his office are being investigated about the origins of this prosecution raises more than enough doubt about the conviction to warrant Paul Minor's immediate release pending a thorough hearing on the legality of the prosecution and the ultimate hearing of Mr. Minor's appeal before the fifth circuit court of appeals.
Attorneys for Minor have filed an appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. We will look at some of the key issues on appeal in a moment. But first, a word about why this case matters so much to us--and why it should matter to all Americans.
Our blog, which recently passed its first birthday, has focused primarily on three cases--two criminal prosecutions in federal court (the Minor case in Mississippi and the Don Siegelman case in Alabama) and one civil case in state court (my own legal travesty in Alabama).
The three cases might not seem to have much in common at first glance. But a common thread runs through them all: They all feature wrongdoing driven by people who are in, or have unusual connections to, the Bush Justice Department.
So what makes the Minor case special here in SchnauzerLand? Several things:
* Until I heard about the Minor case and began researching the issues involved in it, I did not fully understand how badly I had been cheated in my own case. And I did not begin to understand how badly Don Siegelman had been cheated in his case.
* Because of the Minor case, I became aware of, and developed a layman's understanding of, honest-services mail fraud. And that criminal charge is central to all three of our featured cases. In the Minor and Siegelman cases, the charge was improperly applied to help produce convictions that are not remotely grounded in law. In my case, real, honest-to-God honest-service mail fraud is present in copious amounts--and the Bush Justice Department ignores it because the wrongdoing involves "loyal Bushie" Republicans. That's what our justice system has come to over the past seven-plus years: Innocent people are convicted for political reasons and guilty people are not even investigated for political reasons. Praise be to Karl Rove.
* The Minor case has a personal element that illustrates the monstrous nature of some people connected to the Bush Justice Department. Paul Minor's wife is dying of cancer, but he has been held in federal prison pending appeal. Minor's codefendants, former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, have significant health issues of their own or in their immediate families. And yet, they too are being held in federal prison pending appeal. Now I can hear some folks calling me a "bleeding heart" for suggesting that the Minor defendants should receive consideration because of family health matters. And that certainly is part of my argument. But when you study the transcript and the case law as I have, you see that these gentlemen are innocent--and never should have been prosecuted, much less imprisoned. That's what makes certain Bushies--prosecutor Dunn Lampton and Judge Henry Wingate, in this case--particularly monstrous.
* Don Siegelman has been released pending appeal, and that is a sign of hope for folks who care about justice. But the plight of the Minor defendants should remind us: The spirit of Josef Stalin still lives in George W. Bush's America. And to think that Dubya never would have come close to winning the White House without the "Christian" vote. Makes you wonder what's going on in our churches.
What about the Minor appeal itself? Joe Doss, an Episcopal Bishop and friend/supporter of Paul Minor and his codefendants, issued a press release that definitely is worth reading in its entirety--not only for the legal points it makes but for the moral outrage it expresses:
Free America's Political Prisoners
For Immediate Release
June 20, 2008
Contact: Bishop Joe Doss
Bishop.Doss@gmail.com
Paul Minor Appeals Unjust Conviction
Minor seeks release on bond with wife's death imminent
Attorneys for Paul Minor have filed an appeal of his conviction with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief outlines the following issues that warrant reversal of Mr. Minor's conviction:
* The District Court committed reversible error when it did not properly instruct the jury on the legal requirements for a bribery conviction, thus permitting the jury to convict Mr. Minor for conduct that was neither charged in the indictment nor considered bribery under federal law.
* The District Court committed reversible error when it prevented Mr. Minor from presenting crucial, relevant evidence that would have rebutted the charges. Specifically, Mr. Minor--charged for attempting to bribe Judge Whitfield--was not allowed to show the jury that he did not file his more significant cases in Judge Whitfield's court.
* The District court committed reversible error by not dismissing bribery charges against Mr. Minor because the evidence did not meet threshold of the federal bribery statute and the jury was improperly instructed on this fact.
Statement of Bishop Joe Doss of Free America's Political Prisoners:
It should be abhorrent to every American citizen that a man is forced to remain in prison while--as his appeal brief so clearly shows--there are glaring questions surrounding how this case was investigated, prosecuted and tried.
Paul Minor carries the additional burden of knowing that his wife is dying of cancer and has been given only a short time to live. His unjust incarceration makes it very likely that he will never see her again. Paul's release on bond pending appeal is not only legally justified, but considering the imminent death of his wife Sylvia, it is mandated if this process is to salvage a scintilla of basic human decency.
It stands in direct contrast to everything that this country professes to stand for that Paul Minor has not been allowed to remain free on appeal while the prosecutor who brought the bogus charges against him is himself currently under investigation by the U.S. Congress and the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.
The fact that the prosecutor and his office are being investigated about the origins of this prosecution raises more than enough doubt about the conviction to warrant Paul Minor's immediate release pending a thorough hearing on the legality of the prosecution and the ultimate hearing of Mr. Minor's appeal before the fifth circuit court of appeals.
Are Republicans in Desperation Mode?
Bernard Weiner, co-editor of The Crisis Papers, has one of the most interesting takes on the 2008 presidential election that I've seen.
The Crisis Papers is an anthology of opinion and commentary from the progressive Web.
Weiner points to numerous signs that Republican Party leaders are in desperation mode:
Almost as if they have an uncontrollable death-wish, the Republicans remain locked into a self-destructive separation from the popular will. Either that or they simply are incapable of thinking straight after eight years of sensory-deprivation in the dark CheneyBush spin chamber.
The public in general has moved ahead of the politicians in so many areas: opposing the endless Iraq occupation, tolerant of same-sex relationships, eager to move beyond divisive race politics, desirous of effective regulation of food and product safety, even more supportive of Social Security and Medicare, open to major health-care reform, etc. Yet those in charge of the Republican Party continue to hitch their wagon to the old extremist shibboleths that play well mainly to the fundamentalist and Old South base, which by this time is barely 25% of the electorate.
Can Democrats take advantage of this? Weiner thinks so:
One could make the case that at least a good share of Barack Obama's popularity rests on the public's perception that he is trying to move America away from the extreme rhetoric practiced by both major parties in the past several years and back to a more rational, positive way of conducting politics in the 21st century so that something positive actually can be accomplished in Washington.
Democrats and others who wish to move beyond the extremism of the Bush GOP should be wary. Weiner notes that Karl Rove is more involved in the John McCain campaign than the publicly generally knows:
Rove's theory of how to ruin your opponent goes something like this: It's OK to tell the most outrageous lies about someone, even if those rumors can be countered by actual facts, because you're not after voters necessarily believing what you say. What you want to do is to confuse them over time -- so that eventually they might think where there's smoke, there might well be fire, that type of reasoning. It's propaganda chaff you're dispersing. Some of it will stick and be believed, some of it will simply be ignored, some of it will remain floating out there in peoples' minds. Since most voters don't pay attention all the time, the meme might actually influence what and how they believe and could pay off on Election Day.
Weiner notes just how extreme the right-wing pundit class has become:
Using such national leaders as Cheney, Bush and Rove as role-models (after all, they were able to lie and deceive America into an unnecessary war and occupation), it's not just lies and innuendo and rumor being peddled by the agitprop pundits of the HardRight. Sometimes the activity and speech of the GOP operatives crosses over the line into downright incitement of illegal acts, for which nobody ever is criminally charged, of course. For example, taking off from Ann Coulter's earlier incitements (she said that liberals are "traitors" who deserve to be shot, a Supreme Court justice should be poisoned, the New York Times building should be bombed with the reporters and editors inside it, etc.), two noted conservative pundits in recent weeks seemed to be suggesting that assassination of political opponents was a reasonable political option in the name of victory. Fox News' veteran reporter Liz Trotta recently said: "If it could," the U.S. should "take out" both Barrack Obama and Osama bin Laden. And radio talk-show host Michael Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son) said that an anti-war activist trying to influence U.S. military forces in Iraq should be tied to a post on a firing range and shot by the American troops. In a similar vein, Andy McCarthy at National Review said, in response to the Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo detainees have the right to contest their imprisonment in civilian courts, the U.S. should round up all the detainees there and just slaughter them en masse.
Can we assume the 2008 presidential election will be honestly conducted? Don't count on it, says Weiner?
As everyone understands, there is so much riding on the November election, which, one would think from the early polls, should yield a major defeat for the Republicans. But this assumes that the November election is reasonably honest and that, despite the GOP's voter-suppression maneuvers, Democratic or third-party voters come out in such massive numbers that, seeing the overwhelmingly anti-GOP pre-vote polls and the post-election exit polls, vote-manipulators would not dare fiddle with the tabulations. But if that Democrat/third-party surge doesn't happen and McCain were, say, to take 45% of the actual vote, the mainstream-media spinners could hype the possibility of a GOP victory in key states and the Republican corporations that tabulate the votes with their secret software could surreptitiously make up the needed percentage points for victory. (For more on all this, see Mark Crispin Millers' new book, "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy," and Ernest Partridge's articles "Where's the Outrage?" and "According to Plan?").
Could this be driven by the fears of "loyal Bushies" about what life might be like in the post-Dubya era?
Would Bush & Co. be willing to try something fraudulent like that in November? Aside from the fact that the evidence suggests they already have in previous elections, imagine yourself facing possible criminal indictments and time in the federal slammer, standing in the war-crimes dock at The Hague, and losing all the riches and power you've built up over eight years -- you might be tempted, too.
The Crisis Papers is an anthology of opinion and commentary from the progressive Web.
Weiner points to numerous signs that Republican Party leaders are in desperation mode:
Almost as if they have an uncontrollable death-wish, the Republicans remain locked into a self-destructive separation from the popular will. Either that or they simply are incapable of thinking straight after eight years of sensory-deprivation in the dark CheneyBush spin chamber.
The public in general has moved ahead of the politicians in so many areas: opposing the endless Iraq occupation, tolerant of same-sex relationships, eager to move beyond divisive race politics, desirous of effective regulation of food and product safety, even more supportive of Social Security and Medicare, open to major health-care reform, etc. Yet those in charge of the Republican Party continue to hitch their wagon to the old extremist shibboleths that play well mainly to the fundamentalist and Old South base, which by this time is barely 25% of the electorate.
Can Democrats take advantage of this? Weiner thinks so:
One could make the case that at least a good share of Barack Obama's popularity rests on the public's perception that he is trying to move America away from the extreme rhetoric practiced by both major parties in the past several years and back to a more rational, positive way of conducting politics in the 21st century so that something positive actually can be accomplished in Washington.
Democrats and others who wish to move beyond the extremism of the Bush GOP should be wary. Weiner notes that Karl Rove is more involved in the John McCain campaign than the publicly generally knows:
Rove's theory of how to ruin your opponent goes something like this: It's OK to tell the most outrageous lies about someone, even if those rumors can be countered by actual facts, because you're not after voters necessarily believing what you say. What you want to do is to confuse them over time -- so that eventually they might think where there's smoke, there might well be fire, that type of reasoning. It's propaganda chaff you're dispersing. Some of it will stick and be believed, some of it will simply be ignored, some of it will remain floating out there in peoples' minds. Since most voters don't pay attention all the time, the meme might actually influence what and how they believe and could pay off on Election Day.
Weiner notes just how extreme the right-wing pundit class has become:
Using such national leaders as Cheney, Bush and Rove as role-models (after all, they were able to lie and deceive America into an unnecessary war and occupation), it's not just lies and innuendo and rumor being peddled by the agitprop pundits of the HardRight. Sometimes the activity and speech of the GOP operatives crosses over the line into downright incitement of illegal acts, for which nobody ever is criminally charged, of course. For example, taking off from Ann Coulter's earlier incitements (she said that liberals are "traitors" who deserve to be shot, a Supreme Court justice should be poisoned, the New York Times building should be bombed with the reporters and editors inside it, etc.), two noted conservative pundits in recent weeks seemed to be suggesting that assassination of political opponents was a reasonable political option in the name of victory. Fox News' veteran reporter Liz Trotta recently said: "If it could," the U.S. should "take out" both Barrack Obama and Osama bin Laden. And radio talk-show host Michael Reagan (Ronald Reagan's son) said that an anti-war activist trying to influence U.S. military forces in Iraq should be tied to a post on a firing range and shot by the American troops. In a similar vein, Andy McCarthy at National Review said, in response to the Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo detainees have the right to contest their imprisonment in civilian courts, the U.S. should round up all the detainees there and just slaughter them en masse.
Can we assume the 2008 presidential election will be honestly conducted? Don't count on it, says Weiner?
As everyone understands, there is so much riding on the November election, which, one would think from the early polls, should yield a major defeat for the Republicans. But this assumes that the November election is reasonably honest and that, despite the GOP's voter-suppression maneuvers, Democratic or third-party voters come out in such massive numbers that, seeing the overwhelmingly anti-GOP pre-vote polls and the post-election exit polls, vote-manipulators would not dare fiddle with the tabulations. But if that Democrat/third-party surge doesn't happen and McCain were, say, to take 45% of the actual vote, the mainstream-media spinners could hype the possibility of a GOP victory in key states and the Republican corporations that tabulate the votes with their secret software could surreptitiously make up the needed percentage points for victory. (For more on all this, see Mark Crispin Millers' new book, "Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy," and Ernest Partridge's articles "Where's the Outrage?" and "According to Plan?").
Could this be driven by the fears of "loyal Bushies" about what life might be like in the post-Dubya era?
Would Bush & Co. be willing to try something fraudulent like that in November? Aside from the fact that the evidence suggests they already have in previous elections, imagine yourself facing possible criminal indictments and time in the federal slammer, standing in the war-crimes dock at The Hague, and losing all the riches and power you've built up over eight years -- you might be tempted, too.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Bushies Protect Alabama Attorney With An Unsavory Past
Perhaps the best known victim of the Bush Justice Department is former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was prosecuted on charges that would have to improve considerably to reach the level of "weak."
Siegelman has an unusual perspective on the "loyal Bushies" who have turned our justice system into a sewer. On the one hand, Siegelman is all too familiar with people like himself (Democrats, generally), who have been aggressively prosecuted on charges that are shaky at best and flat-out bogus at worst. This is what some call "selective prosecution."
On the other hand, Siegelman also is familiar with people unlike himself (Republicans of a certain "Bushie" stripe, generally) who have received a free pass for clear wrongdoing. This is what one might call "selective non-prosecution." It is part of what Siegelman calls an "umbrella of protection" that covers those with special ties to the Bush administration.
What kind of person is likely to wind up under the nice, big "umbrella of protection?" Well, I have become intimately familiar with one of them.
His name is William E. Swatek, an atttorney based in Pelham, Alabama. He is the fine chap who filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me some seven years ago, starting a legal nightmare that is still rolling along.
Why does Bill Swatek enjoy the GOP's "umbrella of protection?" It's because his son, Dax Swatek, is a Republican campaign consultant who has worked for Bill Canary, who has close ties to Karl Rove, who . . . well, you get the picture.
Bill Swatek certainly isn't protected because he's a fine and ethical fellow. In fact, I've made frequent references to his almost 30-year history of unethical behavior in the legal profession. Now, we're about to show you exactly what we've been talking about.
Since mere words don't do justice to Bill Swatek's "legacy of sleaze," we are going to turn to the video camera for assistance. First, we have an overview to get us rolling, focusing on steps Swatek has recently taken to essentially steal my house:
Next we have a clip that shows how Bill Swatek has cheated his own clients and how he mysteriously managed to beat a conviction for driving while intoxicated. In one case involving a former client, Swatek actually sued a dead man. (I'm not making this up, folks! I'm not nearly clever enough to come up with that story.)
(To be continued . . . )
Siegelman has an unusual perspective on the "loyal Bushies" who have turned our justice system into a sewer. On the one hand, Siegelman is all too familiar with people like himself (Democrats, generally), who have been aggressively prosecuted on charges that are shaky at best and flat-out bogus at worst. This is what some call "selective prosecution."
On the other hand, Siegelman also is familiar with people unlike himself (Republicans of a certain "Bushie" stripe, generally) who have received a free pass for clear wrongdoing. This is what one might call "selective non-prosecution." It is part of what Siegelman calls an "umbrella of protection" that covers those with special ties to the Bush administration.
What kind of person is likely to wind up under the nice, big "umbrella of protection?" Well, I have become intimately familiar with one of them.
His name is William E. Swatek, an atttorney based in Pelham, Alabama. He is the fine chap who filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me some seven years ago, starting a legal nightmare that is still rolling along.
Why does Bill Swatek enjoy the GOP's "umbrella of protection?" It's because his son, Dax Swatek, is a Republican campaign consultant who has worked for Bill Canary, who has close ties to Karl Rove, who . . . well, you get the picture.
Bill Swatek certainly isn't protected because he's a fine and ethical fellow. In fact, I've made frequent references to his almost 30-year history of unethical behavior in the legal profession. Now, we're about to show you exactly what we've been talking about.
Since mere words don't do justice to Bill Swatek's "legacy of sleaze," we are going to turn to the video camera for assistance. First, we have an overview to get us rolling, focusing on steps Swatek has recently taken to essentially steal my house:
Next we have a clip that shows how Bill Swatek has cheated his own clients and how he mysteriously managed to beat a conviction for driving while intoxicated. In one case involving a former client, Swatek actually sued a dead man. (I'm not making this up, folks! I'm not nearly clever enough to come up with that story.)
(To be continued . . . )
A Corrupt Bushie in Alabama, Part III
By now, Alice Martin surely must have thought she was finished with me. In fact, she probably was thinking, "My conservative Lord, why didn't I go into insurance?"
But she had raised the Schnauzer's ire. And I was ready to hold her right-wing feet to the fire:
----------------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 27, 2007
Ms. Martin:
One final thing: In your Jan. 22 letter, you stated that if I sent a letter providing detailed allegations about wrongdoing I've witnessed, that you would make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.
I think you are fully aware that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service is not the appropriate agency for an investigation involving 18 U.S. Code 1346. The service's own Web site says as much.
As a taxpayer, I help fund your office. And I have a right to expect that you will live up to your duty as stated in your own letter. You told me you would refer my information to the appropriate investigative agency, and now you are refusing to do it.
Maybe you don't understand how serious this matter is. My wife and I are facing repeated calls from a collection law firm because we've struggled to pay our bills since the "public servants" mentioned in my letter essentially stole our discretionary funds and most of our life savings. Does that kind of thing matter to you?
This is clear fraud, and it clearly is not appropriate for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. And you stated that you would handle the referral to an appropriate investigative agency. I have the letter right here in my hand.
Are you going to live up to your word? And by the way, you didn't answer my question: Was the U.S. Postal Inspection Service involved in the Siegelman investigation? If not, why would you expect them to handle an investigation into my 1346 case?
Roger Shuler
-----------------------------------
How did Alice Martin react to my latest missive? The answer is coming up.
(To be continued . . . )
But she had raised the Schnauzer's ire. And I was ready to hold her right-wing feet to the fire:
----------------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 27, 2007
Ms. Martin:
One final thing: In your Jan. 22 letter, you stated that if I sent a letter providing detailed allegations about wrongdoing I've witnessed, that you would make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.
I think you are fully aware that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service is not the appropriate agency for an investigation involving 18 U.S. Code 1346. The service's own Web site says as much.
As a taxpayer, I help fund your office. And I have a right to expect that you will live up to your duty as stated in your own letter. You told me you would refer my information to the appropriate investigative agency, and now you are refusing to do it.
Maybe you don't understand how serious this matter is. My wife and I are facing repeated calls from a collection law firm because we've struggled to pay our bills since the "public servants" mentioned in my letter essentially stole our discretionary funds and most of our life savings. Does that kind of thing matter to you?
This is clear fraud, and it clearly is not appropriate for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. And you stated that you would handle the referral to an appropriate investigative agency. I have the letter right here in my hand.
Are you going to live up to your word? And by the way, you didn't answer my question: Was the U.S. Postal Inspection Service involved in the Siegelman investigation? If not, why would you expect them to handle an investigation into my 1346 case?
Roger Shuler
-----------------------------------
How did Alice Martin react to my latest missive? The answer is coming up.
(To be continued . . . )
Blogger Sued for $25 million
A real-estate blogger in Miami, Florida, has been sued for $25 million by a condominium developer.
This appears to be the case of a struggling businessman, in a down real-estate market, trying to blame his problems on a blogger.
Lucas Lechuga, who worked for the Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell (EWM) real-estate firm, was sued by Tibor Hollo, who heads the Opera Tower development.
Lechuga published a blog, Miami Condo Investments, which said Hollo had gone bankrupt in the 1980s, the development company was delaying closings on the condo project, and the project was likely to have a "high default rate." The statement regarding Hollo's bankruptcy evidently was false, and the developer alleges that it is defamatory.
The blogging community has rallied around Lechuga, with one blogger noting that the lawsuit has brought Hollo far more negative publicity than the post ever did.
A CBS newscast about the case can be viewed here.
This appears to be the case of a struggling businessman, in a down real-estate market, trying to blame his problems on a blogger.
Lucas Lechuga, who worked for the Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell (EWM) real-estate firm, was sued by Tibor Hollo, who heads the Opera Tower development.
Lechuga published a blog, Miami Condo Investments, which said Hollo had gone bankrupt in the 1980s, the development company was delaying closings on the condo project, and the project was likely to have a "high default rate." The statement regarding Hollo's bankruptcy evidently was false, and the developer alleges that it is defamatory.
You would think that demanding a retraction might be a simple way to handle such a problem. But Hollo decided, "Why do that when I can file a $25-million lawsuit?"
Wonder if Hollo's approach has anything to do with the fact that EWM is owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Methinks someone smells deep pockets.
EWM, for its part, fired Lechuga and distanced itself from his comments.
You can check out Lechuga's post about the lawsuit here.The blogging community has rallied around Lechuga, with one blogger noting that the lawsuit has brought Hollo far more negative publicity than the post ever did.
A CBS newscast about the case can be viewed here.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Bill Swatek: A Portrait of Alabama Sleaze in the Age of Rove
I, of all people, should not be surprised by any corrupt act committed by Alabama attorney William E. Swatek. But I must confess that even I was somewhat taken aback by Swatek's most recent gambit.
Bill Swatek is the greaseball lawyer who filed a bogus lawsuit against me some seven years ago, leading to all kinds of legal headaches and to the blog you are now reading.
Swatek has an almost 30-year history of unethical activities in the "practice" of law (much more on that coming up soon). But he is not just any corrupt lawyer. No, Bill Swatek practices a special kind of corruption--the kind that is covered by what former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman calls an "umbrella of protection" from the Bush Justice Department.
Why is Bill Swatek special? Because he has family ties that run right up to the doorstep of the Bush White House--and certainly to the inner workings of the Bush DOJ.
Those ties come courtesy of Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, a GOP "consultant" based in Montgomery, Alabama. Dax Swatek has served as campaign consultant for Governor Bob Riley (2006) and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin (2000) (when she ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals--and lost). But perhaps more importantly, Dax Swatek once worked for, and remains a close associate of, Alabama GOP operative Bill Canary.
That's the same Bill Canary who, thanks to Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, was reported to have said on a conference phone call that "his girls" (Alice Martin and fellow U.S. attorney Leura Canary, Bill's wife) would "take care of" Don Siegelman. That's the same Bill Canary who, according to Simpson, already had the deal worked out with "Karl." That would be Karl Rove, who worked with Canary in the 1990s to turn Alabama state courts into a Republican playground. Rove, in fact, made his national reputation in Alabama before going on to become "Bush's Brain."
So the family tree of sleaze goes like this--Bill Swatek>Dax Swatek>Bill Canary>Karl Rove>George W. Bush.
And all along, you thought the case at the heart of this blog was about some Alabama goober (me) who didn't like the way he was treated in court. In reality, this is one Alabama goober who has come face to face with Justice-Department corruption in the Age of Rove. And I want to make sure Legal Schnauzer followers can read all about it.
So, what is Swatek's most recent gambit? It dates back to the "auction" of our house (actually, my portion of the house, which is co-owned by Mrs. Schnauzer). We reported on that auction, live and in color, and you can check out all the action here.
The normal byproduct of a legitimate sheriff's sale is a document called a sheriff's deed. But as we've reported earlier, nothing about this "sheriff's sale" was legitimate. How was it illegitimate? Let me count the ways:
* The underlying judgment was unlawful and reached via unconstitutional means
* The writ of execution, which precipitated the sheriff's sale, did not include a written notice of my right to claim exemptions (as is required by law).
* Public records indicate that Swatek never bothered to file a certificate of judgment in probate court, so there was no judgment lien on our property. No one's rights to my share of my property can attach without a judgment lien. And no legitimate sheriff's sale can take place without a judgment lien.
* I filed a notarized claim of exemption, which by law, put a stay on the sheriff's sale. That stay, by law, was in place until the opposing party filed a contest. In this case, the opposing party (Swatek and his criminally inclined client, Mike McGarity) never filed a contest.
* With no contest being filed, my claim of exemption must be upheld as uncontroverted--and the sheriff's sale is off, permanently.
In other words, by law, my share of my house remains totally mine. But the real law does not apply to Bill Swatek in Shelby County, Alabama. And that's evidently why he felt free to seek a sheriff's deed on my property. And that's evidently why Sheriff Chris Curry felt free to sign it, under oath--violating no telling how many laws, both criminally and civilly.
At this point, I should rephrase the statement in the opening paragraph. I'm never taken aback by anything Bill Swatek might do. I know his history too well (more on that coming very soon--I promise). But I guess I was mildly surprised that Chris Curry would so blatantly violate the law--almost certainly committing honest-services wire and mail fraud in the process. Curry is, after all, the sheriff, and you might expect him to have at least a modicum of respect for the law.
But hey, this is Shelby County, Alabama, where up is down, down is up, left is right (actually, everything is right, way right).
If you would like to check out Bill Swatek's little sheriff's deed, indicating that he owns a portion of my home, you can see it here. Just click on "view image" to see the actual deed.
I want to put this example of Republican corruption in perspective, but it seems that words alone simply do not do justice to Bill Swatek's brand of sleaze. So we are going to return to the videotape.
Please join me on this video blog (vlog) as we illustrate just what Bill Swatek is all about.
(To be continued . . . )
Bill Swatek is the greaseball lawyer who filed a bogus lawsuit against me some seven years ago, leading to all kinds of legal headaches and to the blog you are now reading.
Swatek has an almost 30-year history of unethical activities in the "practice" of law (much more on that coming up soon). But he is not just any corrupt lawyer. No, Bill Swatek practices a special kind of corruption--the kind that is covered by what former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman calls an "umbrella of protection" from the Bush Justice Department.
Why is Bill Swatek special? Because he has family ties that run right up to the doorstep of the Bush White House--and certainly to the inner workings of the Bush DOJ.
Those ties come courtesy of Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, a GOP "consultant" based in Montgomery, Alabama. Dax Swatek has served as campaign consultant for Governor Bob Riley (2006) and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin (2000) (when she ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals--and lost). But perhaps more importantly, Dax Swatek once worked for, and remains a close associate of, Alabama GOP operative Bill Canary.
That's the same Bill Canary who, thanks to Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, was reported to have said on a conference phone call that "his girls" (Alice Martin and fellow U.S. attorney Leura Canary, Bill's wife) would "take care of" Don Siegelman. That's the same Bill Canary who, according to Simpson, already had the deal worked out with "Karl." That would be Karl Rove, who worked with Canary in the 1990s to turn Alabama state courts into a Republican playground. Rove, in fact, made his national reputation in Alabama before going on to become "Bush's Brain."
So the family tree of sleaze goes like this--Bill Swatek>Dax Swatek>Bill Canary>Karl Rove>George W. Bush.
And all along, you thought the case at the heart of this blog was about some Alabama goober (me) who didn't like the way he was treated in court. In reality, this is one Alabama goober who has come face to face with Justice-Department corruption in the Age of Rove. And I want to make sure Legal Schnauzer followers can read all about it.
So, what is Swatek's most recent gambit? It dates back to the "auction" of our house (actually, my portion of the house, which is co-owned by Mrs. Schnauzer). We reported on that auction, live and in color, and you can check out all the action here.
The normal byproduct of a legitimate sheriff's sale is a document called a sheriff's deed. But as we've reported earlier, nothing about this "sheriff's sale" was legitimate. How was it illegitimate? Let me count the ways:
* The underlying judgment was unlawful and reached via unconstitutional means
* The writ of execution, which precipitated the sheriff's sale, did not include a written notice of my right to claim exemptions (as is required by law).
* Public records indicate that Swatek never bothered to file a certificate of judgment in probate court, so there was no judgment lien on our property. No one's rights to my share of my property can attach without a judgment lien. And no legitimate sheriff's sale can take place without a judgment lien.
* I filed a notarized claim of exemption, which by law, put a stay on the sheriff's sale. That stay, by law, was in place until the opposing party filed a contest. In this case, the opposing party (Swatek and his criminally inclined client, Mike McGarity) never filed a contest.
* With no contest being filed, my claim of exemption must be upheld as uncontroverted--and the sheriff's sale is off, permanently.
In other words, by law, my share of my house remains totally mine. But the real law does not apply to Bill Swatek in Shelby County, Alabama. And that's evidently why he felt free to seek a sheriff's deed on my property. And that's evidently why Sheriff Chris Curry felt free to sign it, under oath--violating no telling how many laws, both criminally and civilly.
At this point, I should rephrase the statement in the opening paragraph. I'm never taken aback by anything Bill Swatek might do. I know his history too well (more on that coming very soon--I promise). But I guess I was mildly surprised that Chris Curry would so blatantly violate the law--almost certainly committing honest-services wire and mail fraud in the process. Curry is, after all, the sheriff, and you might expect him to have at least a modicum of respect for the law.
But hey, this is Shelby County, Alabama, where up is down, down is up, left is right (actually, everything is right, way right).
If you would like to check out Bill Swatek's little sheriff's deed, indicating that he owns a portion of my home, you can see it here. Just click on "view image" to see the actual deed.
I want to put this example of Republican corruption in perspective, but it seems that words alone simply do not do justice to Bill Swatek's brand of sleaze. So we are going to return to the videotape.
Please join me on this video blog (vlog) as we illustrate just what Bill Swatek is all about.
(To be continued . . . )
A Corrupt Bushie in Alabama, Part II
How did Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, react when I made it clear that her little gambit regarding the U.S. Postal Inspection Service had not worked?
Not real well, I'm afraid.
I had noted that the FBI's white-collar crime unit clearly appeared to be the appropriate investigative agency for my allegations, and you can read Ms. Martin's response below. I detect a certain hint of "get lost, you frickin' liberal!" in her reply:
-------------------------------
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 27, 2007
Then you can directly refer it to them, and there is no further need to write me.
------------------------------
Sounds like our dedicated public servant has grown weary of dealing with a certain member of the public--namely, me. But she hasn't run me off yet:
------------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 27, 2007
To whom should I refer it at the FBI?
-------------------------------
Ms. Martin's response is to the point:
-------------------------------
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 27, 2007
Special Agent in Charge, Carmen S. Adams
------------------------------
That would be the same Carmen S. Adams I copied on my snail-mail letters to Alice Martin--and from whom I've never heard a peep.
That would also be the Carmen S. Adams who is a member of the famed FBI, which states on its Web site that public corruption is one of its top priorities. This would be the same FBI to which I sent a detailed account of public corruption--on the bureau's special Web page for sending such accounts--and never heard a word in response. This would be the same FBI at which I left multiple voice messages at the white-collar crime unit in its Birmingham office and received, oh, zero responses.
Gee, I can only imagine how lax the famed bureau's response would have been if public corruption didn't matter so much to them.
By pawning me off on the infamously silent and mysterious Carmen S. Adams, Alice Martin must have thought she surely had me out of her hair.
Well, not so fast, Ms. U.S. Attorney. The Legal Schnauzer isn't through with you yet.
(To be continued . . . )
Not real well, I'm afraid.
I had noted that the FBI's white-collar crime unit clearly appeared to be the appropriate investigative agency for my allegations, and you can read Ms. Martin's response below. I detect a certain hint of "get lost, you frickin' liberal!" in her reply:
-------------------------------
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 27, 2007
Then you can directly refer it to them, and there is no further need to write me.
------------------------------
Sounds like our dedicated public servant has grown weary of dealing with a certain member of the public--namely, me. But she hasn't run me off yet:
------------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 27, 2007
To whom should I refer it at the FBI?
-------------------------------
Ms. Martin's response is to the point:
-------------------------------
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 27, 2007
Special Agent in Charge, Carmen S. Adams
------------------------------
That would be the same Carmen S. Adams I copied on my snail-mail letters to Alice Martin--and from whom I've never heard a peep.
That would also be the Carmen S. Adams who is a member of the famed FBI, which states on its Web site that public corruption is one of its top priorities. This would be the same FBI to which I sent a detailed account of public corruption--on the bureau's special Web page for sending such accounts--and never heard a word in response. This would be the same FBI at which I left multiple voice messages at the white-collar crime unit in its Birmingham office and received, oh, zero responses.
Gee, I can only imagine how lax the famed bureau's response would have been if public corruption didn't matter so much to them.
By pawning me off on the infamously silent and mysterious Carmen S. Adams, Alice Martin must have thought she surely had me out of her hair.
Well, not so fast, Ms. U.S. Attorney. The Legal Schnauzer isn't through with you yet.
(To be continued . . . )
Alice Martin Receives Much-Deserved Scrutiny
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is used to targeting "crooks" and putting them on the hot seat.
But these days, Martin herself is on the hot seat. And more and more, the question is being raised: Is north Alabama's chief federal prosecutor a crook?
Television station WHNT in Huntsville is staying on top of the story, covering yesterday's hearing before U.S. Judge Inge Johnson. The closed hearing was to focus on Martin's behavior in prosecuting Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi.
It appears that Latifi will receive some $360,000 to compensate him for the expenses he incurred in defending a case that evidently was not grounded in fact or law.
Specifics about what, if any, disciplinary action might be taken against Martin are still to be learned. But WHNT reporter Greg Privett does a solid job of laying out the details behind Latifi's highly questionable prosecution.
You can check out Privett's piece by clicking here and going to the video titled "Where's the Justice: Bad Prosecution?"
But these days, Martin herself is on the hot seat. And more and more, the question is being raised: Is north Alabama's chief federal prosecutor a crook?
Television station WHNT in Huntsville is staying on top of the story, covering yesterday's hearing before U.S. Judge Inge Johnson. The closed hearing was to focus on Martin's behavior in prosecuting Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi.
It appears that Latifi will receive some $360,000 to compensate him for the expenses he incurred in defending a case that evidently was not grounded in fact or law.
Specifics about what, if any, disciplinary action might be taken against Martin are still to be learned. But WHNT reporter Greg Privett does a solid job of laying out the details behind Latifi's highly questionable prosecution.
You can check out Privett's piece by clicking here and going to the video titled "Where's the Justice: Bad Prosecution?"
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A Corrupt Bushie in Alabama
Let's return to the play-by-play account of my e-mail encounter with Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the first federal prosecutor to go after former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
In the most recent post in our "Malice of Alice" series, we showed how Martin had sent my allegations of wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama state courts (and an attorney with family ties to Karl Rove) to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
We followed that with a summary of the ground we've covered in our series that shows the slippery ways in which Alice Martin conducts her prosecutorial duties.
Now let's return to my one-on-one e-mail encounter with Alice Martin. Ms. Martin has just informed me that she has sent my allegations to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and followed up with a brief explanation as to why she sent my information to said agency.
My guess is that Ms. Martin hit the send key on her computer and thought, "Surely to God this will get rid of this pest."
If that was her thought, she was wrong about that--as we are about to see. Martin's explanation only raised the curiosity for which we schnauzers are known. So I responded with this e-mail:
---------------------------------------
From: Roger Shuler
To: Alice Martin
Date: July 27, 2007
Here is what I don't understand. My letter to you, I think, makes it clear that this is a case about fraud and white-collar crime. It's only mail fraud because the U.S. mails were repeatedly used in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. The main crime is fraud, by white-collar professionals, with the mail being a secondary component.
As I noted in my two letters to you, this involves violation of 18 U.S. Code 1346, honest services mail fraud. In checking the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Web site, it does not appear that they are even authorized to investigate 1346 violations. Here is a link to their jurisdiction page:
http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/jurislaw.htm
Under mail fraud, the service states that it primarily investigates various forms of consumer fraud, especially as it pertains to the elderly. My case has nothing to do with consumer fraud, and I'm not elderly (at least not yet).
The case I described in my letter is similar in many respects to the case for which former Governor Don Siegelman recently was tried and convicted in Montgomery. About 20 of the 30-some counts against Mr.Siegelman involved honest services mail fraud. Did the U.S. Postal Inspection Service lead that investigation? If so, I certainly was not aware of it.
An important point: Honest services mail fraud is only one of several possible crimes here. An investigation probably would uncover evidence of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, RICO violations, and who knows what else. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service would be capable of handling such an investigation.
I ask that this case be handled by the proper investigative body. I don't see how that can be anyone other than the FBI's white-collar crime unit.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
-----------------------------------------
(To be continued . . . )
In the most recent post in our "Malice of Alice" series, we showed how Martin had sent my allegations of wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama state courts (and an attorney with family ties to Karl Rove) to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
We followed that with a summary of the ground we've covered in our series that shows the slippery ways in which Alice Martin conducts her prosecutorial duties.
Now let's return to my one-on-one e-mail encounter with Alice Martin. Ms. Martin has just informed me that she has sent my allegations to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and followed up with a brief explanation as to why she sent my information to said agency.
My guess is that Ms. Martin hit the send key on her computer and thought, "Surely to God this will get rid of this pest."
If that was her thought, she was wrong about that--as we are about to see. Martin's explanation only raised the curiosity for which we schnauzers are known. So I responded with this e-mail:
---------------------------------------
From: Roger Shuler
To: Alice Martin
Date: July 27, 2007
Here is what I don't understand. My letter to you, I think, makes it clear that this is a case about fraud and white-collar crime. It's only mail fraud because the U.S. mails were repeatedly used in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. The main crime is fraud, by white-collar professionals, with the mail being a secondary component.
As I noted in my two letters to you, this involves violation of 18 U.S. Code 1346, honest services mail fraud. In checking the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Web site, it does not appear that they are even authorized to investigate 1346 violations. Here is a link to their jurisdiction page:
http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/jurislaw.htm
Under mail fraud, the service states that it primarily investigates various forms of consumer fraud, especially as it pertains to the elderly. My case has nothing to do with consumer fraud, and I'm not elderly (at least not yet).
The case I described in my letter is similar in many respects to the case for which former Governor Don Siegelman recently was tried and convicted in Montgomery. About 20 of the 30-some counts against Mr.Siegelman involved honest services mail fraud. Did the U.S. Postal Inspection Service lead that investigation? If so, I certainly was not aware of it.
An important point: Honest services mail fraud is only one of several possible crimes here. An investigation probably would uncover evidence of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, RICO violations, and who knows what else. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service would be capable of handling such an investigation.
I ask that this case be handled by the proper investigative body. I don't see how that can be anyone other than the FBI's white-collar crime unit.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
-----------------------------------------
(To be continued . . . )
Huntsville TV Station Keeps Siegelman Story Out Front
Most Alabama daily news outlets have been stunningly quiet when it comes to coverage of possible corruption in the Bush Justice Department.
But WHNT in Huntsville is providing its viewers with some real journalism on the subject. A WHNT report last night noted that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is the subject of an internal Justice Department probe. And reporter Jamie McGriff interviewed Martin about allegations that prosecutions of former Governor Don Siegelman were politically motivated.
You can check out the WHNT story here. You can see video of the story by clicking here and then clicking on "U.S. Attorney Alice Martin talks."
Martin, naturally, denies that the Siegelman prosecutions were politically motivated. But I hope WHNT reporters, and Alabama citizens, will keep this in mind: Alice Martin has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts.
She did it when she ran in 2000 for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
She did it when she clearly lied under oath in an employment-related lawsuit.
And she did it to me when I reported to her clear wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. This wrongdoing also involved an attorney with ties to Karl Rove and the Bush White House through his son Dax Swatek, who just happens to have served as Alice Martin's campaign manager in 2000.
We have much more coming on our personal experience with Alice Martin's slippery ways.
But WHNT in Huntsville is providing its viewers with some real journalism on the subject. A WHNT report last night noted that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is the subject of an internal Justice Department probe. And reporter Jamie McGriff interviewed Martin about allegations that prosecutions of former Governor Don Siegelman were politically motivated.
You can check out the WHNT story here. You can see video of the story by clicking here and then clicking on "U.S. Attorney Alice Martin talks."
Martin, naturally, denies that the Siegelman prosecutions were politically motivated. But I hope WHNT reporters, and Alabama citizens, will keep this in mind: Alice Martin has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts.
She did it when she ran in 2000 for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.
She did it when she clearly lied under oath in an employment-related lawsuit.
And she did it to me when I reported to her clear wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. This wrongdoing also involved an attorney with ties to Karl Rove and the Bush White House through his son Dax Swatek, who just happens to have served as Alice Martin's campaign manager in 2000.
We have much more coming on our personal experience with Alice Martin's slippery ways.
Temperature is Rising on U.S. Attorneys
Our old friend Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, is back in cyberspace today, and he has some interesting information.
First, Horton notes that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is in federal court this morning to answer questions about her handling (manhandling?) of the Axion/Latifi case in Huntsville. You can get a refresher on the Axion/Latifi case here.
First, Horton notes that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is in federal court this morning to answer questions about her handling (manhandling?) of the Axion/Latifi case in Huntsville. You can get a refresher on the Axion/Latifi case here.
Here are Horton's thoughts about Martin's actions in the case:
Alice Martin is scheduled to appear this morning before Judge Inge Johnson, where she will face questions about her prosecution of the Axion/Latifi case. In particular, Judge Johnson has directly questioned whether Martin knowingly prosecuted persons she knew to be innocent for political reasons. To which the answer is an unequivocal "yes." Indeed, there is solid evidence of racist motive in the process as well. Should be quite a spectacle.
Alice says this is about "crime and crooks." Actually her job is about justice, though she seems incapable of understanding that. "Crime and crooks" reflects very accurately her pattern of prejudging everything, and of believing that anyone who opposes her, indeed anyone who's a Democrat is "corrupt" and a "crook." But is there any more corrupt and crooked person in public office than Alice Martin? I doubt it. Her office has been transformed under her leadership into the state's central bastion of corruption and abuse of power.
That is powerful language, and as usual, Horton is right on target. In fact, we are doing our best here at Legal Schnauzer to add to the growing body of evidence pointing to corruption in Alice Martin's office. Our most recent posting on the subject, from yesterday, can be read here. We have more coming later today.
Horton also has more today. In a post at his No Comment blog, Horton notes that the U.S. attorneys case now has officially moved beyond the investigation phase. A grand-jury referral in a case involving possible perjury by former Kansas City, Missouri, U.S. attorney Bradley Schlozman indicates a move toward the criminal-prosecution phase.
Schlozman was a blatantly partisan figure, Horton reports, but his case is only the beginning. Horton's sources say the most compelling cases, so far, linking Justice Department officials to possible criminal conduct come in New Mexico and California. Horton encourages us to stay tuned on those.
And what about Alabama, where this scandal has much of its roots? We will stay tuned for that, as well.
Monday, June 16, 2008
New York Times Weighs in on Siegelman Appeal
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals should take a skeptical view of the government's prosecution and conviction in the Don Siegelman case, according to an editorial in today's New York Times.
The Times notes that federal bribery statutes must be used carefully. Clearly, the paper states, the law requires an explicit quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. And The Times says the prosecution clearly did not meet that "something for something" standard in the case involving Siegelman, Alabama's former Democratic governor, and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
In addition to saying the appellate court should look skeptically at the Siegelman/Scrushy conviction, The Times says Congress should compel former White House strategist Karl Rove to testify and it should continue to investigate what role might have played in the Siegelman case and other dubious prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department.
The Times notes that federal bribery statutes must be used carefully. Clearly, the paper states, the law requires an explicit quid pro quo for a bribery conviction. And The Times says the prosecution clearly did not meet that "something for something" standard in the case involving Siegelman, Alabama's former Democratic governor, and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
In addition to saying the appellate court should look skeptically at the Siegelman/Scrushy conviction, The Times says Congress should compel former White House strategist Karl Rove to testify and it should continue to investigate what role might have played in the Siegelman case and other dubious prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department.
How A Corrupt "Bushie" Operates in Alabama
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the first prosecutor to go after former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, stepped in some serious doo-doo in a recent post, and we are going to show you why.
But before we do that, let's review what we've learned in our "Malice of Alice" series.
First, we provide background on my attempts to tell Martin about judicial corruption I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts and an attorney with family ties to Karl Rove and the Bush Administration.
But regardless of whether the DOJ ever does anything about it or not, Legal Schnauzer readers are going to know the truth: Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, undoubtedly, blatantly, and corruptly practices political prosecution.
And how does she do it? By sending citizen complaints to the wrong investigative agency and then lying to the citizen about it.
How do we know that Alice Martin lied to us?
Remember the fourth paragraph of my second snail-mail letter to Martin:
I allege, and an investigation will show, that the individuals noted below conspired to commit mail and wire fraud, depriving the citizens of Alabama of their intangible right to honest services under 18 U.S. Code 1346. Because the limitations period begins to run after the last overt act in furtherance of the main goals of a conspiracy (United States v. Fletcher, 928 F.2d 495), all of these acts fall within the five-year mail fraud statute of limitations.
It could not have been more clear: This was about honest-services mail fraud, which is covered under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This is fraud that involves public corruption, and it is distinct from consumer mail fraud, which is covered under other statutes.
But Alice Martin, like the vast majority of lawyers I've encountered, thinks regular citizens are stupid. She figured she could pull one over on me because I don't have J.D. after my name.
Well, Martin is in for a surprise. Because I'm about to use her own words to show that she is a corrupt public official--probably far more corrupt than anyone she has ever investigated.
Just how corrupt, and brazen, is Alice Martin. Recall in her previous e-mail that she said it was "standard procedure" for a complaint alleging honest-services mail fraud to go to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
So being the inquisitive Schnauzer that I am, I thought to myself, "I wonder if that's how it was done in the Don Siegelman cases.?"
I turned initially to the first Siegelman case, the one Martin brought in the Northern District of Alabama. That case, however, was not of much help. It involved Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo and the primary allegations were for conspiracy, health care fraud, and program fraud. Honest-services mail fraud was not a factor.
So I turned to the second Siegelman case, the one Leura Canary brought in the Middle District of Alabama. That's the case in which Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy were convicted, and the primary charges were racketeering, bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and honest-services mail and wire fraud.
In the end, roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and Scrushy involved honest-services mail fraud. So this was the perfect case to check and see if Alice Martin was telling us the truth.
And what do we learn? Well, consider the last paragraph of the press release (dated October 26, 2005) about the indictment:
The indictment is the result of a joint investigation initiated by federal and state authorities in early 2001 into numerous alleged improprieties in the Siegelman administration. The federal case is being prosecuted by Louis V. Franklin, Sr., the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in this case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Feaga and J.B. Perrine; Trial Attorney Richard Pilger of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, which is headed by Section Chief Noel L. Hillman; and Assistant Attorney General Joseph Fitzpatrick for the State of Alabama, who is also cross-designated as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for this case. The investigation was conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and agents from the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, with assistance from the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.
But before we do that, let's review what we've learned in our "Malice of Alice" series.
First, we provide background on my attempts to tell Martin about judicial corruption I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts and an attorney with family ties to Karl Rove and the Bush Administration.
Then, we show how Martin sent my allegations to a most curious place for investigation--the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which does not even have jurisdiction to investigate the kinds of crimes I was alleging.
Then, we present Martin's explanation for sending my allegations to the postal inspection service.
Now, we're about to show you how and why Martin has stepped in some serious doo-doo.
But first, let me rephrase that statement: If we ever actually have an honest Department of Justice in our lifetimes, Alice Martin has stepped in serious doo-doo. On the other hand, if the DOJ continues to be run by the Alberto Gonzalezes and Michael Mukaseys of the world, Martin doesn't have a thing to worry about.
As Don Siegelman would say, she's got an "umbrella of protection" to keep her out of harm's way.But regardless of whether the DOJ ever does anything about it or not, Legal Schnauzer readers are going to know the truth: Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, undoubtedly, blatantly, and corruptly practices political prosecution.
And how does she do it? By sending citizen complaints to the wrong investigative agency and then lying to the citizen about it.
How do we know that Alice Martin lied to us?
Remember the fourth paragraph of my second snail-mail letter to Martin:
I allege, and an investigation will show, that the individuals noted below conspired to commit mail and wire fraud, depriving the citizens of Alabama of their intangible right to honest services under 18 U.S. Code 1346. Because the limitations period begins to run after the last overt act in furtherance of the main goals of a conspiracy (United States v. Fletcher, 928 F.2d 495), all of these acts fall within the five-year mail fraud statute of limitations.
It could not have been more clear: This was about honest-services mail fraud, which is covered under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This is fraud that involves public corruption, and it is distinct from consumer mail fraud, which is covered under other statutes.
But Alice Martin, like the vast majority of lawyers I've encountered, thinks regular citizens are stupid. She figured she could pull one over on me because I don't have J.D. after my name.
Well, Martin is in for a surprise. Because I'm about to use her own words to show that she is a corrupt public official--probably far more corrupt than anyone she has ever investigated.
Just how corrupt, and brazen, is Alice Martin. Recall in her previous e-mail that she said it was "standard procedure" for a complaint alleging honest-services mail fraud to go to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
So being the inquisitive Schnauzer that I am, I thought to myself, "I wonder if that's how it was done in the Don Siegelman cases.?"
I turned initially to the first Siegelman case, the one Martin brought in the Northern District of Alabama. That case, however, was not of much help. It involved Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo and the primary allegations were for conspiracy, health care fraud, and program fraud. Honest-services mail fraud was not a factor.
So I turned to the second Siegelman case, the one Leura Canary brought in the Middle District of Alabama. That's the case in which Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy were convicted, and the primary charges were racketeering, bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and honest-services mail and wire fraud.
In the end, roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and Scrushy involved honest-services mail fraud. So this was the perfect case to check and see if Alice Martin was telling us the truth.
And what do we learn? Well, consider the last paragraph of the press release (dated October 26, 2005) about the indictment:
The indictment is the result of a joint investigation initiated by federal and state authorities in early 2001 into numerous alleged improprieties in the Siegelman administration. The federal case is being prosecuted by Louis V. Franklin, Sr., the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in this case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Feaga and J.B. Perrine; Trial Attorney Richard Pilger of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, which is headed by Section Chief Noel L. Hillman; and Assistant Attorney General Joseph Fitzpatrick for the State of Alabama, who is also cross-designated as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for this case. The investigation was conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and agents from the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, with assistance from the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.
The last paragraph tells us who conducted the investigation. Do you see any mention of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service? I don't either.
So is it "standard procedure," as Alice Martin had told us, to have the U.S. Postal Inspection Service lead an investigation involving honest-services mail fraud?
Alice Martin's own press release tells us it is not. Alice Martin's own press release proves conclusively that Alice Martin is a corrupt U.S. attorney--one who intentionally sends criminal complaints to the wrong investigative agency and then lies to the public about it.
And our paper trail on Alice Martin is just beginning.
(To be continued)
Lawyers Gone Wild
Many folks go through life and never have the "privilege" of seeing goofball lawyers in action. Unfortunately, I haven't been one of those people.
So a recent video of lawyers about to get into a fight during a deposition certainly caught my eye. I always want to take advantage of any opportunity to make lawyers look good. So let's check out these "officers of the court" in action.
Based on the accents in the video, I would say this video was taken somewhere in the South. That makes it even better.
So a recent video of lawyers about to get into a fight during a deposition certainly caught my eye. I always want to take advantage of any opportunity to make lawyers look good. So let's check out these "officers of the court" in action.
Based on the accents in the video, I would say this video was taken somewhere in the South. That makes it even better.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Alice Martin's Blinders Are Firmly in Place
Folks who love horses surely are familiar with the term "blinders" or "blinkers." They are devices that are applied to racehorses, restricting their vision and forcing them to focus on what is ahead as opposed to distractions such as a crowd.
Blinders also can come in mighty handy for a U.S. attorney. Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is a prime example.
Several weeks back, Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported that Martin had secured 10 indictments of Democratic political figures and their allies. Her idea was to keep the indictments under seal, with plans to release them drop by drop in order to boost the efforts of her Republican compadres to take control of the Alabama Legislature.
The first of Martin's indictments to be released was for Sue Schmitz, a retired 63-year-old school teacher who also serves as a Democrat in the state legislature. At the time of Schmitz arrest, Horton reported that the charge against Schmitz appeared to be a novel crime: school teacher underperforms lesson plan.
This is just one of dozens of politically inspired "public integrity" cases the Bush Justice Department has concocted around the country. But then Horton raised a key issue:
And then let’s look at the flip side: the enormous number of serious crimes which go uninvestigated and uncharged because of an official but unannounced Justice Department policy: “We don’t care.”
Horton pointed to just such a crime that appears to be going unpunished. It involves 38 cases of serious assault or rape involving women working as contractors in Iraq in support of the U.S. military mission there.
How has the Justice Department responded to these crimes?
The Justice Department has adopted a policy of official indifference. It could care less about crimes that occur involving contractors in Iraq, they just don’t matter. Note, it doesn’t matter the nature of the crime. This applies equally to murders, serious assaults, rapes and other crimes. For some reason a murder or the gang rape of a young woman from Houston is far less interesting than prosecuting a 63-year-old social studies teacher who made the fatal error of standing for the legislature as a Democrat.
Then Horton made a statement that gets to the heart of upcoming posts here at Legal Schnauzer:
My suspicion is that the attitude of official indifference is just as corrupt and political in its nature as the political prosecutions. . . . The Justice Department’s failing is not just that it abuses its resources for political schemes. It also neglects its core law-enforcement mission with respect to serious crime. Is there any way to correct this short of a sweeping replacement of personnel? That would be up to Michael Mukasey.
This is precisely what I've experienced when I've tried to bring serious crimes, committed by Alabama state judges, to the attention of the Justice Department. Specifically, I've provided Alice Martin with detailed information about these crimes, which undercut the very bedrock of our state's justice system. But she doesn't want to hear about them.
They involve wrongdoing by Republicans, and it all would reflect very badly on the father of her former campaign manager, Dax Swatek. So these serious crimes--honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy, probably more--go unpunished.
But teacher "underperforms her lesson plan?" Now, Alice Martin can sink her teeth into that, particularly when the teacher is a Democratic member of the state legislature.
We will return shortly to the specific allegations I brought to Alice Martin's attention--and how she sent them to a cold, dark place to never see the light of day.
Blinders also can come in mighty handy for a U.S. attorney. Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is a prime example.
Several weeks back, Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported that Martin had secured 10 indictments of Democratic political figures and their allies. Her idea was to keep the indictments under seal, with plans to release them drop by drop in order to boost the efforts of her Republican compadres to take control of the Alabama Legislature.
The first of Martin's indictments to be released was for Sue Schmitz, a retired 63-year-old school teacher who also serves as a Democrat in the state legislature. At the time of Schmitz arrest, Horton reported that the charge against Schmitz appeared to be a novel crime: school teacher underperforms lesson plan.
This is just one of dozens of politically inspired "public integrity" cases the Bush Justice Department has concocted around the country. But then Horton raised a key issue:
And then let’s look at the flip side: the enormous number of serious crimes which go uninvestigated and uncharged because of an official but unannounced Justice Department policy: “We don’t care.”
Horton pointed to just such a crime that appears to be going unpunished. It involves 38 cases of serious assault or rape involving women working as contractors in Iraq in support of the U.S. military mission there.
How has the Justice Department responded to these crimes?
The Justice Department has adopted a policy of official indifference. It could care less about crimes that occur involving contractors in Iraq, they just don’t matter. Note, it doesn’t matter the nature of the crime. This applies equally to murders, serious assaults, rapes and other crimes. For some reason a murder or the gang rape of a young woman from Houston is far less interesting than prosecuting a 63-year-old social studies teacher who made the fatal error of standing for the legislature as a Democrat.
Then Horton made a statement that gets to the heart of upcoming posts here at Legal Schnauzer:
My suspicion is that the attitude of official indifference is just as corrupt and political in its nature as the political prosecutions. . . . The Justice Department’s failing is not just that it abuses its resources for political schemes. It also neglects its core law-enforcement mission with respect to serious crime. Is there any way to correct this short of a sweeping replacement of personnel? That would be up to Michael Mukasey.
This is precisely what I've experienced when I've tried to bring serious crimes, committed by Alabama state judges, to the attention of the Justice Department. Specifically, I've provided Alice Martin with detailed information about these crimes, which undercut the very bedrock of our state's justice system. But she doesn't want to hear about them.
They involve wrongdoing by Republicans, and it all would reflect very badly on the father of her former campaign manager, Dax Swatek. So these serious crimes--honest-services mail fraud, conspiracy, probably more--go unpunished.
But teacher "underperforms her lesson plan?" Now, Alice Martin can sink her teeth into that, particularly when the teacher is a Democratic member of the state legislature.
We will return shortly to the specific allegations I brought to Alice Martin's attention--and how she sent them to a cold, dark place to never see the light of day.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Log in Alice Martin's Eye
Before we move forward with our tale of corruption involving Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, let's examine some material that helps put our story into context.
First, let's consider a famous verse from the New Testament:
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
Matthew 7:3, New American Standard Bible
Most of the wrongdoers in my tale of legal intrigue appear to be professing Christians. In fact, the worst offender of all--Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner--has taught Sunday School at The Church of Brook Hills, which is just down the road from our house.
So why would a person profess to be a Christian and then turn around and act in blatantly corrupt ways?
Let's ask that question about Alice Martin. I would bet that Ms. Martin, as a devout Republican, is a professing Christian and regular church goer. But do her actions reflect any familiarity with Matthew 7:3, one of the most familiar verses in the Bible?
To help address that question, let's revist a post from a few months back on Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Horton noted that Martin produced an indictment of Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz ostensibly for "underperforming on her lesson plan" in her professional role as a teacher. At the heart of the Schmitz indictment are charges that she did not generate sufficient "work product" and evidently did not put in enough hours on her teaching job.
Horton goes on to hint that Martin's own work attendance is somewhat less than stellar. When it comes to examining work attendance, Horton writes:
"Why stop with school teachers under a private contract? Why not focus on public office holders, like a U.S. attorney, who only seems to straggle into her office on days when she’s giving a press conference? Perhaps the public inspection of absenteeism should start with those leveling the charges."
That's not the only example of Martin failing to notice the log in her own eye.
Martin first came to national attention for the prosecution of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy under the Sarbanes-Oxley Investor Protection Act of 2002.
According to Wayne Madsen, of Wayne Madsen Report, another company in Martin's district was under severe financial duress at about the same time. That company was Martin Industries, a Florence, Alabama-based manufacturer of grills, gas heaters, and hearths. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Decatur, Alabama, on Dec. 27, 2002. Martin Industries was eventually bought by a Canadian firm, Monessen Hearth Systems Company.
Court documents show that Martin Industries had amassed $63 million in debt. Were Martin and her staff of 44 lawyers and 104 asssistants at all interested in using the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley to investigate what led to such massive debt at Martin Industries? Was Martin concerned about harm to Martin Industries investors, as she had been in the HealthSouth case?
Answers: No and no.
Is it possible that Alice Martin wasn't interested because she is married to Louis J. Martin II, who was a vice president of Martin Industries? He retired at age 48 after the company declared bankruptcy in 2003.
This New York Times profile on Alice Martin mentions the financial woes of Martin Industries. But it fails to raise this simple question: Why is Alice Martin not looking into the causes of the huge financial losses at Martin Industries? Wouldn't you think the so-called "liberal media" would ask such an obvious question?
The Times story closes with this:
Ms. Martin says her zeal in pursuing the HealthSouth case is just a matter of doing her job. Last September, she said, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft summoned the 93 United States attorneys to a conference on corporate fraud.
''They told us we had an important role in pursuing corporate fraud cases in an expeditious manner,'' she said. ''They said it was important to have 'real-time prosecutions' to help restore investor confidence.''
I guess they just aren't too concerned with the confidence of investors in Martin Industries.
First, let's consider a famous verse from the New Testament:
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
Matthew 7:3, New American Standard Bible
Most of the wrongdoers in my tale of legal intrigue appear to be professing Christians. In fact, the worst offender of all--Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner--has taught Sunday School at The Church of Brook Hills, which is just down the road from our house.
So why would a person profess to be a Christian and then turn around and act in blatantly corrupt ways?
Let's ask that question about Alice Martin. I would bet that Ms. Martin, as a devout Republican, is a professing Christian and regular church goer. But do her actions reflect any familiarity with Matthew 7:3, one of the most familiar verses in the Bible?
To help address that question, let's revist a post from a few months back on Scott Horton's No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Horton noted that Martin produced an indictment of Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz ostensibly for "underperforming on her lesson plan" in her professional role as a teacher. At the heart of the Schmitz indictment are charges that she did not generate sufficient "work product" and evidently did not put in enough hours on her teaching job.
Horton goes on to hint that Martin's own work attendance is somewhat less than stellar. When it comes to examining work attendance, Horton writes:
"Why stop with school teachers under a private contract? Why not focus on public office holders, like a U.S. attorney, who only seems to straggle into her office on days when she’s giving a press conference? Perhaps the public inspection of absenteeism should start with those leveling the charges."
That's not the only example of Martin failing to notice the log in her own eye.
Martin first came to national attention for the prosecution of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy under the Sarbanes-Oxley Investor Protection Act of 2002.
According to Wayne Madsen, of Wayne Madsen Report, another company in Martin's district was under severe financial duress at about the same time. That company was Martin Industries, a Florence, Alabama-based manufacturer of grills, gas heaters, and hearths. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Decatur, Alabama, on Dec. 27, 2002. Martin Industries was eventually bought by a Canadian firm, Monessen Hearth Systems Company.
Court documents show that Martin Industries had amassed $63 million in debt. Were Martin and her staff of 44 lawyers and 104 asssistants at all interested in using the provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley to investigate what led to such massive debt at Martin Industries? Was Martin concerned about harm to Martin Industries investors, as she had been in the HealthSouth case?
Answers: No and no.
Is it possible that Alice Martin wasn't interested because she is married to Louis J. Martin II, who was a vice president of Martin Industries? He retired at age 48 after the company declared bankruptcy in 2003.
This New York Times profile on Alice Martin mentions the financial woes of Martin Industries. But it fails to raise this simple question: Why is Alice Martin not looking into the causes of the huge financial losses at Martin Industries? Wouldn't you think the so-called "liberal media" would ask such an obvious question?
The Times story closes with this:
Ms. Martin says her zeal in pursuing the HealthSouth case is just a matter of doing her job. Last September, she said, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft summoned the 93 United States attorneys to a conference on corporate fraud.
''They told us we had an important role in pursuing corporate fraud cases in an expeditious manner,'' she said. ''They said it was important to have 'real-time prosecutions' to help restore investor confidence.''
I guess they just aren't too concerned with the confidence of investors in Martin Industries.
GOP Judge Has Problem With Porn
A federal judge in California who was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan is being investigated for posting pornographic photos and videos on his personal Web site.
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was overseeing a case involving a hard-core pornographer. The judge's own issues with lewd material came to light when he was interviewed by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday evening.
Kozinski asked an ethics panel of the court to initiate an investigation, and the pornographer's case was delayed at least until Monday.
The Los Angeles Times story said Kozinski had posted sexual material on his Web site and then blocked access to it after being interviewed. The site includes scenes of masturbation and bestiality.
Kozinski, known for both is intellectual rigor and outlandish personality, has been mentioned as a possible U.S. Supreme Court candidate. It remains unclear what, if any, discipline the judge could face.
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, was overseeing a case involving a hard-core pornographer. The judge's own issues with lewd material came to light when he was interviewed by a reporter from the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday evening.
Kozinski asked an ethics panel of the court to initiate an investigation, and the pornographer's case was delayed at least until Monday.
The Los Angeles Times story said Kozinski had posted sexual material on his Web site and then blocked access to it after being interviewed. The site includes scenes of masturbation and bestiality.
Kozinski, known for both is intellectual rigor and outlandish personality, has been mentioned as a possible U.S. Supreme Court candidate. It remains unclear what, if any, discipline the judge could face.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Is Justice on the March in Alabama, Mississippi?
Developments this week point to progress in efforts to shine light on a possible scheme to practice political prosecution in the Bush Justice Department.
The Montgomery Independent reports that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is focusing on the two Don Siegelman prosecutions in Alabama, examining the actions of U.S. attorneys Leura Canary (Middle District) and Alice Martin (Northern District).
OPR also is investigating the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania, and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
The Independent's story, written by Editor and Publisher Bob Martin, is the first report that the OPR investigation will look at the first Siegelman case, which involved charges of Medicaid fraud. That case, directed by Alice Martin, was thrown out by U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon.
Will the OPR probe look beyond Alice Martin's actions in the Siegelman case? That's an intriguing question for us here at Legal Schnauzer. We are in the midst of a series of posts that will show conclusively that Alice Martin practices political prosecution in the form of intentionally non-prosecuting crimes of Alabama Republicans with loyalties to the Bush Administration.
Such wrongdoing is the flip side of the Siegelman case, which involved prosecution of innocent parties for apparent political reasons. My experience involves not prosecuting guilty parties for apparent political reasons--namely, that they are Republicans and loyal Bushies. We will show exactly how Alice Martin accomplishes that task, and we hope some authoritative body takes notice.
Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press in Mississippi continues to become a major journalistic presence in coverage of the Justice Department scandal. Lynch reports on several signs that the tide might be turning against the Bush loyalists who have corrupted our justice system.
Lynch points to a recent Justice Department motion to drop an earlier quest for harsher sentences in the Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case.
Lynch also points to a recent Raw Story report that Mississippi U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, who directed the Paul Minor case, allegedly shared confidential income-tax returns of a prosecution target with unauthorized personnel.
Finally, we had news that a Michigan jury had acquitted attorneys Geoffrey Fieger and Ven Johnson of making illegal contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards.
As for the OPR investigation, Scott Horton of Harper's magazine provides a cautionary note. Horton says he considers the OPR investigation to be a sham that will not produce substantive action. Horton's comments probably are driven by OPR's recent finding that cleared Alice Martin of perjury charges in an employment-related case--despite overwhelming evidence that Martin had indeed lied under oath.
It sounds as though Horton feels justice ultimately will lie in the hands of the U.S. Congress--and perhaps a revived Justice Department following the installment of a new administration in January 2009.
There is one sign of hope regarding OPR. Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett is not a Bush appointee. He was appointed by Janet Reno, former attorney general under President Bill Clinton.
The Montgomery Independent reports that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is focusing on the two Don Siegelman prosecutions in Alabama, examining the actions of U.S. attorneys Leura Canary (Middle District) and Alice Martin (Northern District).
OPR also is investigating the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania, and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
The Independent's story, written by Editor and Publisher Bob Martin, is the first report that the OPR investigation will look at the first Siegelman case, which involved charges of Medicaid fraud. That case, directed by Alice Martin, was thrown out by U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon.
Will the OPR probe look beyond Alice Martin's actions in the Siegelman case? That's an intriguing question for us here at Legal Schnauzer. We are in the midst of a series of posts that will show conclusively that Alice Martin practices political prosecution in the form of intentionally non-prosecuting crimes of Alabama Republicans with loyalties to the Bush Administration.
Such wrongdoing is the flip side of the Siegelman case, which involved prosecution of innocent parties for apparent political reasons. My experience involves not prosecuting guilty parties for apparent political reasons--namely, that they are Republicans and loyal Bushies. We will show exactly how Alice Martin accomplishes that task, and we hope some authoritative body takes notice.
Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press in Mississippi continues to become a major journalistic presence in coverage of the Justice Department scandal. Lynch reports on several signs that the tide might be turning against the Bush loyalists who have corrupted our justice system.
Lynch points to a recent Justice Department motion to drop an earlier quest for harsher sentences in the Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case.
Lynch also points to a recent Raw Story report that Mississippi U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton, who directed the Paul Minor case, allegedly shared confidential income-tax returns of a prosecution target with unauthorized personnel.
Finally, we had news that a Michigan jury had acquitted attorneys Geoffrey Fieger and Ven Johnson of making illegal contributions to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards.
As for the OPR investigation, Scott Horton of Harper's magazine provides a cautionary note. Horton says he considers the OPR investigation to be a sham that will not produce substantive action. Horton's comments probably are driven by OPR's recent finding that cleared Alice Martin of perjury charges in an employment-related case--despite overwhelming evidence that Martin had indeed lied under oath.
It sounds as though Horton feels justice ultimately will lie in the hands of the U.S. Congress--and perhaps a revived Justice Department following the installment of a new administration in January 2009.
There is one sign of hope regarding OPR. Counsel H. Marshall Jarrett is not a Bush appointee. He was appointed by Janet Reno, former attorney general under President Bill Clinton.
Could 2008 Election Be Stolen?
Now that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, progressives seem to have reason to be optimistic about the 2008 presidential election.
But Elliot D. Cohen, writing at BUZZFLASH, says any optimism definitely should be guarded. Why? Because there is strong reason to believe the 2008 presidential election could be stolen--just as evidence strongly suggests the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.
Cohen is a media critic and ethicist and the author of The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government are Turning America into a Dictatorship.
As an Alabama citizen who has become the target of retaliation because of my efforts to write the truth about the Bush Justice Department and Alabama's corrupt state courts, I take Cohen's warnings seriously.
In fact, my wife and I several times in recent days, having noticed no let-up in the brazenness with which "loyal Bushies" operate in our state, have asked this question: "Are these people so brazen and arrogant because they know the 2008 presidential election is going to be stolen? Do they continue to act corruptly because they know the Justice Department will remain in Republican hands for the next four years?"
Cohen, in a sobering piece, notes that Republicans can use some of the standard electoral tricks--disenfranchising black voters and others likely to support Obama, hacking into electronic voting machines.
But he notes some other possible tricks that probably are new to the general public:
* Because of its warrantless surveillance program, the Bush administration has installed computer technology at major telecommunications hubs (such as AT&T) that can intercept and read messages before they reach their final destination. This could be used to reconfigure balloting data.
* Similar technology can be used to intercept phone calls and e-mails from all kinds of folks, including presidential candidates and their representatives. The McCain camp, with the help of the Bush administration, theoretically could find out about Obama's latest campaign strategy and take steps to thwart it.
The final word from Cohen?
For the Obama camp, trying to win a victory against McCain and his Bush Administration support system may be like trying to play cards against an opponent who is using a loaded deck.
But all American citizens on either side of the political divide should be concerned about the prospects of the 2008 presidential race becoming a power grab where the lives and liberties of all of us are used and abused to amass power and dominance, both here and abroad. Those who support Obama need to beware. But those who support McCain need equally to beware, for winning a contest that is fixed is not really winning; and when the contest in question involves the defiling of the U.S. Constitution and the destruction of democracy, there are values at stake that far transcend one's party affiliation.
But Elliot D. Cohen, writing at BUZZFLASH, says any optimism definitely should be guarded. Why? Because there is strong reason to believe the 2008 presidential election could be stolen--just as evidence strongly suggests the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.
Cohen is a media critic and ethicist and the author of The Last Days of Democracy: How Big Media and Power-Hungry Government are Turning America into a Dictatorship.
As an Alabama citizen who has become the target of retaliation because of my efforts to write the truth about the Bush Justice Department and Alabama's corrupt state courts, I take Cohen's warnings seriously.
In fact, my wife and I several times in recent days, having noticed no let-up in the brazenness with which "loyal Bushies" operate in our state, have asked this question: "Are these people so brazen and arrogant because they know the 2008 presidential election is going to be stolen? Do they continue to act corruptly because they know the Justice Department will remain in Republican hands for the next four years?"
Cohen, in a sobering piece, notes that Republicans can use some of the standard electoral tricks--disenfranchising black voters and others likely to support Obama, hacking into electronic voting machines.
But he notes some other possible tricks that probably are new to the general public:
* Because of its warrantless surveillance program, the Bush administration has installed computer technology at major telecommunications hubs (such as AT&T) that can intercept and read messages before they reach their final destination. This could be used to reconfigure balloting data.
* Similar technology can be used to intercept phone calls and e-mails from all kinds of folks, including presidential candidates and their representatives. The McCain camp, with the help of the Bush administration, theoretically could find out about Obama's latest campaign strategy and take steps to thwart it.
The final word from Cohen?
For the Obama camp, trying to win a victory against McCain and his Bush Administration support system may be like trying to play cards against an opponent who is using a loaded deck.
But all American citizens on either side of the political divide should be concerned about the prospects of the 2008 presidential race becoming a power grab where the lives and liberties of all of us are used and abused to amass power and dominance, both here and abroad. Those who support Obama need to beware. But those who support McCain need equally to beware, for winning a contest that is fixed is not really winning; and when the contest in question involves the defiling of the U.S. Constitution and the destruction of democracy, there are values at stake that far transcend one's party affiliation.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Jill Simpson Fires Back at Big Bob Riley
A number of folks have asked me why I chose to call this blog Legal Schnauzer. There are several reasons.
Mainly, it's a tribute to Murphy, our beloved miniature schnauzer who was with us for 11 years and helped us survive the worst of our legal nightmare. To my wife and me, our wonderful girl Murphy embodied words such as "steadfast," "loyal," "upright," "true blue," "alert," "honest," and "dedicated."
And "feisty." Don't forget "feisty."
The more I learn about Alabama attorney and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, the more she seems like a human version of a Legal Schnauzer. And that's an awfully high compliment, coming from this blogger.
This might sound silly to some people, but my wife and I not only loved Murphy, we admired her tremendously. I didn't know it was possible to admire a pet in that way. But that's how we came to feel about Murphy. And having had her in our lives, I think, has helped us to admire people who stand up for what's right and don't back down easily. Jill Simpson seems like that kind of person.
When Alabama Governor Bob Riley decided to attack Simpson yesterday in an interview with the Tuscaloosa News, I had a feeling Simpson would respond in an appropriate manner. And she did--not only taking the governor down several pegs, but maintaining her own position on the high ground.
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork News, reports on Simpson's response today. Here are a few of my favorite Simpson points. To borrow a term from Scott Horton of Harper's, she sort of turns the governor into a "greasespot."
“My best suggestion for him is, instead of running his mouth in the press, he needs to go up there and put his hand on the Bible and raise his right hand and take an oath to tell the truth in front of the House Judiciary Committee.”
“I would ask the people of Alabama to consider that it is easy to say things in the press that may not necessarily be true, but it is entirely a different thing to put your hand on the Bible and agree to tell the truth and take an oath and do it in front of congressional committee lawyers. I took the oath. I strongly suggest they do the same.”
Bravo!
For good measure, Wilson reports some intriguing nuggets about the governor's son, Rob Riley, who once seemed so anxious to make statements under oath before Congress. Evidently, sonny boy is not so anxious to do that these days:
Rob Riley, the governor’s son who was in contact with Ms. Simpson as a Republican volunteer before she split with the Alabama Republican Party for being asked by their paid operatives to do “dirty, untrue research,” has so far avoided making a statement he promised to make before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
A report from the committee in the spring showed that the committee had made an attempt to get Rob Riley to make a statement, and that Riley indicated he would. But since then, sources say, Riley has avoided numerous attempts from the committee to get in touch with him.
Jill Simpson's critics might call her a "nut" or a "loon." But when I read her quotes, I hear the voice of a person with a clear conscience. Notice that her statements are succinct, to the point, on target--they get to the heart of the matter.
If Murphy could have talked, I think that's the way she would have sounded. She was so comfortable with her place in the world.
I get the feeling Jill Simpson is content in knowing that she speaks the truth--that she's doing the right thing--even though humans probably can never be "comfortable" in the way that dogs are.
I enjoy the fact that Simpson doesn't seem flustered when people in powerful positions come after her. I suspect that's what comes with having a clear conscience--something the Bob Rileys of the world wouldn't know anything about.
Mainly, it's a tribute to Murphy, our beloved miniature schnauzer who was with us for 11 years and helped us survive the worst of our legal nightmare. To my wife and me, our wonderful girl Murphy embodied words such as "steadfast," "loyal," "upright," "true blue," "alert," "honest," and "dedicated."
And "feisty." Don't forget "feisty."
The more I learn about Alabama attorney and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, the more she seems like a human version of a Legal Schnauzer. And that's an awfully high compliment, coming from this blogger.
This might sound silly to some people, but my wife and I not only loved Murphy, we admired her tremendously. I didn't know it was possible to admire a pet in that way. But that's how we came to feel about Murphy. And having had her in our lives, I think, has helped us to admire people who stand up for what's right and don't back down easily. Jill Simpson seems like that kind of person.
When Alabama Governor Bob Riley decided to attack Simpson yesterday in an interview with the Tuscaloosa News, I had a feeling Simpson would respond in an appropriate manner. And she did--not only taking the governor down several pegs, but maintaining her own position on the high ground.
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork News, reports on Simpson's response today. Here are a few of my favorite Simpson points. To borrow a term from Scott Horton of Harper's, she sort of turns the governor into a "greasespot."
“My best suggestion for him is, instead of running his mouth in the press, he needs to go up there and put his hand on the Bible and raise his right hand and take an oath to tell the truth in front of the House Judiciary Committee.”
“I would ask the people of Alabama to consider that it is easy to say things in the press that may not necessarily be true, but it is entirely a different thing to put your hand on the Bible and agree to tell the truth and take an oath and do it in front of congressional committee lawyers. I took the oath. I strongly suggest they do the same.”
Bravo!
For good measure, Wilson reports some intriguing nuggets about the governor's son, Rob Riley, who once seemed so anxious to make statements under oath before Congress. Evidently, sonny boy is not so anxious to do that these days:
Rob Riley, the governor’s son who was in contact with Ms. Simpson as a Republican volunteer before she split with the Alabama Republican Party for being asked by their paid operatives to do “dirty, untrue research,” has so far avoided making a statement he promised to make before the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
A report from the committee in the spring showed that the committee had made an attempt to get Rob Riley to make a statement, and that Riley indicated he would. But since then, sources say, Riley has avoided numerous attempts from the committee to get in touch with him.
Jill Simpson's critics might call her a "nut" or a "loon." But when I read her quotes, I hear the voice of a person with a clear conscience. Notice that her statements are succinct, to the point, on target--they get to the heart of the matter.
If Murphy could have talked, I think that's the way she would have sounded. She was so comfortable with her place in the world.
I get the feeling Jill Simpson is content in knowing that she speaks the truth--that she's doing the right thing--even though humans probably can never be "comfortable" in the way that dogs are.
I enjoy the fact that Simpson doesn't seem flustered when people in powerful positions come after her. I suspect that's what comes with having a clear conscience--something the Bob Rileys of the world wouldn't know anything about.
GOP Targets Artur Davis
The National Republican Party is taking potshots at U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL). Gee, I wonder if that is payback for the leading role Davis has played in examining possible political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department?
What are GOPers using to go after Davis? A story that didn't have much in the way of legs when it broke 10 months ago. And it appears to have even weaker legs now.
The Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C., reported Tuesday that Davis pursued earmarks for Shelton State Community College while the school was lending him an employee--Gina Bailey McKell--and paying her $76,000 salary.
The National Republican Congressional Committee went into a fit of glee, promoting the story as "Democratic Dirty Laundry" and suggesting the "questionable" employee loan had been paid off with "pork."
Even The Birmingham News, our very own GOP mouthpiece, doesn't seem to think much of the story. Here's a key paragraph from reporter Mary Orndorff's story:
Davis requested special federal money for the Tuscaloosa school several years in a row -- before the loaned employee arrived in his office, while she was there, and after she left -- according to records provided by his office. "She had no role in the appropriations process," Davis said.
What are GOPers using to go after Davis? A story that didn't have much in the way of legs when it broke 10 months ago. And it appears to have even weaker legs now.
The Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C., reported Tuesday that Davis pursued earmarks for Shelton State Community College while the school was lending him an employee--Gina Bailey McKell--and paying her $76,000 salary.
The National Republican Congressional Committee went into a fit of glee, promoting the story as "Democratic Dirty Laundry" and suggesting the "questionable" employee loan had been paid off with "pork."
Even The Birmingham News, our very own GOP mouthpiece, doesn't seem to think much of the story. Here's a key paragraph from reporter Mary Orndorff's story:
Davis requested special federal money for the Tuscaloosa school several years in a row -- before the loaned employee arrived in his office, while she was there, and after she left -- according to records provided by his office. "She had no role in the appropriations process," Davis said.
Our friends at Left in Alabama have an insightful post on the Davis story here.
Remember when Davis praised Alabama Republican Governor Bob Riley several months back at a speech in Birmingham? Don't think the congressman will be making that mistake again.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Did Riley Step in "It" With Siegelman Comments
Alabama Governor Bob Riley might have stepped into a brier patch that he would have been wise to avoid when he commented today about the federal criminal case of his predecessor, Democrat Don Siegelman.
Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, interviewed Riley and presents both a written and video account, which are available on the paper's Web site.
Riley, Stevenson reports, says he warned Siegelman against politicizing the former governor's criminal case. That is bizarre in itself. But the conversation really gets interesting when Riley addresses the issue of Alabama attorney and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, who has testified under oath multiple times that she heard GOP operatives planning to "take care" of Siegelman.
Riley proclaims that Simpson has "no credibility." He goes on to state that "anyone who has ever seen her or listened to her knows that." He then says that Simpson's sworn testimony has "no relation to the truth and is never the same."
Those statements from the governor sure sound like they come very close to meeting the legal definition of defamation. I suspect that Simpson and her attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, will be examining the governor's language carefully.
Stevenson says that more is coming Friday on his conversation with Riley. But here are a few early thoughts about Riley's comments regarding the Siegelman case.
* Riley seems concerned about the fact Siegelman claimed his prosecution was politically motivated. But why should Riley care? And why would Riley think it was any of his business how Siegelman chose to defend himself in a criminal case?
* Riley implies that Siegelman and his associates have made numerous statements regarding Riley's possible involvement in the Siegelman prosecution. But have they? I don't recall seeing such statements. Much has been written about the possible roles of Bill Canary and Karl Rove in launching the Siegelman case. And Riley's son, Rob Riley, has played a prominent role in Simpson's statements regarding a conference call involving Republican operatives. But if Siegelman, or anyone else, has said that Bob Riley had something to do with the federal prosecution, I'm not aware of those statements. A number of reporters have raised questions about the "funny numbers" that changed in the middle of the night and gave Riley the 2002 election over Siegelman. But that is not connected to the Siegelman prosecution. By the way, I wonder if Riley would like to answer questions about those "funny numbers."
* Riley claims that neither he nor any member of his family has ever done or said anything regarding the Siegelman case. Isn't that an overbroad statement? Riley's son, Rob Riley, is a grown man and cared enough about Simpson's sworn statements to file a sworn statement of his own with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Isn't it a little silly for Bob Riley to make sweeping statements about the behavior of his adult family members? How could he possibly know what all they might have done or said?
* Finally, Riley reaches deep into the Republican playbook to pull out the old chestnut that goes something like this: "Don Siegelman didn't testify at this trial, but he wants Karl Rove to go to Congress to testify about the trial." I think this is what pundits call a "straw man." The two examples have nothing to do with each other, but Riley uses them as a cute diversionary tactic. The truth? It's standard procedure in a criminal case for a defendant to not testify if his attorney feels the government has not proven its case. The defendant has every right not to testify if it appears the government's case is weak. That's a very different thing from a former public official avoiding a subpoena from Congress.
Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, interviewed Riley and presents both a written and video account, which are available on the paper's Web site.
Riley, Stevenson reports, says he warned Siegelman against politicizing the former governor's criminal case. That is bizarre in itself. But the conversation really gets interesting when Riley addresses the issue of Alabama attorney and Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, who has testified under oath multiple times that she heard GOP operatives planning to "take care" of Siegelman.
Riley proclaims that Simpson has "no credibility." He goes on to state that "anyone who has ever seen her or listened to her knows that." He then says that Simpson's sworn testimony has "no relation to the truth and is never the same."
Those statements from the governor sure sound like they come very close to meeting the legal definition of defamation. I suspect that Simpson and her attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, will be examining the governor's language carefully.
Stevenson says that more is coming Friday on his conversation with Riley. But here are a few early thoughts about Riley's comments regarding the Siegelman case.
* Riley seems concerned about the fact Siegelman claimed his prosecution was politically motivated. But why should Riley care? And why would Riley think it was any of his business how Siegelman chose to defend himself in a criminal case?
* Riley implies that Siegelman and his associates have made numerous statements regarding Riley's possible involvement in the Siegelman prosecution. But have they? I don't recall seeing such statements. Much has been written about the possible roles of Bill Canary and Karl Rove in launching the Siegelman case. And Riley's son, Rob Riley, has played a prominent role in Simpson's statements regarding a conference call involving Republican operatives. But if Siegelman, or anyone else, has said that Bob Riley had something to do with the federal prosecution, I'm not aware of those statements. A number of reporters have raised questions about the "funny numbers" that changed in the middle of the night and gave Riley the 2002 election over Siegelman. But that is not connected to the Siegelman prosecution. By the way, I wonder if Riley would like to answer questions about those "funny numbers."
* Riley claims that neither he nor any member of his family has ever done or said anything regarding the Siegelman case. Isn't that an overbroad statement? Riley's son, Rob Riley, is a grown man and cared enough about Simpson's sworn statements to file a sworn statement of his own with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Isn't it a little silly for Bob Riley to make sweeping statements about the behavior of his adult family members? How could he possibly know what all they might have done or said?
* Finally, Riley reaches deep into the Republican playbook to pull out the old chestnut that goes something like this: "Don Siegelman didn't testify at this trial, but he wants Karl Rove to go to Congress to testify about the trial." I think this is what pundits call a "straw man." The two examples have nothing to do with each other, but Riley uses them as a cute diversionary tactic. The truth? It's standard procedure in a criminal case for a defendant to not testify if his attorney feels the government has not proven its case. The defendant has every right not to testify if it appears the government's case is weak. That's a very different thing from a former public official avoiding a subpoena from Congress.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Malice of Alice, Part III
I'm sure Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself (QAMHO) figured that's the last she would hear from me.
But she didn't know she was dealing with a Schnauzer--and as I've said, we can be feisty sorts.
We also can be questioning sorts. And I had some questions for the Queen.
Keep this in mind: Our gal Alice didn't know she was dealing with a Schnauzer who had a blog. So I'm sure she never dreamed her words might come back to bite her on her fine conservative fanny.
First, my questions for the Queen:
----------------------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 26, 2007
Ms. Martin:
Thanks for your reply. Had a couple of questions:
Why was my information sent to Mr. Koperniak? Is that standard procedure with a mail-fraud investigation? Was it also referred to someone at the FBI?
Best,
Roger Shuler
Here is the Queen's reply:
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 26, 2007
Mr. Shuler:
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement agency principally tasked with investigation of mail fraud. Yes, it is standard procedure. No, it was was not referred to the FBI as we make referrals only to one agency so that efforts are not duplicated.
Alice Martin
(To be continued)
But she didn't know she was dealing with a Schnauzer--and as I've said, we can be feisty sorts.
We also can be questioning sorts. And I had some questions for the Queen.
Keep this in mind: Our gal Alice didn't know she was dealing with a Schnauzer who had a blog. So I'm sure she never dreamed her words might come back to bite her on her fine conservative fanny.
First, my questions for the Queen:
----------------------------------------
To: Alice Martin
From: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 26, 2007
Ms. Martin:
Thanks for your reply. Had a couple of questions:
Why was my information sent to Mr. Koperniak? Is that standard procedure with a mail-fraud investigation? Was it also referred to someone at the FBI?
Best,
Roger Shuler
Here is the Queen's reply:
To: Roger Shuler
From: Alice Martin
Sent: July 26, 2007
Mr. Shuler:
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement agency principally tasked with investigation of mail fraud. Yes, it is standard procedure. No, it was was not referred to the FBI as we make referrals only to one agency so that efforts are not duplicated.
Alice Martin
(To be continued)
The Abramoff Chronicles: Jack is Back!
Jack Abramoff is back in the news, and that can't be good for the corrupt wing of the Republican Party.
Justin Rood of ABC News reports that the Bush White House had far more extensive interactions with the disgraced lobbyist than had previously been acknowledged. In fact, Bush himself met with Abramoff at least six times. The White House had previously held the number of such meetings at two.
Rood also reports that White House officials went to Abramoff for tickets to sporting and entertainment events. They also sought his advice on personnel decisions for plum jobs:
The committee's 2006 report found 19 instances in which White House officials asked for tickets to events from Abramoff and his associates, or were offered them. The new draft report said the new documents confirmed 15 of those and indicated six more instances, including tickets for soprano Sarah Brightman, to an NCAA basketball tournament game, tickets to the Washington Wizards and tickets to the Baltimore Orioles.
White House officials are generally restricted from receiving gifts worth more than $20 each, and from taking more than $50 in gifts from one source in a year. The White House did not respond to whether it was concerned about its employees violating federal gift rules.
Justin Rood of ABC News reports that the Bush White House had far more extensive interactions with the disgraced lobbyist than had previously been acknowledged. In fact, Bush himself met with Abramoff at least six times. The White House had previously held the number of such meetings at two.
Rood also reports that White House officials went to Abramoff for tickets to sporting and entertainment events. They also sought his advice on personnel decisions for plum jobs:
The committee's 2006 report found 19 instances in which White House officials asked for tickets to events from Abramoff and his associates, or were offered them. The new draft report said the new documents confirmed 15 of those and indicated six more instances, including tickets for soprano Sarah Brightman, to an NCAA basketball tournament game, tickets to the Washington Wizards and tickets to the Baltimore Orioles.
White House officials are generally restricted from receiving gifts worth more than $20 each, and from taking more than $50 in gifts from one source in a year. The White House did not respond to whether it was concerned about its employees violating federal gift rules.
Machiavelli's Shadow: Focusing on Rove and Siegelman
Perhaps the definitive book, so far, on Karl Rove and the U.S. attorneys scandal is being released today.
Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove is written by veteran journalist Paul Alexander.
Chapter 12 should be of particular interest to Alabamians--and anyone else interested in the cause of justice. The title? "The United States vs. Don Siegelman."
Alexander has a big-time track record. He is a former reporter for Time magazine and has written for Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, New York, The Village Voice, and The Guardian. He is the author of Man of the People: The Life of John McCain as well as biographies of Sylvia Plath, J.D. Salinger, and James Dean.
BUZZFLASH has a review and interview here.
Here is the publisher's summary:
Karl Rove has come to personify scorched earth political tactics and merciless, win-at-any-cost trickery. His status as the so-called architect behind Bush’s election victories has elevated him to a mythic kingmaker in the national imagination. Not since Mark Hanna, special assistant to President William McKinley, has someone not elected to public office played such a vital role in the governance of our nation. We know the myth, but who is the man? In Machiavelli's Shadow, the full, unvarnished truth about the mastermind of the Bush administration is revealed as swirling scandals and Karl Rove's diminished power have freed people to speak candidly as never before. Acclaimed author and veteran journalist Paul Alexander tracks Rove's journey from consummate outsider to presidential consigliere, conducting firsthand interviews with A-list sources who have never gone on the record about Rove before now. The result is a gripping, no-holds-barred account of the man whose insistence on politicizing any area on which he has advised the president—from the war in Iraq to domestic issues like Social Security, energy, the environment, and hotly controversial judicial matters—has brought about his own fall from grace and an escalating crisis within the government and the nation.
In an interview with Publisher's Weekly, Alexander had this compelling quote:
"One of the things that I’m doing—because it’s breaking right now and I think it’s going to break through the fall—is to really look at the whole unfolding U.S. Attorney scandal. People look at it and they haven’t quite figured out yet why it’s important," says Alexander. "It’s hugely important in the story of Karl Rove, but it’s also important in the story of the Bush White House, the Bush administration and the way the Bush administration is going to be viewed in history. Because as the full story unfolds, if the congressional committee hearings actually do occur, the public will get to see a side of Karl Rove and the Bush administration that they really haven’t understood was there yet."
Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove is written by veteran journalist Paul Alexander.
Chapter 12 should be of particular interest to Alabamians--and anyone else interested in the cause of justice. The title? "The United States vs. Don Siegelman."
Alexander has a big-time track record. He is a former reporter for Time magazine and has written for Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, New York, The Village Voice, and The Guardian. He is the author of Man of the People: The Life of John McCain as well as biographies of Sylvia Plath, J.D. Salinger, and James Dean.
BUZZFLASH has a review and interview here.
Here is the publisher's summary:
Karl Rove has come to personify scorched earth political tactics and merciless, win-at-any-cost trickery. His status as the so-called architect behind Bush’s election victories has elevated him to a mythic kingmaker in the national imagination. Not since Mark Hanna, special assistant to President William McKinley, has someone not elected to public office played such a vital role in the governance of our nation. We know the myth, but who is the man? In Machiavelli's Shadow, the full, unvarnished truth about the mastermind of the Bush administration is revealed as swirling scandals and Karl Rove's diminished power have freed people to speak candidly as never before. Acclaimed author and veteran journalist Paul Alexander tracks Rove's journey from consummate outsider to presidential consigliere, conducting firsthand interviews with A-list sources who have never gone on the record about Rove before now. The result is a gripping, no-holds-barred account of the man whose insistence on politicizing any area on which he has advised the president—from the war in Iraq to domestic issues like Social Security, energy, the environment, and hotly controversial judicial matters—has brought about his own fall from grace and an escalating crisis within the government and the nation.
In an interview with Publisher's Weekly, Alexander had this compelling quote:
"One of the things that I’m doing—because it’s breaking right now and I think it’s going to break through the fall—is to really look at the whole unfolding U.S. Attorney scandal. People look at it and they haven’t quite figured out yet why it’s important," says Alexander. "It’s hugely important in the story of Karl Rove, but it’s also important in the story of the Bush White House, the Bush administration and the way the Bush administration is going to be viewed in history. Because as the full story unfolds, if the congressional committee hearings actually do occur, the public will get to see a side of Karl Rove and the Bush administration that they really haven’t understood was there yet."
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Malice of Alice, Part II
When I hit send on my July 23 e-mail to Alice Martin, I figured that was the last I would ever hear of it.
Actually, I figured I would get one of those "not received" messages in my in-box because I had no idea if I had the correct e-mail address or not.
When a "not received" message did not appear within three or four minutes, I figured, "Hmm, maybe I did have the right address." Still, I never dreamed that Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself (QAMHO) would respond.
When I checked my in-box three days later and saw a reply from "Alice," I thought, "Did someone sign me up for the Alice Cooper Fan Club?"
Upon seeing that it was QAMHO, and not one of my favorite '70s theatrical rockers, I almost fell off my chair. If I'd had a mouthful of Slurpee, I would have spewed it across the room.
Here is the Queen's reply:
---------------------------------
From: Alice Martin:
To: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 25, 2007
Dear Mr. Shuler:
Your letter of June 14th was referred to Postal Inspector Supervisor John Koperniak for review on July 5. His contact information is:
Mr. John Koperniak
Postal Inspector/Domicile Coordinator
U. S. Postal Inspection Service
P. O. Box 2767
Birmingham, AL 35202-2767
205-326-2900
Alice Martin
(To be continued)
Actually, I figured I would get one of those "not received" messages in my in-box because I had no idea if I had the correct e-mail address or not.
When a "not received" message did not appear within three or four minutes, I figured, "Hmm, maybe I did have the right address." Still, I never dreamed that Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself (QAMHO) would respond.
When I checked my in-box three days later and saw a reply from "Alice," I thought, "Did someone sign me up for the Alice Cooper Fan Club?"
Upon seeing that it was QAMHO, and not one of my favorite '70s theatrical rockers, I almost fell off my chair. If I'd had a mouthful of Slurpee, I would have spewed it across the room.
Here is the Queen's reply:
---------------------------------
From: Alice Martin:
To: Roger Shuler
Sent: July 25, 2007
Dear Mr. Shuler:
Your letter of June 14th was referred to Postal Inspector Supervisor John Koperniak for review on July 5. His contact information is:
Mr. John Koperniak
Postal Inspector/Domicile Coordinator
U. S. Postal Inspection Service
P. O. Box 2767
Birmingham, AL 35202-2767
205-326-2900
Alice Martin
(To be continued)
Repercussions of the ExxonMobil Ruling
Newspapers around the country are filled with grim economic news as the reality of "Dubyanomics" hits home. Oil prices and unemployment rates are soaring, while the stock market is falling.
The news is particularly bad in Alabama, where we persist in relying on unstable sales taxes to fund essential state services. The fiscal reality is not holding up to Governor Bob Riley's rosy projections, so the state is looking at massive budget cuts in both the general and education funds.
Several ironies are apparent in all of this:
* Remember how Riley crowed about his own economic prowess, trashing then Governor Don Siegelman when the national economy took a downturn following the collapse of the dot.com bubble in 2000 and 2001? Do you hear Riley crowing now? I didn't think so.
* Remember how Riley cavalierly refused to seek a rehearing--or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court--after the Alabama Supreme Court screwed the state out of almost all of a $3.6 billion fraud judgment against oil giant ExxonMobil? Riley, of course, didn't want to take further action on the ExxonMobil ruling because a semi-honest brief would have shown the blatantly criminal behavior of the Alabama Supreme Court's Republican majority. And those Republican justices are bought and sold by the same corporate interests who bought and sold Riley for the governor's mansion.
So what do we learn today? That the state's reserve funds might be virtually drained to keep operations afloat during the upcoming fiscal year.
That $3.6 billion was slated to go into a reserve fund. Think the state could use some of that cash right about now?
For a refresher course on issues connected to the ExxonMobil ruling, check out posts here and here.
And here is the big question to ponder: Will the thousands of white, middle-class Alabamians who go to the polls and reflexively vote for Republicans ever come to their senses and realize there is a huge price to be paid for that kind of mindless voting?
Given that John McCain has a wide lead in the latest presidential polling in the state, it's hard to see it happening anytime soon.
The news is particularly bad in Alabama, where we persist in relying on unstable sales taxes to fund essential state services. The fiscal reality is not holding up to Governor Bob Riley's rosy projections, so the state is looking at massive budget cuts in both the general and education funds.
Several ironies are apparent in all of this:
* Remember how Riley crowed about his own economic prowess, trashing then Governor Don Siegelman when the national economy took a downturn following the collapse of the dot.com bubble in 2000 and 2001? Do you hear Riley crowing now? I didn't think so.
* Remember how Riley cavalierly refused to seek a rehearing--or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court--after the Alabama Supreme Court screwed the state out of almost all of a $3.6 billion fraud judgment against oil giant ExxonMobil? Riley, of course, didn't want to take further action on the ExxonMobil ruling because a semi-honest brief would have shown the blatantly criminal behavior of the Alabama Supreme Court's Republican majority. And those Republican justices are bought and sold by the same corporate interests who bought and sold Riley for the governor's mansion.
So what do we learn today? That the state's reserve funds might be virtually drained to keep operations afloat during the upcoming fiscal year.
That $3.6 billion was slated to go into a reserve fund. Think the state could use some of that cash right about now?
For a refresher course on issues connected to the ExxonMobil ruling, check out posts here and here.
And here is the big question to ponder: Will the thousands of white, middle-class Alabamians who go to the polls and reflexively vote for Republicans ever come to their senses and realize there is a huge price to be paid for that kind of mindless voting?
Given that John McCain has a wide lead in the latest presidential polling in the state, it's hard to see it happening anytime soon.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Malice of Alice: In Her Own Words
Now it's time for the good stuff--The Queen and The Schnauzer, one on one, in an e-mail tug of war.
Before we get into the first e-mail, let's keep a few points in mind:
* It had been more than five weeks since my second snail-mail letter (dated June 14, 2007) to the Queen. Don't know why, but I was getting the distinct impression the Queen was blowing me off. But if you've ever seen a schnauzer tugging on someone's pants leg, you know we can be feisty little devils. So I took a wild guess at the Queen's e-mail address and fired off a missive to her.
* For background purposes, here is an account of what led up to our e-mail version of High Noon.
* Recall that in my second snail-mail letter to the Queen, I made it abundantly clear that one of the primary evildoers in my case was an Alabama attorney named William E. Swatek. Also recall this little nugget: When Queen Alice Martin ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in 2000, her campaign manager was Bill Swatek's son, Dax Swatek. I don't have a copy of whatever ethics guide there is for prosecutors, but I don't think you would need a J.D. from Harvard Law to realize pretty quickly that Queen Alice had an Alaska-sized conflict of interest here. I would think she was obligated to inform me of that conflict and to refer the case to a prosecutor who did not have a conflict. Did Queen Alice do that? Let's take a look . . .
--------------------------------
To: Alice Martin [Alice.Martin@usdoj.gov]
From: Roger Shuler [rshuler3156@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007
Ms. Martin:
On January 22, 2007, you sent me a letter asking for detailed allegations of mail and/or wire fraud committed by members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the Alabama Judiciary.
In your letter, you stated that if I sent you a letter providing focused details of illegal actions, you would seek to make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.
I sent you such a letter, as requested, on June 14, 2007. But I have heard nothing in reply. Could I get an update on the status of my report? If it has been referred to an investigative agency, can I get the name of the person in charge of the case? I very much would like to assist in seeing to it that justice is done in this matter.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
Before we get into the first e-mail, let's keep a few points in mind:
* It had been more than five weeks since my second snail-mail letter (dated June 14, 2007) to the Queen. Don't know why, but I was getting the distinct impression the Queen was blowing me off. But if you've ever seen a schnauzer tugging on someone's pants leg, you know we can be feisty little devils. So I took a wild guess at the Queen's e-mail address and fired off a missive to her.
* For background purposes, here is an account of what led up to our e-mail version of High Noon.
* Recall that in my second snail-mail letter to the Queen, I made it abundantly clear that one of the primary evildoers in my case was an Alabama attorney named William E. Swatek. Also recall this little nugget: When Queen Alice Martin ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in 2000, her campaign manager was Bill Swatek's son, Dax Swatek. I don't have a copy of whatever ethics guide there is for prosecutors, but I don't think you would need a J.D. from Harvard Law to realize pretty quickly that Queen Alice had an Alaska-sized conflict of interest here. I would think she was obligated to inform me of that conflict and to refer the case to a prosecutor who did not have a conflict. Did Queen Alice do that? Let's take a look . . .
--------------------------------
To: Alice Martin [Alice.Martin@usdoj.gov]
From: Roger Shuler [rshuler3156@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007
Ms. Martin:
On January 22, 2007, you sent me a letter asking for detailed allegations of mail and/or wire fraud committed by members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the Alabama Judiciary.
In your letter, you stated that if I sent you a letter providing focused details of illegal actions, you would seek to make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.
I sent you such a letter, as requested, on June 14, 2007. But I have heard nothing in reply. Could I get an update on the status of my report? If it has been referred to an investigative agency, can I get the name of the person in charge of the case? I very much would like to assist in seeing to it that justice is done in this matter.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
Friday, June 6, 2008
Bob Riley's Quid Pro Quo Keeps on Giving
Former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman spent months in federal prison because he allegedly took a campaign contribution from a supporter and then did something to benefit that supporter. Federal prosecutors contended this was the kind of "quid pro quo" arrangement that constitutes federal-funds bribery, and Siegelman still is fighting his conviction on appeal.
Now, let's consider the case of current Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican. Riley took a sizable campaign contribution from supporters of a biotechnology center in Huntsville and helped steer millions of state dollars to the project. As a result, the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology is now a reality--soaking up funds that could have gone to a strong biotech infrastructure that already existed at UAB and Southern Research Institute in Birmingham.
Has Riley gotten in trouble with federal prosecutors for what appears to be a "quid pro quo" very much like the one Siegelman allegedly arranged? Heck, no.
In fact, Riley receives huzzahs today from The Birmingham News, that official house organ of the Alabama Republican Party. On the front page of the News, we learn that Riley is on one of his celebrated trade junkets, this time to Brazil. And who happens to be along for the joyride? Why, none other than representatives of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology. Looks like Riley's cronies hope to figure out how to make biofuel from sugar cane--and make bucket fulls of cash in the process.
Are the HudsonAlpha folks benefiting from their campaign contribution to Riley? Sure sounds like it. And assuming state dollars were used for Riley's trade junket, the governor appears to still be using state tax proceeds to help line the pockets of the Huntsville crowd.
Now, here's the thing to keep in mind: As the Don Siegelman appeal moves forward, we appear to be learning what most rational folks knew all along--the arrangement between Siegelman and Richard Scrushy was not a bribe at all, under the law, and never should have been prosecuted. It seems clear that the arrangement between Riley and his Huntsville buddies also does not constitute a bribe.
But why did the U.S. Justice Department treat the Siegelman deal as a federal crime while ignoring the Riley deal? Why does The Birmingham News trumpet the fruits of Riley's deal on the front page while apparently supporting the prosecution of Siegelman and Scrushy?
It's bad enough that Alabama's largest newspaper has that kind of double standard. But when our Justice Department has that kind of double standard, we aren't much better than the banana republics that thrive at many points on the globe.
Now, let's consider the case of current Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican. Riley took a sizable campaign contribution from supporters of a biotechnology center in Huntsville and helped steer millions of state dollars to the project. As a result, the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology is now a reality--soaking up funds that could have gone to a strong biotech infrastructure that already existed at UAB and Southern Research Institute in Birmingham.
Has Riley gotten in trouble with federal prosecutors for what appears to be a "quid pro quo" very much like the one Siegelman allegedly arranged? Heck, no.
In fact, Riley receives huzzahs today from The Birmingham News, that official house organ of the Alabama Republican Party. On the front page of the News, we learn that Riley is on one of his celebrated trade junkets, this time to Brazil. And who happens to be along for the joyride? Why, none other than representatives of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology. Looks like Riley's cronies hope to figure out how to make biofuel from sugar cane--and make bucket fulls of cash in the process.
Are the HudsonAlpha folks benefiting from their campaign contribution to Riley? Sure sounds like it. And assuming state dollars were used for Riley's trade junket, the governor appears to still be using state tax proceeds to help line the pockets of the Huntsville crowd.
Now, here's the thing to keep in mind: As the Don Siegelman appeal moves forward, we appear to be learning what most rational folks knew all along--the arrangement between Siegelman and Richard Scrushy was not a bribe at all, under the law, and never should have been prosecuted. It seems clear that the arrangement between Riley and his Huntsville buddies also does not constitute a bribe.
But why did the U.S. Justice Department treat the Siegelman deal as a federal crime while ignoring the Riley deal? Why does The Birmingham News trumpet the fruits of Riley's deal on the front page while apparently supporting the prosecution of Siegelman and Scrushy?
It's bad enough that Alabama's largest newspaper has that kind of double standard. But when our Justice Department has that kind of double standard, we aren't much better than the banana republics that thrive at many points on the globe.
Nutjob Judge Gets Canned in Alabama
How bad does a state judge in Alabama have to be in order to get ousted by the state's Court of the Judiciary?
We now have an answer, thanks to Stuart DuBose, who was a circuit judge serving Clarke, Choctaw, and Washington counties in southwest Alabama.
DuBose was removed from office on a range of judicial misconduct charges that began before he took the bench. Witnesses said DuBose had a history of abusing painkillers and other prescription drugs. And he is in the Baldwin County jail on a federal charge of possessing as many as 30 guns in violation of a restraining order. The judge was arrested after firing a machine gun at a surveying crew near his home in Jackson, Alabama. No one was injured in the incident.
Sounds like the kind of temperament you want in a judge, doesn't it?
Now here is what's really interesting about the charges against DuBose. He was alleged to have manipulated a multimillion-dollar estate for his own benefit and promised local attorneys a "home-field advantage" over out-of-town lawyers in his courtroom.
In my own experience at the courthouse in Shelby County, Alabama, I don't have firsthand knowledge of any manipulated estate deals--although I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like that happens in courthouses all over the country.
But Shelby County is infamous for "home cooking" that benefits "local counsel," such as William E. Swatek, the dirtbag lawyer who filed a bogus lawsuit against me. Swatek, as I've written before, has a son (Dax Swatek) who is a close associate of Republican operative Bill Canary. And Canary has close ties to Karl Rove. In other words, Bill Swatek is a "loyal Bushie," and that helps him get away with proverbial murder in Alabama state courts.
J. Michael Joiner, the presiding judge of Shelby County and a grossly corrupt Republican, is a skilled practitioner of the "home cooking" arts, and I've seen that first hand. G. Dan Reeves and Ron Jackson are other Shelby County attorneys who provide "home-field advantage" for certain attorneys, even those like Swatek who have an almost 30-year history of unethical behavior.
An Alabama citizen who has a complaint against a judge starts with the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC). Almost all complaints go to that august body to die quietly, without any inquiry at all. I've filed complaints against three judges, all involving the "home cooking" noted above, and the JIC sent me form letters that essentially told me to get lost. Only the truly grotesque cases, like the one involving DuBose, go to the Court of the Judiciary for possible discipline.
A judge has to try real hard--or have significant mental disease, as DuBose evidently does--to get in trouble in Alabama. My guess is that DuBose would have been perfectly fine if he had limited his transgressions to stealing from estates and favoring certain attorneys over others. Those offenses primarily involve cheating parties that come before him, and the JIC has absolutely no problem with that.
It was the drugs and guns that got DuBose booted from office. The JIC added those other charges as window dressing, evidently in an effort to make the public think they take stuff like that seriously.
Actually, the JIC has been unusually busy lately. Guess that shows you how bad judicial behavior in Alabama has become. Pickens County District Judge Ira Colvin was removed from office before he pleaded guilty in 2007 to methamphetamine possession. Mobile County Circuit Judge Herman Thomas resigned in October before he faced charges of taking cases away from other judges without their permission and helping his cousin manipulate a jail sentence.
By the way, DuBose is identified in news reports as a Democrat--although, with his apparent love for guns, he doesn't sound like any Democrat I know.
Still, the DuBose story should be a cautionary tale for Barack Obama and any other Democrats in positions of authority heading into what we all must hope is a new era in government for our country. Democrats should make honest government one of their top priorities, and whenever corrupt public officials surface (of either party), Democrats need to be leading the push to get rid of them.
Bush Republicans have lost all grasp of the concept of honest government--if, in fact, they ever had such a grasp in the first place. It will be up to Democrats to restore a sense of integrity to our public affairs.
We now have an answer, thanks to Stuart DuBose, who was a circuit judge serving Clarke, Choctaw, and Washington counties in southwest Alabama.
DuBose was removed from office on a range of judicial misconduct charges that began before he took the bench. Witnesses said DuBose had a history of abusing painkillers and other prescription drugs. And he is in the Baldwin County jail on a federal charge of possessing as many as 30 guns in violation of a restraining order. The judge was arrested after firing a machine gun at a surveying crew near his home in Jackson, Alabama. No one was injured in the incident.
Sounds like the kind of temperament you want in a judge, doesn't it?
Now here is what's really interesting about the charges against DuBose. He was alleged to have manipulated a multimillion-dollar estate for his own benefit and promised local attorneys a "home-field advantage" over out-of-town lawyers in his courtroom.
In my own experience at the courthouse in Shelby County, Alabama, I don't have firsthand knowledge of any manipulated estate deals--although I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like that happens in courthouses all over the country.
But Shelby County is infamous for "home cooking" that benefits "local counsel," such as William E. Swatek, the dirtbag lawyer who filed a bogus lawsuit against me. Swatek, as I've written before, has a son (Dax Swatek) who is a close associate of Republican operative Bill Canary. And Canary has close ties to Karl Rove. In other words, Bill Swatek is a "loyal Bushie," and that helps him get away with proverbial murder in Alabama state courts.
J. Michael Joiner, the presiding judge of Shelby County and a grossly corrupt Republican, is a skilled practitioner of the "home cooking" arts, and I've seen that first hand. G. Dan Reeves and Ron Jackson are other Shelby County attorneys who provide "home-field advantage" for certain attorneys, even those like Swatek who have an almost 30-year history of unethical behavior.
An Alabama citizen who has a complaint against a judge starts with the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC). Almost all complaints go to that august body to die quietly, without any inquiry at all. I've filed complaints against three judges, all involving the "home cooking" noted above, and the JIC sent me form letters that essentially told me to get lost. Only the truly grotesque cases, like the one involving DuBose, go to the Court of the Judiciary for possible discipline.
A judge has to try real hard--or have significant mental disease, as DuBose evidently does--to get in trouble in Alabama. My guess is that DuBose would have been perfectly fine if he had limited his transgressions to stealing from estates and favoring certain attorneys over others. Those offenses primarily involve cheating parties that come before him, and the JIC has absolutely no problem with that.
It was the drugs and guns that got DuBose booted from office. The JIC added those other charges as window dressing, evidently in an effort to make the public think they take stuff like that seriously.
Actually, the JIC has been unusually busy lately. Guess that shows you how bad judicial behavior in Alabama has become. Pickens County District Judge Ira Colvin was removed from office before he pleaded guilty in 2007 to methamphetamine possession. Mobile County Circuit Judge Herman Thomas resigned in October before he faced charges of taking cases away from other judges without their permission and helping his cousin manipulate a jail sentence.
By the way, DuBose is identified in news reports as a Democrat--although, with his apparent love for guns, he doesn't sound like any Democrat I know.
Still, the DuBose story should be a cautionary tale for Barack Obama and any other Democrats in positions of authority heading into what we all must hope is a new era in government for our country. Democrats should make honest government one of their top priorities, and whenever corrupt public officials surface (of either party), Democrats need to be leading the push to get rid of them.
Bush Republicans have lost all grasp of the concept of honest government--if, in fact, they ever had such a grasp in the first place. It will be up to Democrats to restore a sense of integrity to our public affairs.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Alternative Weekly Packs a Punch
We recently lamented the fact that Jackson, Mississippi, has a feisty, hard-nosed alternative weekly newspaper--one that covers and uncovers real news--while Birmingham does not.
That lament grows even stronger today after reading an outstanding piece of journalism by Adam Lynch, a reporter for the Jackson Free Press.
Lynch does some serious digging, outlining connections between the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi and the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and showing what those cases mean to an American justice system that has been corrupted beyond recognition under George W. Bush.
While the Jackson Free Press has a cover story about the soiling of America's justice system, a story that has its roots in the Deep South, Birmingham Weekly has a cover story about a bicycle race of some sort. And what about Black & White, Birmingham's other "alternative" weekly? Well, it's a conservative alternative paper--yes, such things exist--so I imagine it's doing a major piece on the need for more tax cuts for the upper 1 percent of wage earners.
Lynch's piece is filled with good stuff. Here are a few items that particularly jumped out to us at Legal Schnauzer.
* Lynch notes the success of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce campaign to transform state courts in the South, filling courts with pro-business jurists. One target of the COC campaign was Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz:
Diaz and the other judges had been up against the powerful influence of the U.S. Chamber—an organization that does not have to disclose its donors—which pours huge sums of money into judicial campaigns of corporate-friendly judges who do not favor plaintiffs in lawsuits. That strategy benefits both the corporations being sued, and helps limit the campaign donations that plaintiff attorneys can give the party they tend to support: the Democrats.
The effort has largely succeeded, with a state Supreme Court that routinely reverses Circuit Court rulings against corporations. In one 2007 case, the court even supplanted the 2006 decision of a Hinds County Circuit court jury with its own opinion, ruling in favor of Prudential Insurance Company of America in a $36.4 million lawsuit against it. The court reversed the jury’s decision not because of bad evidence or improper jury instruction, but because it disagreed with the jury’s finding.“Why have juries if all you need to do is overturn them?” asked attorney Alex Alton, who represented the plaintiffs in that case.
* Lynch reveals the brazenness with which Bush-friendly U.S. attorneys have done their dirty work. In this case, the USA is Dunn Lamption, and his target is former Mississippi state judge John Whitfield:
Whitfield told the Judiciary Committee that Lampton did not even try to hide his opinion on his perceived politics: “He looked me in the eye and told me during the initial (investigation) interview that I would not be involved in the (investigation) if I ‘had not been so liberal while on the bench.'"
Lynch spotlights the corrupt actions of U.S. Judge Henry Wingate in the Paul Minor case. Oliver Diaz, who was acquitted twice and remains on the Mississippi Supreme Court, explains the outrageous nature of Wingate's conduct:
“A ‘quid pro quo’ is a basic requirement in any bribery trial, and Wingate’s ruling on this issue sealed the case for the prosecution,” Diaz wrote in a 2007 letter to the House Judiciary Committee. “This was clearly an error, and one is left to wonder why the judge changed his rulings.”
Wingate also allowed instructions that the jury could find the defendants guilty “even (if the defendant judges’) rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable and beneficial to the public welfare,” Diaz wrote.
“Because they could not show that the rulings were not correct, prosecutors argued that the simple existence of the loans with rulings by the judges equated to federal bribery,” Diaz said in his letter. “With vague charges by prosecutors and rulings like these from the trial judge, it is no surprise that the second jury was able to convict.”
Lynch quotes former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman about the GOP's assault on Southern Democrats:
Siegelman is vocal about what he feels is a GOP war on Alabama Democrats.“They’ve done anything that was necessary to retain or gain power. ... They have gone after Democratic candidates, and they’ve gone after contributors who’ve supported Democrats in an effort to cut off their main supply and stop anybody that they thought might be a rising star at some level,” Siegelman told the JFP earlier this month.
Siegelman’s claims go way back to his successful 2002 re-election for governor. Siegelman calls it a success, even though Republican opponent Bob Riley occupied the governor’s office the following week. Siegelman appeared to have won re-election on Election Day, but then mysteriously lost votes after one county’s vote machine was left in the hands of Republican operatives for a night.
“There was an analysis of the vote patterns in that county, and it showed an electoral anomaly that statistically and mathematically could not have happened,” Siegelman said. “The only possibility was that it was electronically manipulated, and the two people who claimed credit worked with Rove and the Republican Party.”
Those two people, Kitty McCullough and Dan Gans, receive scrutiny from Lynch:
Kitty McCullough—also known as Kelly Kimbrough—was Rove’s business partner at his political consulting firm K. Rove & Company in Alabama. The state Republican Party gave her credit for finding the irregularity that Siegelman describes as vote theft.
The other operative, Dan Gans, is a self-described electronic ballot security expert who later went to work for a Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff-related company, The Alexander Strategy Group—which has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal—and had close ties to now Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. Gans claimed credit on his Web site for finding the votes that delivered the election to Riley.
Lynch notes how the Rove anti-plaintiff campaign in Alabama was adopted in Mississippi:
Rove and the anti-plaintiff lobby had already worked their magic on the Alabama State Supreme Court, similar to the transformation of the Mississippi Supreme Court. (Jackson attorney Brad) Sessums, for example, acknowledges the shift in attitude in this state, after the “jackpot justice” fury hit Mississippi, egged on by a non-questioning media that regurgitated the U.S. Chamber rhetoric.
“We tried a neurosurgery case up in Lee County back in February 2002. ... The neurosurgeon got stuck with a $3 million verdict. He appealed. ... It was affirmed 5-3 our way. Then they filed a petition for re-hearing. By the time the decision came up again, the pro-business folks had gotten Jess Dickinson to run against (former Justice) Chuck McRae and beat him, and damned if they didn’t reverse and remand that prior affirmed case 6-to-1 against us,” Sessums said.
Lynch goes on to outline the fear campaign that apparently has been waged against those who have spoken out against the Bush DOJ in the Deep South. He notes a mysterious series of fires, break-ins, and other misfortunes that have befallen those who have stood up to Loyal Bushies.
For anyone interested in the cause of justice in the South, Lynch's piece is must reading.
That lament grows even stronger today after reading an outstanding piece of journalism by Adam Lynch, a reporter for the Jackson Free Press.
Lynch does some serious digging, outlining connections between the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi and the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and showing what those cases mean to an American justice system that has been corrupted beyond recognition under George W. Bush.
While the Jackson Free Press has a cover story about the soiling of America's justice system, a story that has its roots in the Deep South, Birmingham Weekly has a cover story about a bicycle race of some sort. And what about Black & White, Birmingham's other "alternative" weekly? Well, it's a conservative alternative paper--yes, such things exist--so I imagine it's doing a major piece on the need for more tax cuts for the upper 1 percent of wage earners.
Lynch's piece is filled with good stuff. Here are a few items that particularly jumped out to us at Legal Schnauzer.
* Lynch notes the success of a U.S. Chamber of Commerce campaign to transform state courts in the South, filling courts with pro-business jurists. One target of the COC campaign was Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz:
Diaz and the other judges had been up against the powerful influence of the U.S. Chamber—an organization that does not have to disclose its donors—which pours huge sums of money into judicial campaigns of corporate-friendly judges who do not favor plaintiffs in lawsuits. That strategy benefits both the corporations being sued, and helps limit the campaign donations that plaintiff attorneys can give the party they tend to support: the Democrats.
The effort has largely succeeded, with a state Supreme Court that routinely reverses Circuit Court rulings against corporations. In one 2007 case, the court even supplanted the 2006 decision of a Hinds County Circuit court jury with its own opinion, ruling in favor of Prudential Insurance Company of America in a $36.4 million lawsuit against it. The court reversed the jury’s decision not because of bad evidence or improper jury instruction, but because it disagreed with the jury’s finding.“Why have juries if all you need to do is overturn them?” asked attorney Alex Alton, who represented the plaintiffs in that case.
* Lynch reveals the brazenness with which Bush-friendly U.S. attorneys have done their dirty work. In this case, the USA is Dunn Lamption, and his target is former Mississippi state judge John Whitfield:
Whitfield told the Judiciary Committee that Lampton did not even try to hide his opinion on his perceived politics: “He looked me in the eye and told me during the initial (investigation) interview that I would not be involved in the (investigation) if I ‘had not been so liberal while on the bench.'"
Lynch spotlights the corrupt actions of U.S. Judge Henry Wingate in the Paul Minor case. Oliver Diaz, who was acquitted twice and remains on the Mississippi Supreme Court, explains the outrageous nature of Wingate's conduct:
“A ‘quid pro quo’ is a basic requirement in any bribery trial, and Wingate’s ruling on this issue sealed the case for the prosecution,” Diaz wrote in a 2007 letter to the House Judiciary Committee. “This was clearly an error, and one is left to wonder why the judge changed his rulings.”
Wingate also allowed instructions that the jury could find the defendants guilty “even (if the defendant judges’) rulings were legal and correct, that the official conduct would have been done anyway, that the official conduct sought to be influenced was lawful and required by law, and that the official conduct was desirable and beneficial to the public welfare,” Diaz wrote.
“Because they could not show that the rulings were not correct, prosecutors argued that the simple existence of the loans with rulings by the judges equated to federal bribery,” Diaz said in his letter. “With vague charges by prosecutors and rulings like these from the trial judge, it is no surprise that the second jury was able to convict.”
Lynch quotes former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman about the GOP's assault on Southern Democrats:
Siegelman is vocal about what he feels is a GOP war on Alabama Democrats.“They’ve done anything that was necessary to retain or gain power. ... They have gone after Democratic candidates, and they’ve gone after contributors who’ve supported Democrats in an effort to cut off their main supply and stop anybody that they thought might be a rising star at some level,” Siegelman told the JFP earlier this month.
Siegelman’s claims go way back to his successful 2002 re-election for governor. Siegelman calls it a success, even though Republican opponent Bob Riley occupied the governor’s office the following week. Siegelman appeared to have won re-election on Election Day, but then mysteriously lost votes after one county’s vote machine was left in the hands of Republican operatives for a night.
“There was an analysis of the vote patterns in that county, and it showed an electoral anomaly that statistically and mathematically could not have happened,” Siegelman said. “The only possibility was that it was electronically manipulated, and the two people who claimed credit worked with Rove and the Republican Party.”
Those two people, Kitty McCullough and Dan Gans, receive scrutiny from Lynch:
Kitty McCullough—also known as Kelly Kimbrough—was Rove’s business partner at his political consulting firm K. Rove & Company in Alabama. The state Republican Party gave her credit for finding the irregularity that Siegelman describes as vote theft.
The other operative, Dan Gans, is a self-described electronic ballot security expert who later went to work for a Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff-related company, The Alexander Strategy Group—which has been implicated in the Abramoff scandal—and had close ties to now Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. Gans claimed credit on his Web site for finding the votes that delivered the election to Riley.
Lynch notes how the Rove anti-plaintiff campaign in Alabama was adopted in Mississippi:
Rove and the anti-plaintiff lobby had already worked their magic on the Alabama State Supreme Court, similar to the transformation of the Mississippi Supreme Court. (Jackson attorney Brad) Sessums, for example, acknowledges the shift in attitude in this state, after the “jackpot justice” fury hit Mississippi, egged on by a non-questioning media that regurgitated the U.S. Chamber rhetoric.
“We tried a neurosurgery case up in Lee County back in February 2002. ... The neurosurgeon got stuck with a $3 million verdict. He appealed. ... It was affirmed 5-3 our way. Then they filed a petition for re-hearing. By the time the decision came up again, the pro-business folks had gotten Jess Dickinson to run against (former Justice) Chuck McRae and beat him, and damned if they didn’t reverse and remand that prior affirmed case 6-to-1 against us,” Sessums said.
Lynch goes on to outline the fear campaign that apparently has been waged against those who have spoken out against the Bush DOJ in the Deep South. He notes a mysterious series of fires, break-ins, and other misfortunes that have befallen those who have stood up to Loyal Bushies.
For anyone interested in the cause of justice in the South, Lynch's piece is must reading.
Scott Horton Weighs in on Siegelman Prosecution
It's impossible to overstate the importance of Scott Horton in the effort to unmask the con men (and women) who have corrupted the Bush Justice Department.
Horton, legal affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, no longer writes daily on his No Comment blog. He is focusing on a number of long-form projects connected to the Justice Department scandal.
We might not read Horton every day at this point, but it was his reporting that led to the major investigative report by 60 Minutes and the ongoing coverage by Dan Abrams' on MSNBC's The Verdict.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we consider Scott Horton the "E.F. Hutton" of the Bush DOJ scandal. Whenever Horton talks, we listen. And Horton is talking today, presenting an overview of the latest events surrounding the investigation of the Don Siegelman case and other questionable prosecutions around the country. Horton's main message: The prosecution's case against Siegelman appears to be unraveling, and one can only wonder if the same soon will be happening in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
You can check out Horton's latest here.
Horton, legal affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, no longer writes daily on his No Comment blog. He is focusing on a number of long-form projects connected to the Justice Department scandal.
We might not read Horton every day at this point, but it was his reporting that led to the major investigative report by 60 Minutes and the ongoing coverage by Dan Abrams' on MSNBC's The Verdict.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we consider Scott Horton the "E.F. Hutton" of the Bush DOJ scandal. Whenever Horton talks, we listen. And Horton is talking today, presenting an overview of the latest events surrounding the investigation of the Don Siegelman case and other questionable prosecutions around the country. Horton's main message: The prosecution's case against Siegelman appears to be unraveling, and one can only wonder if the same soon will be happening in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
You can check out Horton's latest here.
U.S. Attorneys Under the Microscope
Alabama's Leura Canary and Mississippi's Dunn Lampton, who led the respective prosecutions of Don Siegelman and Paul Minor, are among the U.S. attorneys being investigated by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility.
The report comes today from Larisa Alexandrovna, managing editor for investigative news at Raw Story.
The nature of the investigation of Canary and her office is unclear. But Alexandrovna reports that Lampton is alleged to have shared confidential income-tax returns of a prosecution target with unauthorized individuals.
Misuse of private tax information could prompt a criminal investigation, Alexandrovna reports, and that would be led by the Office of Inspector General.
Raw Story also adds to the mountain of evidence indicating wrongdoing in the Siegelman prosecution. Alexandrovna reports that she uncovered evidence that former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove conducted meetings in Washington, D.C., with campaign operatives for current Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Riley, of course, defeated Siegelman in a close and controversial 2002 election, with vote totals mysteriously being changed in Baldwin County, Alabama, turning an apparent Siegelman victory into a win for Riley. Rove has publicly denied involvement in that campaign.
The report comes today from Larisa Alexandrovna, managing editor for investigative news at Raw Story.
The nature of the investigation of Canary and her office is unclear. But Alexandrovna reports that Lampton is alleged to have shared confidential income-tax returns of a prosecution target with unauthorized individuals.
Misuse of private tax information could prompt a criminal investigation, Alexandrovna reports, and that would be led by the Office of Inspector General.
Raw Story also adds to the mountain of evidence indicating wrongdoing in the Siegelman prosecution. Alexandrovna reports that she uncovered evidence that former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove conducted meetings in Washington, D.C., with campaign operatives for current Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Riley, of course, defeated Siegelman in a close and controversial 2002 election, with vote totals mysteriously being changed in Baldwin County, Alabama, turning an apparent Siegelman victory into a win for Riley. Rove has publicly denied involvement in that campaign.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Alice and Me, Part III
By spring of 2007, I had learned enough about Alice Martin to decide that she almost certainly would not do anything about the federal crimes I had witnessed.
But as spring began to turn into summer, I thought, "What the heck, let's give it a try."
So I wrote the Queen another snail-mail letter, filled with the kind of "focused detail" she requested.
Again, I will focus here only on events in Shelby County, subjects that I've covered extensively on the blog:
-------------------------------------------------
Roger Shuler
5204 Logan Drive
Birmingham, AL
June 14, 2007
Alice H. Martin
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Alabama
1801 4th Ave. North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2101
Ms. Martin:
This is in response to your letter dated January 22, 2007, in which you ask for detailed allegations of mail and/or wire fraud committed by members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the Alabama Judiciary.
I estimate that this case involves 20-50 instances of mail fraud. Almost every ruling in this case was unlawful, depriving Alabama citizens of honest services. And in most every instance, the individual cited caused the U.S. mails to be used. Due to the volume of infractions, I will not cite each one. In the interest of keeping this letter at a manageable length, I will cite what I consider to be the most important infractions for the individuals noted. I will be happy to provide more instances later.
I allege, and an investigation will show, that the individuals noted below conspired to commit mail and wire fraud, depriving the citizens of Alabama of their intangible right to honest services under 18 U.S. Code 1346. Because the limitations period begins to run after the last overt act in furtherance of the main goals of a conspiracy (United States v. Fletcher, 928 F.2d 495), all of these acts fall within the five-year mail fraud statute of limitations.
William Swatek, Pelham attorney
• Mr. Swatek filed a lawsuit against me, on behalf of his client Mike McGarity (Shelby Co., CV-00-1248), alleging malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, later amending the complaint to drop the false imprisonment claim but adding a claim for conversion. During the course of litigation, Swatek filed a Motion to Clarify (dated November 16, 2001), seeking to join three additional neighbors in the lawsuit against me. The motion claims that the three additional neighbors had viewed photographs of property belonging to them and wanted to assert conversion claims against me. However, one of the neighbors, Eric Hallmark, told me in a phone conversion that he was not familiar with the motion and had no intention of joining a lawsuit against me. At a deposition on December 3, 2003, Swatek stated that prior to filing his Motion to Clarify, seeking to add Hallmark (and two other neighbors) to the lawsuit against me, he had a meeting with them in his office. Swatek further stated that he was “positive” the motion was drafted with their permission. Obviously these statements by Swatek are at odds with Hallmark's statements, which I have on tape. The motion Swatek crafted clearly was fraudulent, and he used the U.S. mail to send it to me in order to seek an advantage during litigation.
J. Michael Joiner, Shelby County Circuit Judge
• Joiner made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, allowing McGarity’s Amendment to Complaint adding claim for conversion, which was untimely filed. The case was originally set for trial on August 20, 2001, and McGarity filed his Amendment to Complaint on September 12, 2001. Rule 15(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP) requires a party to obtain leave of court to amend a pleading after 42 days before the first trial setting. McGarity failed to obtain leave of court prior to filing his amendment. For an amendment without leave of court, McGarity was some 65 days late in filing. In fact, he filed the amendment after I had already filed my first Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ). In Malone v. Malone, 854 So.2d 109 (Ala., 2003), the Alabama Supreme Court found that written notice seeking leave of court is required, with notice to all parties. The record clearly shows that was not done in this case. Therefore, as in Malone, said amendment must not be allowed. But Joiner allowed it and used the U.S. mails to commit this fraudulent act.
• Joiner made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my first Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), to which McGarity failed to respond in a timely or appropriate manner. On July 20, 2001, the court entered an order setting my MSJ for hearing on September 19, 2001. Rule 56(c)(2) ARCP states: “Subject to subparagraph (f) of this rule, any statement or affidavit in opposition shall be served at least two (2) days prior to the hearing.” Subparagraph (f) did not apply because McGarity did not file a timely affidavit giving reasons why he could not present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition. McGarity filed his affidavit on September 27, 2001, eight days after the hearing. Thus, it was untimely and invalid. Since McGarity presented no timely evidence in opposition, my MSJ had to be granted by law. The Alabama Supreme Court has held: “When party opposing properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing.” Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown 631 So.2d 848 (Ala., 1993). Joiner denied the MSJ and used the U.S. mails to commit this fraudulent act.
• Joiner made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my second Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), to which McGarity filed no answer, presented no evidence, and gave no response of any kind. On January 10, 2002, I filed a second properly executed and supported MSJ, citing law and fact distinct from that cited in the first MSJ. McGarity made no response at all. The Alabama Supreme Court has held: “When party opposing properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing.” Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown, 631 So.2d 848 (Ala., 1993). Joiner was required by law to grant summary judgment but denied my motion in a ruling dated February 28, 2002, using the U.S. mails to commit this fraudulent act.
G. Dan Reeves, Shelby County Circuit Judge
• Reeves became judge in the case when Joiner granted my Motion to Recuse after Joiner admitted in court that he and Swatek regularly play golf and were longtime neighbors. On September 4, 2003, I filed a Motion for Counsel Fees and Costs under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Code of Alabama 1975, 12-19-270 et seq. Reeves denied the motion on November 25, 2003. By law, no decision could be made on my motion at the time Judge Reeves made his ruling. Code of Alabama, 1975, 12-19-272 (a) states: “Except as otherwise provided in this article, in any civil action commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state, the court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any other costs otherwise assessed (emphasis added), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs against any attorney or party, or both, who has brought a civil action, or asserted a claim therein, or interposed a defense, that the court determines to be without substantial justification, either in whole or part.” Alabama case law has held: “This statute does not create a new or separate cause of action to be brought after a case is litigated and given a final adjudication on its merits; rather, it indicates that the motion for attorneys' fees must be made during the pendency of the case.” Baker v. Williams Bros., 601 So.2d 110 (Ala. Civ. App., 1992). I made my motion during the pendency of the case, as required by Alabama law. No ruling could be made on the motion until the case had been given a final adjudication on its merits. Since no final adjudication had been given, the court's denial of the Motion for Counsel Fees and Costs was unlawful and dishonest. Reeves caused the U.S. mails to be used in furtherance of this fraudulent act.
• Reeves made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my Motion for Joinder of Additional Parties (filed on February 4, 2004) to my counterclaim, under Rule 13(h) ARCP. Rule 13 ARCP is clear in its intent to join claims that turn on the same facts as the original claim. The committee comments to Rule 13 state: “Though any claim against an opposing party may be presented as a counterclaim, the rule also provides that such a claim must be pleaded as a counterclaim if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. . . . The purpose of this provision is to avoid circuitry of actions, and to require assertion as counterclaims of those claims which are likely to turn on the same facts as the original claim.” All of the parties and claims I sought to join are related to McGarity's original claim, which stems from his underlying prosecution for criminal trespass, third degree. A major portion of both my defense and my counterclaim was that, despite being acquitted in the criminal trial, McGarity actually did trespass, both criminally and civilly, in part because he improperly erected a fence that enclosed some 400 square feet of my property. Discovery indicated that several parties I sought to join were liable for the fence winding up on my property, leading both to McGarity's trespass and the instant lawsuit. Other parties were liable for defamation related to the criminal trial. And another party, McGarity's attorney Swatek, was liable for repeated and gross abuse of the judicial process. My motion was proper under both Rule 18 and Rule 19 ARCP, and the parties sought to be joined were indispensable, necessary, and proper in order to have just adjudication of my claims. In these parties' absence, I could not be accorded complete relief, pursuant to Rule 19. Finally, the trial court's ruling was in error for simple technical reasons. A Motion to Joinder Additional Parties is a form of amended or supplemental pleading. And when there has been no responsive pleading (McGarity had not responded to my counterclaim), a party may amend as a matter of course. McGarity's failure to answer my counterclaim, over a period of some 16 months, made it clear that I was entitled to joinder additional parties. Reeves’ ruling was unlawful and dishonest, and he caused the U.S. mails to be used in furtherance of this fraudulent act.
• Reeves made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my third Motion for Summary Judgment (filed on January 30, 2004). This MSJ was properly executed and supported and presented facts and law distinct from my first two MSJs. Again, McGarity failed to respond at all. Rule 56(e) ARCP states: “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” (Emphasis added.) The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment is “nondiscretionary.” Terry v. Phillips 66 Co., Inc., 591 So.2d 33 (Ala. 1991). The Supreme Court also has addressed the “if appropriate” clause of Rule 56(e), stating that the clause refers to cases where the moving party has not yet responded, adequately or at all, to the opposing party's discovery requests. Bean v. BIC Corp., 597 So.2d 1350 (Ala. 1992). I had responded appropriately to all discovery requests, so the “if appropriate” clause was not a factor. And because of the nondiscretionary nature of a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Judge Reeves was required by law to implement a “hard-and-fast rule.” He failed to do so, exercising judgment and choice that, under Alabama law, he did not have. Rule 56(c) ARCP states: “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is not a genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In the instant case, where my motion was properly executed and supported, and McGarity did not respond with any opposing evidence, the trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing. Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown, 631 So.2d 848 (Ala., 1993). Furthermore, the Alabama Supreme Court has held: “Ordinarily any issue as to denial of summary judgment would be moot because sufficiency of evidence at trial would be the significant question on appeal. However, a movant who conclusively establishes that a summary judgment is appropriate, with no pertinent opposition from the nonmovant, is 'entitled to a judgment as a matter of law' and 'the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith.'” Superskate, Inc. v. Nolen, 641 So.2d 231 (Ala., 1994). In Superskate, the court pondered the possibility that, because of wrongful denial of an MSJ, a litigant could be forced improperly to go to trial. The court stated: “On the other hand, if it appears that the plaintiff has changed testimony or other evidence based on experience gained during the proceedings on the motion for summary judgment, the defendant may have a legitimate argument that the case should never have gone to trial.” In the instant case, it's not a matter of McGarity changing testimony. He never presented any testimony in the first place. I was forced to defend myself at trial only because two judges, both of whom should have disqualified themselves from the outset, denied three properly executed and supported MSJs, none of which drew any pertinent opposition from McGarity. Finally, it should be noted that the trial court, in its order denying my third MSJ, stated: “The Defendants presented no additional evidence or arguments other than was previously submitted to the Court on Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.” This statement is patently false, and a simple review of the record shows that it is false. I clearly presented facts and law that had not been presented before. Reeves caused the U.S. mails to be used in furtherance of this fraudulent act.
Judges Thompson, Crawley, Pittman, Murdock, and Bryan—Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Once again, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals shows blatant disrespect for the law by issuing a no-opinion affirmance (2040161) to uphold unlawful trial-court rulings, this time in the McGarity case outlined above. This affirmance was issued on June 24, 2005, and it includes citations to 15 cases in an apparent attempt to justify the affirmance. But when one looks up these cases, it is almost laughable to see what our appellate judges have done. For example, the court cited several cases [including McLemore v. Fleming, 604 So.2d 353 (Ala., 1992)] stating that, where an appellant fails to cite authority or make an argument, the court may affirm. (“It is neither our duty nor our function to perform legal research for an appellant.”) At least seven of the 15 cases cited by the court in the instant case, involve this issue. The court evidently found that I did not cite authority, make an argument or otherwise follow the requirements of Rule 28 ARAP. This finding is outrageously incorrect. In my appellant's brief, I cited proper authorities on 30 occasions. All 18 of my primary arguments were supported by citations to proper authorities. Furthermore, I followed Rule 28 ARAP to the letter. I should note that there was no appellee's brief filed in this case, so the Statement of Facts in my appellant's brief is the controlling factual document here. Alabama courts have held: “In absence of brief for appellee, facts and record as stated in appellant's brief will be accepted as true.” United Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Dupree, 146 So.2d 91 (Ala., 1962.) Even a cursory glance at the record shows that the court was wrong when it apparently contended that I failed to comply with Rule 28 ARAP. Finally, the court's no-opinion ruling cites Judge v. Bolan, 642 So.2d 486 (Ala. Civ. App, 1994), apparently finding that the trial-court's rulings are to be affirmed because I did not include a trial transcript in the record. Rule 10 ARAP, however, makes it clear that the appellant is not required to include a trial transcript. That is particularly true in the instant case, where the pre-trial record is filled with mistakes of legal issues that bear no presumption of correctness on appeal (Bostrom Seating v. Adderhold, 852 So.2d 784). These mistakes make the trial-and any transcript-irrelevant. The Alabama Supreme Court noted in Superskate that it's possible for a defendant to show on appeal that a case never should have gone to trial. The instant case involves just such a situation. The case only went to trial because of multiple legal errors by the trial court, and those errors were due to be reversed, had the appellate court bothered to follow the law. Instead it issued a dishonest affirmance and used the U.S. mails, which constitutes mail fraud.
I should mention that I have become acquainted with a prominent Montgomery attorney who has told me he knows of numerous instances where Alabama’s Court of Civil Appeals has improperly used “no-opinion affirmances” to uphold unlawful trial-court rulings. This individual says numerous attorneys have told him of experiencing such practices, but they are afraid to come forward for fear of judicial retribution. I would be glad to give you this attorney’s name and contact information. My research indicates that the problem of judicial corruption in Alabama goes way beyond my case.
I request that the wrongdoing outlined above be investigated and prosecuted as soon as possible. I stand ready to provide more information and assistance.
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
cc: Carmen Adams, special agent in charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1000 18th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
But as spring began to turn into summer, I thought, "What the heck, let's give it a try."
So I wrote the Queen another snail-mail letter, filled with the kind of "focused detail" she requested.
Again, I will focus here only on events in Shelby County, subjects that I've covered extensively on the blog:
-------------------------------------------------
Roger Shuler
5204 Logan Drive
Birmingham, AL
June 14, 2007
Alice H. Martin
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Alabama
1801 4th Ave. North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2101
Ms. Martin:
This is in response to your letter dated January 22, 2007, in which you ask for detailed allegations of mail and/or wire fraud committed by members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the Alabama Judiciary.
I estimate that this case involves 20-50 instances of mail fraud. Almost every ruling in this case was unlawful, depriving Alabama citizens of honest services. And in most every instance, the individual cited caused the U.S. mails to be used. Due to the volume of infractions, I will not cite each one. In the interest of keeping this letter at a manageable length, I will cite what I consider to be the most important infractions for the individuals noted. I will be happy to provide more instances later.
I allege, and an investigation will show, that the individuals noted below conspired to commit mail and wire fraud, depriving the citizens of Alabama of their intangible right to honest services under 18 U.S. Code 1346. Because the limitations period begins to run after the last overt act in furtherance of the main goals of a conspiracy (United States v. Fletcher, 928 F.2d 495), all of these acts fall within the five-year mail fraud statute of limitations.
William Swatek, Pelham attorney
• Mr. Swatek filed a lawsuit against me, on behalf of his client Mike McGarity (Shelby Co., CV-00-1248), alleging malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, later amending the complaint to drop the false imprisonment claim but adding a claim for conversion. During the course of litigation, Swatek filed a Motion to Clarify (dated November 16, 2001), seeking to join three additional neighbors in the lawsuit against me. The motion claims that the three additional neighbors had viewed photographs of property belonging to them and wanted to assert conversion claims against me. However, one of the neighbors, Eric Hallmark, told me in a phone conversion that he was not familiar with the motion and had no intention of joining a lawsuit against me. At a deposition on December 3, 2003, Swatek stated that prior to filing his Motion to Clarify, seeking to add Hallmark (and two other neighbors) to the lawsuit against me, he had a meeting with them in his office. Swatek further stated that he was “positive” the motion was drafted with their permission. Obviously these statements by Swatek are at odds with Hallmark's statements, which I have on tape. The motion Swatek crafted clearly was fraudulent, and he used the U.S. mail to send it to me in order to seek an advantage during litigation.
J. Michael Joiner, Shelby County Circuit Judge
• Joiner made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, allowing McGarity’s Amendment to Complaint adding claim for conversion, which was untimely filed. The case was originally set for trial on August 20, 2001, and McGarity filed his Amendment to Complaint on September 12, 2001. Rule 15(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP) requires a party to obtain leave of court to amend a pleading after 42 days before the first trial setting. McGarity failed to obtain leave of court prior to filing his amendment. For an amendment without leave of court, McGarity was some 65 days late in filing. In fact, he filed the amendment after I had already filed my first Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ). In Malone v. Malone, 854 So.2d 109 (Ala., 2003), the Alabama Supreme Court found that written notice seeking leave of court is required, with notice to all parties. The record clearly shows that was not done in this case. Therefore, as in Malone, said amendment must not be allowed. But Joiner allowed it and used the U.S. mails to commit this fraudulent act.
• Joiner made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my first Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), to which McGarity failed to respond in a timely or appropriate manner. On July 20, 2001, the court entered an order setting my MSJ for hearing on September 19, 2001. Rule 56(c)(2) ARCP states: “Subject to subparagraph (f) of this rule, any statement or affidavit in opposition shall be served at least two (2) days prior to the hearing.” Subparagraph (f) did not apply because McGarity did not file a timely affidavit giving reasons why he could not present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition. McGarity filed his affidavit on September 27, 2001, eight days after the hearing. Thus, it was untimely and invalid. Since McGarity presented no timely evidence in opposition, my MSJ had to be granted by law. The Alabama Supreme Court has held: “When party opposing properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing.” Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown 631 So.2d 848 (Ala., 1993). Joiner denied the MSJ and used the U.S. mails to commit this fraudulent act.
• Joiner made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my second Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), to which McGarity filed no answer, presented no evidence, and gave no response of any kind. On January 10, 2002, I filed a second properly executed and supported MSJ, citing law and fact distinct from that cited in the first MSJ. McGarity made no response at all. The Alabama Supreme Court has held: “When party opposing properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing.” Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown, 631 So.2d 848 (Ala., 1993). Joiner was required by law to grant summary judgment but denied my motion in a ruling dated February 28, 2002, using the U.S. mails to commit this fraudulent act.
G. Dan Reeves, Shelby County Circuit Judge
• Reeves became judge in the case when Joiner granted my Motion to Recuse after Joiner admitted in court that he and Swatek regularly play golf and were longtime neighbors. On September 4, 2003, I filed a Motion for Counsel Fees and Costs under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act, Code of Alabama 1975, 12-19-270 et seq. Reeves denied the motion on November 25, 2003. By law, no decision could be made on my motion at the time Judge Reeves made his ruling. Code of Alabama, 1975, 12-19-272 (a) states: “Except as otherwise provided in this article, in any civil action commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state, the court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any other costs otherwise assessed (emphasis added), reasonable attorneys' fees and costs against any attorney or party, or both, who has brought a civil action, or asserted a claim therein, or interposed a defense, that the court determines to be without substantial justification, either in whole or part.” Alabama case law has held: “This statute does not create a new or separate cause of action to be brought after a case is litigated and given a final adjudication on its merits; rather, it indicates that the motion for attorneys' fees must be made during the pendency of the case.” Baker v. Williams Bros., 601 So.2d 110 (Ala. Civ. App., 1992). I made my motion during the pendency of the case, as required by Alabama law. No ruling could be made on the motion until the case had been given a final adjudication on its merits. Since no final adjudication had been given, the court's denial of the Motion for Counsel Fees and Costs was unlawful and dishonest. Reeves caused the U.S. mails to be used in furtherance of this fraudulent act.
• Reeves made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my Motion for Joinder of Additional Parties (filed on February 4, 2004) to my counterclaim, under Rule 13(h) ARCP. Rule 13 ARCP is clear in its intent to join claims that turn on the same facts as the original claim. The committee comments to Rule 13 state: “Though any claim against an opposing party may be presented as a counterclaim, the rule also provides that such a claim must be pleaded as a counterclaim if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. . . . The purpose of this provision is to avoid circuitry of actions, and to require assertion as counterclaims of those claims which are likely to turn on the same facts as the original claim.” All of the parties and claims I sought to join are related to McGarity's original claim, which stems from his underlying prosecution for criminal trespass, third degree. A major portion of both my defense and my counterclaim was that, despite being acquitted in the criminal trial, McGarity actually did trespass, both criminally and civilly, in part because he improperly erected a fence that enclosed some 400 square feet of my property. Discovery indicated that several parties I sought to join were liable for the fence winding up on my property, leading both to McGarity's trespass and the instant lawsuit. Other parties were liable for defamation related to the criminal trial. And another party, McGarity's attorney Swatek, was liable for repeated and gross abuse of the judicial process. My motion was proper under both Rule 18 and Rule 19 ARCP, and the parties sought to be joined were indispensable, necessary, and proper in order to have just adjudication of my claims. In these parties' absence, I could not be accorded complete relief, pursuant to Rule 19. Finally, the trial court's ruling was in error for simple technical reasons. A Motion to Joinder Additional Parties is a form of amended or supplemental pleading. And when there has been no responsive pleading (McGarity had not responded to my counterclaim), a party may amend as a matter of course. McGarity's failure to answer my counterclaim, over a period of some 16 months, made it clear that I was entitled to joinder additional parties. Reeves’ ruling was unlawful and dishonest, and he caused the U.S. mails to be used in furtherance of this fraudulent act.
• Reeves made an unlawful and dishonest ruling, denying my third Motion for Summary Judgment (filed on January 30, 2004). This MSJ was properly executed and supported and presented facts and law distinct from my first two MSJs. Again, McGarity failed to respond at all. Rule 56(e) ARCP states: “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.” (Emphasis added.) The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment is “nondiscretionary.” Terry v. Phillips 66 Co., Inc., 591 So.2d 33 (Ala. 1991). The Supreme Court also has addressed the “if appropriate” clause of Rule 56(e), stating that the clause refers to cases where the moving party has not yet responded, adequately or at all, to the opposing party's discovery requests. Bean v. BIC Corp., 597 So.2d 1350 (Ala. 1992). I had responded appropriately to all discovery requests, so the “if appropriate” clause was not a factor. And because of the nondiscretionary nature of a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Judge Reeves was required by law to implement a “hard-and-fast rule.” He failed to do so, exercising judgment and choice that, under Alabama law, he did not have. Rule 56(c) ARCP states: “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is not a genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” In the instant case, where my motion was properly executed and supported, and McGarity did not respond with any opposing evidence, the trial court must consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing. Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown, 631 So.2d 848 (Ala., 1993). Furthermore, the Alabama Supreme Court has held: “Ordinarily any issue as to denial of summary judgment would be moot because sufficiency of evidence at trial would be the significant question on appeal. However, a movant who conclusively establishes that a summary judgment is appropriate, with no pertinent opposition from the nonmovant, is 'entitled to a judgment as a matter of law' and 'the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith.'” Superskate, Inc. v. Nolen, 641 So.2d 231 (Ala., 1994). In Superskate, the court pondered the possibility that, because of wrongful denial of an MSJ, a litigant could be forced improperly to go to trial. The court stated: “On the other hand, if it appears that the plaintiff has changed testimony or other evidence based on experience gained during the proceedings on the motion for summary judgment, the defendant may have a legitimate argument that the case should never have gone to trial.” In the instant case, it's not a matter of McGarity changing testimony. He never presented any testimony in the first place. I was forced to defend myself at trial only because two judges, both of whom should have disqualified themselves from the outset, denied three properly executed and supported MSJs, none of which drew any pertinent opposition from McGarity. Finally, it should be noted that the trial court, in its order denying my third MSJ, stated: “The Defendants presented no additional evidence or arguments other than was previously submitted to the Court on Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.” This statement is patently false, and a simple review of the record shows that it is false. I clearly presented facts and law that had not been presented before. Reeves caused the U.S. mails to be used in furtherance of this fraudulent act.
Judges Thompson, Crawley, Pittman, Murdock, and Bryan—Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Once again, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals shows blatant disrespect for the law by issuing a no-opinion affirmance (2040161) to uphold unlawful trial-court rulings, this time in the McGarity case outlined above. This affirmance was issued on June 24, 2005, and it includes citations to 15 cases in an apparent attempt to justify the affirmance. But when one looks up these cases, it is almost laughable to see what our appellate judges have done. For example, the court cited several cases [including McLemore v. Fleming, 604 So.2d 353 (Ala., 1992)] stating that, where an appellant fails to cite authority or make an argument, the court may affirm. (“It is neither our duty nor our function to perform legal research for an appellant.”) At least seven of the 15 cases cited by the court in the instant case, involve this issue. The court evidently found that I did not cite authority, make an argument or otherwise follow the requirements of Rule 28 ARAP. This finding is outrageously incorrect. In my appellant's brief, I cited proper authorities on 30 occasions. All 18 of my primary arguments were supported by citations to proper authorities. Furthermore, I followed Rule 28 ARAP to the letter. I should note that there was no appellee's brief filed in this case, so the Statement of Facts in my appellant's brief is the controlling factual document here. Alabama courts have held: “In absence of brief for appellee, facts and record as stated in appellant's brief will be accepted as true.” United Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Dupree, 146 So.2d 91 (Ala., 1962.) Even a cursory glance at the record shows that the court was wrong when it apparently contended that I failed to comply with Rule 28 ARAP. Finally, the court's no-opinion ruling cites Judge v. Bolan, 642 So.2d 486 (Ala. Civ. App, 1994), apparently finding that the trial-court's rulings are to be affirmed because I did not include a trial transcript in the record. Rule 10 ARAP, however, makes it clear that the appellant is not required to include a trial transcript. That is particularly true in the instant case, where the pre-trial record is filled with mistakes of legal issues that bear no presumption of correctness on appeal (Bostrom Seating v. Adderhold, 852 So.2d 784). These mistakes make the trial-and any transcript-irrelevant. The Alabama Supreme Court noted in Superskate that it's possible for a defendant to show on appeal that a case never should have gone to trial. The instant case involves just such a situation. The case only went to trial because of multiple legal errors by the trial court, and those errors were due to be reversed, had the appellate court bothered to follow the law. Instead it issued a dishonest affirmance and used the U.S. mails, which constitutes mail fraud.
I should mention that I have become acquainted with a prominent Montgomery attorney who has told me he knows of numerous instances where Alabama’s Court of Civil Appeals has improperly used “no-opinion affirmances” to uphold unlawful trial-court rulings. This individual says numerous attorneys have told him of experiencing such practices, but they are afraid to come forward for fear of judicial retribution. I would be glad to give you this attorney’s name and contact information. My research indicates that the problem of judicial corruption in Alabama goes way beyond my case.
I request that the wrongdoing outlined above be investigated and prosecuted as soon as possible. I stand ready to provide more information and assistance.
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
cc: Carmen Adams, special agent in charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1000 18th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
BUZZFLASH Focuses on Siegelman Case
Legal Schnauzer readers will not want to miss a compelling interview at BUZZFLASH with investigative journalist Larisa Alexandrovna.
Alexandrovna has been one of the primary chroniclers of the Bush Justice Department scandal, and she and BUZZFLASH interviewer Mark Karlin nicely tie together the motivations that led to political prosecutions and the injustices that resulted.
The Don Siegelman case in Alabama is front and center, but Alexandrovna also points out both the illegality and the hard-hearted evil that permeates the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
Many Americans seem too busy chattering on their cell phones and weaving through traffic in their SUVs to notice what probably will become the worst scandal in U.S. history. But Alexandrovna, who was born in the former Soviet Union, is quick to notice government corruption:
BuzzFlash: You've got the skills of an investigative journalist. Why does this particular case make you so impassioned?
Larisa Alexandrovna: Probably because it reminds me of the Soviet Union and a country that my family and I escaped from. It's no longer a country now, but technically I'm from the Ukraine, but at the time, the Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. And it was single-party rule. And you have allegiance to the party. And the party controlled everything. And this is what I see happening here.
This disturbs me on a very personal level. And the fact that the public does not see this, or at least is starting to see this, is really frightening me. Because at some point, this will become irreversible. It will become so institutionalized that no amount of protesting or putting pressure on your member of Congress will change the structure that has been set up. And so, you know, that's basically why this makes me so, you know, crazy, so impassioned, is because it frightens me.
Perhaps, someday, more folks who were born on American soil will take notice long enough to be frightened, too.
Alexandrovna has been one of the primary chroniclers of the Bush Justice Department scandal, and she and BUZZFLASH interviewer Mark Karlin nicely tie together the motivations that led to political prosecutions and the injustices that resulted.
The Don Siegelman case in Alabama is front and center, but Alexandrovna also points out both the illegality and the hard-hearted evil that permeates the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi.
Many Americans seem too busy chattering on their cell phones and weaving through traffic in their SUVs to notice what probably will become the worst scandal in U.S. history. But Alexandrovna, who was born in the former Soviet Union, is quick to notice government corruption:
BuzzFlash: You've got the skills of an investigative journalist. Why does this particular case make you so impassioned?
Larisa Alexandrovna: Probably because it reminds me of the Soviet Union and a country that my family and I escaped from. It's no longer a country now, but technically I'm from the Ukraine, but at the time, the Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. And it was single-party rule. And you have allegiance to the party. And the party controlled everything. And this is what I see happening here.
This disturbs me on a very personal level. And the fact that the public does not see this, or at least is starting to see this, is really frightening me. Because at some point, this will become irreversible. It will become so institutionalized that no amount of protesting or putting pressure on your member of Congress will change the structure that has been set up. And so, you know, that's basically why this makes me so, you know, crazy, so impassioned, is because it frightens me.
Perhaps, someday, more folks who were born on American soil will take notice long enough to be frightened, too.
Alice and Me, Part II
I didn't expect to receive a response to my letter to Alice Martin. But what do you know, the Queen got back to me.
Here is her reply. Note the snarky, dismissive tone in the second paragraph. Also note the promise the Queen makes in the last sentence. Will she keep that promise? Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Alice H. Martin
United States Attorney
Northern District of Alabama
1801 Fourth Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2101
www.usdoj.gov/usao/aln
January 22, 2007
Mr. Roger Shuler
5204 Logan Drive
Birmingham, Alabama
Re: Letter dated 1/14/07
Dear Mr. Shuler:
This will confirm that I received your letter dated January 14, 2007, in which you allege that members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the judiary (sic) are responsible for committing mail and/or wire fraud. You reference that you have contacted the FBI but heard nothing. Please be advised that we open cases based on referrals from our investigative partners, such as the FBI.
Your letter does not state what illegal actions you believe were taken by these individuals. If you wish to send this office a letter setting forth, in focused detail your allegations, rather than citations to the caselaw which we are very familiar with already, we will seek to make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.
Sincerely yours,
Alice H. Martin
U.S. Attorney
Here is her reply. Note the snarky, dismissive tone in the second paragraph. Also note the promise the Queen makes in the last sentence. Will she keep that promise? Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Justice
Alice H. Martin
United States Attorney
Northern District of Alabama
1801 Fourth Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2101
www.usdoj.gov/usao/aln
January 22, 2007
Mr. Roger Shuler
5204 Logan Drive
Birmingham, Alabama
Re: Letter dated 1/14/07
Dear Mr. Shuler:
This will confirm that I received your letter dated January 14, 2007, in which you allege that members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the judiary (sic) are responsible for committing mail and/or wire fraud. You reference that you have contacted the FBI but heard nothing. Please be advised that we open cases based on referrals from our investigative partners, such as the FBI.
Your letter does not state what illegal actions you believe were taken by these individuals. If you wish to send this office a letter setting forth, in focused detail your allegations, rather than citations to the caselaw which we are very familiar with already, we will seek to make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.
Sincerely yours,
Alice H. Martin
U.S. Attorney
The Real Problem With Alabama's Appellate Courts
J. Mark White, president-elect of the Alabama State Bar, probably meant well with his recent op-ed piece in The Birmingham News.
But White missed the mark with his diagnosis of what ails Alabama's appellate courts.
White expresses concern that Alabama appellate courts have all but done away with the practice of oral argument. He notes that the Alabama Supreme Court, over the past six years, has averaged 2,100 cases per term--granting oral argument in an average of 25 cases per year. The figures for the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals are even worse. It granted oral argument in only 12 cases over the entire six years; in two consecutive years, the court granted no oral arguments at all.
These figures are alarming, and they suggest that judges on Alabama's appellate courts are neglecting an important part of their duty. But White fails to point out an even more important area where the justices are failing.
It is becoming increasingly common for Alabama appellate courts to produce "no-opinion affirmances." These are documents where the appellate court affirms the trial-court ruling and gives no opinion. In other words, the party who filed the appeal sees it denied with no explanation offered.
Under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, no-opinion affirmances are supposed to be issued only when the trial court clearly was correct in its finding and the case presents no issues of first impression for the appellate court.
But I've had multiple experiences where an Alabama appellate court has upheld a trial court that clearly was incorrect in its finding. In cases such as those, the appellate court essentially is sweeping wrongdoing under the rug. In my experiences, both the trial court and the appellate court were dominated by Republican "jurists," indicating that partisan politics played a major role in the no-opinion affirmances.
I'm hardly alone in having this experience. Ray Vaughan, an attorney in Montgomery who ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in 2006, says numerous attorneys have told him of having clearly unlawful trial-court rulings upheld by no-opinion affirmances. At the heart of Vaughan's platform was a plan to do away with the rule that allows no-opinion affirmances. But Vaughan, a Democrat, lost in his bid for a seat on the civil-appeals court. The court remains an all-Republican body, and the practice of issuing unlawful no-opinion affirmances continues.
White's op-ed piece is elitist in tone. Even on a court that is doing its job, I suspect oral argument is granted only in cases that involve corporate entities or wealthy individuals. When regular citizens are parties, my guess is that oral argument is rarely granted.
My experience indicates that oral argument is not necessary in many "run-of-the-mill" legal cases. In my case, for example, oral argument certainly wasn't necessary. The briefs clearly showed that the trial court had ruled contrary to law on multiple occasions. And the other party did not even file an opposing brief. Don't know how much easier it can get for an appellate court, but Alabama's appellate courts still could not get it right.
White seems to be captivated by the "romance" oral arguments offer for lawyers. But what about parties of limited incomes who have to pay for lawyers to make oral arguments? With many lawyers charging $300 to $500 an hour for their services, you can only imagine how much it would cost a middle-income party to have a lawyer travel to Montgomery to present oral argument.
White, like many lawyers I've encountered, seems more concerned with his profession and other lawyers than he does with the needs of citizens.
Citizens simply need honest appellate courts who are required to write an opinion explaining why they ruled a certain way. And we certainly do not have that right now in Alabama.
Here's a key point: The practice of issuing no-opinion affirmances is not just a matter of judges being "unethical" or parties being "inconvenienced" or "wronged." The practice of upholding clearly unlawful trial-court findings is criminal--and the parties who suffer from it are the victims of a crime.
The crime is called honest-services mail fraud, the same charge that was at the heart of the prosecutions against Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi. Siegelman and Minor, of course, are both Democrats--and the trial records in both cases indicate they did not commit honest-services mail fraud at all. Meanwhile, Republicans on Alabama's appellate courts routinely commit honest-services mail fraud, and they get away with it.
That's the ugly truth that J. Mark White refused to address in his op-ed piece.
But White missed the mark with his diagnosis of what ails Alabama's appellate courts.
White expresses concern that Alabama appellate courts have all but done away with the practice of oral argument. He notes that the Alabama Supreme Court, over the past six years, has averaged 2,100 cases per term--granting oral argument in an average of 25 cases per year. The figures for the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals are even worse. It granted oral argument in only 12 cases over the entire six years; in two consecutive years, the court granted no oral arguments at all.
These figures are alarming, and they suggest that judges on Alabama's appellate courts are neglecting an important part of their duty. But White fails to point out an even more important area where the justices are failing.
It is becoming increasingly common for Alabama appellate courts to produce "no-opinion affirmances." These are documents where the appellate court affirms the trial-court ruling and gives no opinion. In other words, the party who filed the appeal sees it denied with no explanation offered.
Under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, no-opinion affirmances are supposed to be issued only when the trial court clearly was correct in its finding and the case presents no issues of first impression for the appellate court.
But I've had multiple experiences where an Alabama appellate court has upheld a trial court that clearly was incorrect in its finding. In cases such as those, the appellate court essentially is sweeping wrongdoing under the rug. In my experiences, both the trial court and the appellate court were dominated by Republican "jurists," indicating that partisan politics played a major role in the no-opinion affirmances.
I'm hardly alone in having this experience. Ray Vaughan, an attorney in Montgomery who ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in 2006, says numerous attorneys have told him of having clearly unlawful trial-court rulings upheld by no-opinion affirmances. At the heart of Vaughan's platform was a plan to do away with the rule that allows no-opinion affirmances. But Vaughan, a Democrat, lost in his bid for a seat on the civil-appeals court. The court remains an all-Republican body, and the practice of issuing unlawful no-opinion affirmances continues.
White's op-ed piece is elitist in tone. Even on a court that is doing its job, I suspect oral argument is granted only in cases that involve corporate entities or wealthy individuals. When regular citizens are parties, my guess is that oral argument is rarely granted.
My experience indicates that oral argument is not necessary in many "run-of-the-mill" legal cases. In my case, for example, oral argument certainly wasn't necessary. The briefs clearly showed that the trial court had ruled contrary to law on multiple occasions. And the other party did not even file an opposing brief. Don't know how much easier it can get for an appellate court, but Alabama's appellate courts still could not get it right.
White seems to be captivated by the "romance" oral arguments offer for lawyers. But what about parties of limited incomes who have to pay for lawyers to make oral arguments? With many lawyers charging $300 to $500 an hour for their services, you can only imagine how much it would cost a middle-income party to have a lawyer travel to Montgomery to present oral argument.
White, like many lawyers I've encountered, seems more concerned with his profession and other lawyers than he does with the needs of citizens.
Citizens simply need honest appellate courts who are required to write an opinion explaining why they ruled a certain way. And we certainly do not have that right now in Alabama.
Here's a key point: The practice of issuing no-opinion affirmances is not just a matter of judges being "unethical" or parties being "inconvenienced" or "wronged." The practice of upholding clearly unlawful trial-court findings is criminal--and the parties who suffer from it are the victims of a crime.
The crime is called honest-services mail fraud, the same charge that was at the heart of the prosecutions against Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi. Siegelman and Minor, of course, are both Democrats--and the trial records in both cases indicate they did not commit honest-services mail fraud at all. Meanwhile, Republicans on Alabama's appellate courts routinely commit honest-services mail fraud, and they get away with it.
That's the ugly truth that J. Mark White refused to address in his op-ed piece.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Alice and Me: The Road to Political Prosecution
My communication with Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, started in January 2007. It began with three pieces of snail mail, followed by an e-mail exchange that clearly shows the way Martin practices political prosecution.
My intent in contacting Martin was to let her know of the public corruption I had witnessed firsthand by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. This corruption also involved William E. Swatek, a Pelham, Alabama, attorney who has family ties that run right up to the doorstep of the Bush White House. Bill Swatek also has an almost 30-year history of corrupt activities in the legal profession.
Bill Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is an Alabama Republican "consultant" who has worked closely with Bill Canary, who has strong ties to Karl Rove. And I didn't know this at the time I wrote the letter you are about to read, but guess who Dax Swatek served as campaign manager in a 2000 race for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals?
Why, none other than Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself.
So I was a naive soul when I wrote the following letter. I thought there was at least a chance Alice Martin was an honest public servant. And I had no idea she had connections to the family that was at the very heart of the corruption I had witnessed.
If I had known that from the outset, I probably would have never written the letter. But I'm glad I did write it because now I can show Legal Schnauzer readers what a corrupt dirtbag Alice Martin really is.
A few notes about this initial letter to Queen Alice:
* A person who'd had interactions with Martin told me she has a colossal ego. This person said my best chance of success was to play to that ego. That's why the first paragraph reads the way it does. I know that paragraph makes me sound like a suck-up, and I want to vomit when I read it. But like I said, I was a naive soul at the time.
* One of Martin's assistants, Matt Hart, had blown me off in a phone conversation, claiming a regular citizen like me couldn't possibly know the law involving a federal crime like honest-services mail fraud. I wanted to let Martin know I had done my homework, so in this first letter, I focused on the law rather than the facts of my particular case.
* My original letter included some references to wrongdoing outside Shelby County. But I have not covered those subjects in any detail yet in my blog, so I have deleted them from this letter. For now, I want to focus on events in Shelby County, events I have written about extensively on Legal Schnauzer.
---------------------------------------------
Roger Shuler
5204 Logan Drive
Birmingham, AL
Jan. 14, 2007
Alice H. Martin
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Alabama
1801 4th Ave. North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2101
Ms. Martin:
I have been impressed that you and your office have been willing to take on a number of public corruption cases (Richard Scrushy, Don Siegelman, Chris McNair, Jeff Germany, etc.). I would like to let you know about public corruption I have experienced at the hands of judges and lawyers in Shelby and Jefferson counties.
I am a citizen, not a lawyer, but I have spent considerable time studying statutory and case law related to 18 U.S. Code 1341-1346. I have become well acquainted with the resources available at the Jefferson County Law Library, and I am convinced that federal mail and wire fraud statutes have been violated in my case.
As you know, the U.S. Justice Department has made public corruption a top priority, so I trust that your office will want to pursue this aggressively. Who are the wrongdoers in my case? They include J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves (Shelby County), all of the judges on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, and Birmingham-area attorney William Swatek.
These people have repeatedly committed or conspired in the commission of mail and/or wire fraud. How do I know this? Let me count the ways:
• These judges have: (A) Perpetuated a scheme to defraud that includes a material deception; (B) with the intent to defraud; (C) while using the mails in furtherance of the scheme. These are the fundamental elements of mail fraud. (Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 1999). I have clear and convincing evidence related to all elements.
• What is a scheme to defraud? Courts have defined it as "a departure from community standards of 'fair play and candid dealings.'" (U.S. v. Autori 212 F. 3d 105, 2000.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• What is intent to defraud? Courts have defined it as "a willful act by defendant with specific intent to deceive or cheat." (U.S. v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 2005.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• When does a person cause the mails to be used? Courts have said this occurs when he or she "acts with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business." (Pereira v. U.S., 347 U.S. 1, 1954.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• What about the "in furtherance" element? This requirement is satisfied by showing that the mailing was "incident to an essential part of the scheme." (Schmuck v. U.S. 489 U.S. 705, 1989.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• Did the scheme succeed? The judges' scheme, perpetuated with the help of the attorneys noted above, succeeded to an extent, causing me significant financial harm. But success of the scheme is irrelevant. The prosecution simply must show that "the defendants' scheme, if successful, would have deprived an individual of interests protected under the statute." (U.S. v. Brown, 79 F. 3d, 1550, 1996.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• What about the "honest services" component included under Sec. 1346? Courts have stated that a public official has a duty to disclose information regarding a personal interest that may affect his judgment and therefore "undisclosed, biased decision making . . . regardless of tangible loss to the public . . . constitutes a deprivation of honest services." (U.S. v. Lopez-Lukis, 102 F.3d 1164, 1997.) I have clear and convincing evidence of such biased decision making.
• Did these judges receive personal gain from their scheme? I don't know. But that is irrelevant under the law. Courts have held: "The prosecution need not prove that the scheme was successful or that the intended victim suffered a loss, or that the defendant secured a gain. The gist of the offense is a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate communications to further that scheme." (U.S. vs. Louderman, 576 F. 2d 1383, 1978.)
• In the end, courts have made it simple: "The loss of good faith services alone establishes the breach." (U.S. v. Silvana, 812 F. 2d 754, 1987.)
• I should make special mention of Attorney William Swatek’s role in all of this. Mr. Swatek is based in Pelham and has practiced law in Alabama for more than 30 years. He filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that started all of this. Public records show that he has a lengthy history of ethical problems with the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license. In all, he has been disciplined three times and has been tried for perjury in criminal court. In the course of this case, he filed a motion that was fraudulent and designed to intimidate me into coming to a some sort of bad settlement. I have clear and convincing evidence that this motion is fraudulent, and Mr. Swatek used the U.S. mails to perpetuate the fraud. Aside from actions by the judges, it is absolutely clear that Mr. Swatek violated 18 U.S. Code 1341 in this matter.
What was the judges' and lawyers' motivations in this scheme? Some investigation probably would reveal several motivations. I suspect the bogus lawsuit was initiated to protect one of their favored constituents. But what about all of the activity that took place after the suit was filed? It appears that was clearly done to protect Swatek from the consequences of filing a bogus lawsuit. Under Alabama law, a party or an attorney filing a claim without any grounds to support it can face at least two serious consequences: (1) A lawsuit for malicious prosecution once the initial suit is dismissed; and (2) A party or lawyer can be held accountable for attorney's fees under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act. By repeatedly ruling unlawfully in favor of Swatek's client, judges protected Swatek from the consequences of his actions.
As you can see, Alabama civil procedure and case law are at the heart of this case. Through my research at the law library, I have become well grounded in the relevant civil law related to my case. I can clearly lay out a pattern of wrongdoing that, because of the use of the U.S. mails, amounts to a federal crime.
Finally, I should note that I have closely followed a case in Mississippi involving attorney Paul Minor and former judges Oliver Diaz, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. Diaz has been cleared on all charges, while the jury cleared the others of some charges and hung on others. I understand that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield will be retried on those outstanding charges this month.
My research on this case reveals several interesting facts. One, Minor gave money and loans to all three judges, but that is not illegal (although it probably should be). What is illegal? For any of the judges to make unlawful, biased rulings in favor of Minor and his clients. I've studied the relevant cases and seen no evidence yet that such unlawful rulings were made. Evidently no jury has seen it either—at least not yet. And still the case was brought in Mississippi, and it has received extensive coverage in The New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, American Lawyer, and other news outlets.
Meanwhile, in Alabama, I can show clear evidence of unlawful and biased rulings. Did money change hands? I have little doubt that it did, but it's irrelevant under the law. I can show you a far stronger case for mail fraud than the one in Mississippi, one where Alabama citizens clearly were deprived of their intangible right to honest services.
Polls after the recent November election indicated that the No. 1 concern on voters' minds, ranking even higher than the Iraq war, was corruption. What I have experienced is corruption of the worst kind, by people who are “officers of the court,” some who wear robes and go by the title "your honor." I urge you to treat this case with the utmost seriousness.
I request that someone from your staff meet with me so I can show them the details of my case. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
P.S.—At the risk of sounding paranoid, I should mention that my wife and I strongly suspect someone connected to this lawsuit has been illegally tracking our telephone communication. I do not have the means to provide absolute proof of this. But I believe an investigation by the proper authorities would reveal criminal activity of some kind, perhaps wiretapping or placement of a pen register on our phone lines. My wife, who has a spotless personal and professional history, has had an extraordinarily difficult time getting a job over the past three years. Without going into too much detail here, I can tell you that she has lost out on several positions under very strange circumstances. As you can imagine, if this is happening, it has caused us serious financial and psychological harm and amounts to a federal crime. I sent an e-mail several weeks ago to the FBI’s corruption tips Web site, but I have heard nothing. I placed a call to the local FBI office, and while someone took a report over the phone, I’ve heard nothing further.
cc: Carmen Adams, special agent in charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1000 18th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
My intent in contacting Martin was to let her know of the public corruption I had witnessed firsthand by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. This corruption also involved William E. Swatek, a Pelham, Alabama, attorney who has family ties that run right up to the doorstep of the Bush White House. Bill Swatek also has an almost 30-year history of corrupt activities in the legal profession.
Bill Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is an Alabama Republican "consultant" who has worked closely with Bill Canary, who has strong ties to Karl Rove. And I didn't know this at the time I wrote the letter you are about to read, but guess who Dax Swatek served as campaign manager in a 2000 race for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals?
Why, none other than Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself.
So I was a naive soul when I wrote the following letter. I thought there was at least a chance Alice Martin was an honest public servant. And I had no idea she had connections to the family that was at the very heart of the corruption I had witnessed.
If I had known that from the outset, I probably would have never written the letter. But I'm glad I did write it because now I can show Legal Schnauzer readers what a corrupt dirtbag Alice Martin really is.
A few notes about this initial letter to Queen Alice:
* A person who'd had interactions with Martin told me she has a colossal ego. This person said my best chance of success was to play to that ego. That's why the first paragraph reads the way it does. I know that paragraph makes me sound like a suck-up, and I want to vomit when I read it. But like I said, I was a naive soul at the time.
* One of Martin's assistants, Matt Hart, had blown me off in a phone conversation, claiming a regular citizen like me couldn't possibly know the law involving a federal crime like honest-services mail fraud. I wanted to let Martin know I had done my homework, so in this first letter, I focused on the law rather than the facts of my particular case.
* My original letter included some references to wrongdoing outside Shelby County. But I have not covered those subjects in any detail yet in my blog, so I have deleted them from this letter. For now, I want to focus on events in Shelby County, events I have written about extensively on Legal Schnauzer.
---------------------------------------------
Roger Shuler
5204 Logan Drive
Birmingham, AL
Jan. 14, 2007
Alice H. Martin
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Alabama
1801 4th Ave. North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2101
Ms. Martin:
I have been impressed that you and your office have been willing to take on a number of public corruption cases (Richard Scrushy, Don Siegelman, Chris McNair, Jeff Germany, etc.). I would like to let you know about public corruption I have experienced at the hands of judges and lawyers in Shelby and Jefferson counties.
I am a citizen, not a lawyer, but I have spent considerable time studying statutory and case law related to 18 U.S. Code 1341-1346. I have become well acquainted with the resources available at the Jefferson County Law Library, and I am convinced that federal mail and wire fraud statutes have been violated in my case.
As you know, the U.S. Justice Department has made public corruption a top priority, so I trust that your office will want to pursue this aggressively. Who are the wrongdoers in my case? They include J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves (Shelby County), all of the judges on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, and Birmingham-area attorney William Swatek.
These people have repeatedly committed or conspired in the commission of mail and/or wire fraud. How do I know this? Let me count the ways:
• These judges have: (A) Perpetuated a scheme to defraud that includes a material deception; (B) with the intent to defraud; (C) while using the mails in furtherance of the scheme. These are the fundamental elements of mail fraud. (Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 1999). I have clear and convincing evidence related to all elements.
• What is a scheme to defraud? Courts have defined it as "a departure from community standards of 'fair play and candid dealings.'" (U.S. v. Autori 212 F. 3d 105, 2000.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• What is intent to defraud? Courts have defined it as "a willful act by defendant with specific intent to deceive or cheat." (U.S. v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 2005.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• When does a person cause the mails to be used? Courts have said this occurs when he or she "acts with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business." (Pereira v. U.S., 347 U.S. 1, 1954.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• What about the "in furtherance" element? This requirement is satisfied by showing that the mailing was "incident to an essential part of the scheme." (Schmuck v. U.S. 489 U.S. 705, 1989.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• Did the scheme succeed? The judges' scheme, perpetuated with the help of the attorneys noted above, succeeded to an extent, causing me significant financial harm. But success of the scheme is irrelevant. The prosecution simply must show that "the defendants' scheme, if successful, would have deprived an individual of interests protected under the statute." (U.S. v. Brown, 79 F. 3d, 1550, 1996.) I have clear and convincing evidence of this.
• What about the "honest services" component included under Sec. 1346? Courts have stated that a public official has a duty to disclose information regarding a personal interest that may affect his judgment and therefore "undisclosed, biased decision making . . . regardless of tangible loss to the public . . . constitutes a deprivation of honest services." (U.S. v. Lopez-Lukis, 102 F.3d 1164, 1997.) I have clear and convincing evidence of such biased decision making.
• Did these judges receive personal gain from their scheme? I don't know. But that is irrelevant under the law. Courts have held: "The prosecution need not prove that the scheme was successful or that the intended victim suffered a loss, or that the defendant secured a gain. The gist of the offense is a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate communications to further that scheme." (U.S. vs. Louderman, 576 F. 2d 1383, 1978.)
• In the end, courts have made it simple: "The loss of good faith services alone establishes the breach." (U.S. v. Silvana, 812 F. 2d 754, 1987.)
• I should make special mention of Attorney William Swatek’s role in all of this. Mr. Swatek is based in Pelham and has practiced law in Alabama for more than 30 years. He filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that started all of this. Public records show that he has a lengthy history of ethical problems with the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license. In all, he has been disciplined three times and has been tried for perjury in criminal court. In the course of this case, he filed a motion that was fraudulent and designed to intimidate me into coming to a some sort of bad settlement. I have clear and convincing evidence that this motion is fraudulent, and Mr. Swatek used the U.S. mails to perpetuate the fraud. Aside from actions by the judges, it is absolutely clear that Mr. Swatek violated 18 U.S. Code 1341 in this matter.
What was the judges' and lawyers' motivations in this scheme? Some investigation probably would reveal several motivations. I suspect the bogus lawsuit was initiated to protect one of their favored constituents. But what about all of the activity that took place after the suit was filed? It appears that was clearly done to protect Swatek from the consequences of filing a bogus lawsuit. Under Alabama law, a party or an attorney filing a claim without any grounds to support it can face at least two serious consequences: (1) A lawsuit for malicious prosecution once the initial suit is dismissed; and (2) A party or lawyer can be held accountable for attorney's fees under the Alabama Litigation Accountability Act. By repeatedly ruling unlawfully in favor of Swatek's client, judges protected Swatek from the consequences of his actions.
As you can see, Alabama civil procedure and case law are at the heart of this case. Through my research at the law library, I have become well grounded in the relevant civil law related to my case. I can clearly lay out a pattern of wrongdoing that, because of the use of the U.S. mails, amounts to a federal crime.
Finally, I should note that I have closely followed a case in Mississippi involving attorney Paul Minor and former judges Oliver Diaz, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield. Diaz has been cleared on all charges, while the jury cleared the others of some charges and hung on others. I understand that Minor, Teel, and Whitfield will be retried on those outstanding charges this month.
My research on this case reveals several interesting facts. One, Minor gave money and loans to all three judges, but that is not illegal (although it probably should be). What is illegal? For any of the judges to make unlawful, biased rulings in favor of Minor and his clients. I've studied the relevant cases and seen no evidence yet that such unlawful rulings were made. Evidently no jury has seen it either—at least not yet. And still the case was brought in Mississippi, and it has received extensive coverage in The New York Times, Atlanta Constitution, American Lawyer, and other news outlets.
Meanwhile, in Alabama, I can show clear evidence of unlawful and biased rulings. Did money change hands? I have little doubt that it did, but it's irrelevant under the law. I can show you a far stronger case for mail fraud than the one in Mississippi, one where Alabama citizens clearly were deprived of their intangible right to honest services.
Polls after the recent November election indicated that the No. 1 concern on voters' minds, ranking even higher than the Iraq war, was corruption. What I have experienced is corruption of the worst kind, by people who are “officers of the court,” some who wear robes and go by the title "your honor." I urge you to treat this case with the utmost seriousness.
I request that someone from your staff meet with me so I can show them the details of my case. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
P.S.—At the risk of sounding paranoid, I should mention that my wife and I strongly suspect someone connected to this lawsuit has been illegally tracking our telephone communication. I do not have the means to provide absolute proof of this. But I believe an investigation by the proper authorities would reveal criminal activity of some kind, perhaps wiretapping or placement of a pen register on our phone lines. My wife, who has a spotless personal and professional history, has had an extraordinarily difficult time getting a job over the past three years. Without going into too much detail here, I can tell you that she has lost out on several positions under very strange circumstances. As you can imagine, if this is happening, it has caused us serious financial and psychological harm and amounts to a federal crime. I sent an e-mail several weeks ago to the FBI’s corruption tips Web site, but I have heard nothing. I placed a call to the local FBI office, and while someone took a report over the phone, I’ve heard nothing further.
cc: Carmen Adams, special agent in charge
Federal Bureau of Investigation
1000 18th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Is a Slumbering Giant About to Awaken?
They don't come much bigger in the news business than The New York Times.
While right-wing critics frequently try to paint the "Old Grey Lady" with a "liberal" brush, you certainly would not know the paper was liberal based on its coverage of the Bush Justice Department scandal.
The Times has not been totally out to lunch on what probably will prove to be the worst scandal in the nation's history. But it has hardly produced the kind of "bulldog" coverage one would expect from the nation's paper of record.
Perhaps that is about to change. At least our friend Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, sees hopeful signs. They come in the form of an editorial in today's edition, stating that Congress should do everything in its power to make sure that former White House strategist Karl Rove testifies regarding his possible role in several questionable prosecutions around the country.
Alexandrovna notes that the most famed of those prosecutions is the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. But she points out that the Paul Minor case in Mississippi has a stench that is every bit as strong as that coming from the Siegelman case. And the Minor case has a particularly tragic element because Paul Minor's wife is dying of brain cancer while her husband remains in federal prison, convicted of crimes he clearly did not commit.
Minor's codefendants, former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, also are wrestling with either personal or family health issues. But they, too, are in federal prison for crimes they did not commit.
A reasonable reader might ask, "Hey Schnauzer, how do you know they didn't commit these crimes? Where did you get your law degree?"
I don't have a law degree. But I've studied the relevant law and the trial transcript, and the question is not even a close one. Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted for two reasons:
* U.S. Judge Henry Wingate unlawfully disallowed expert witnesses who would have shown that the underlying lawsuits favoring Minor's clients were decided correctly under the facts and the law. Essentially, Wingate kept the defendants from putting on a defense.
* Wingate butchered the jury instructions on the two primary charges--federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud.
I invite anyone who wants to understand the Minor case to check all the posts and references to our "Mississippi Churning" series. It's a lot of material, and I'll be the first to say it's not the kind of reading you might take to the beach.
But if you really want to know how corrupt Justice Department officials abuse the law and turn law-abiding citizens into political prisoners, this is the place to do it.
While right-wing critics frequently try to paint the "Old Grey Lady" with a "liberal" brush, you certainly would not know the paper was liberal based on its coverage of the Bush Justice Department scandal.
The Times has not been totally out to lunch on what probably will prove to be the worst scandal in the nation's history. But it has hardly produced the kind of "bulldog" coverage one would expect from the nation's paper of record.
Perhaps that is about to change. At least our friend Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, sees hopeful signs. They come in the form of an editorial in today's edition, stating that Congress should do everything in its power to make sure that former White House strategist Karl Rove testifies regarding his possible role in several questionable prosecutions around the country.
Alexandrovna notes that the most famed of those prosecutions is the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. But she points out that the Paul Minor case in Mississippi has a stench that is every bit as strong as that coming from the Siegelman case. And the Minor case has a particularly tragic element because Paul Minor's wife is dying of brain cancer while her husband remains in federal prison, convicted of crimes he clearly did not commit.
Minor's codefendants, former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, also are wrestling with either personal or family health issues. But they, too, are in federal prison for crimes they did not commit.
A reasonable reader might ask, "Hey Schnauzer, how do you know they didn't commit these crimes? Where did you get your law degree?"
I don't have a law degree. But I've studied the relevant law and the trial transcript, and the question is not even a close one. Minor, Teel, and Whitfield were convicted for two reasons:
* U.S. Judge Henry Wingate unlawfully disallowed expert witnesses who would have shown that the underlying lawsuits favoring Minor's clients were decided correctly under the facts and the law. Essentially, Wingate kept the defendants from putting on a defense.
* Wingate butchered the jury instructions on the two primary charges--federal-funds bribery and honest-services mail fraud.
I invite anyone who wants to understand the Minor case to check all the posts and references to our "Mississippi Churning" series. It's a lot of material, and I'll be the first to say it's not the kind of reading you might take to the beach.
But if you really want to know how corrupt Justice Department officials abuse the law and turn law-abiding citizens into political prisoners, this is the place to do it.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Inside a Selective Prosecution, Part III
Before we move forward to my communications with Alice Martin, let's look at some of the recent high-minded rhetoric spewing forth from Birmingham's very own U.S. attorney.
Consider this passage from an article about the indictment of state Senator E.B. McClain:
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin announced the indictment this morning, saying the charges prove public corruption "will be aggressively prosecuted" by her office.
"Senator McClain is charged with using his public office for personal profit. He worked the 'pass-through' grant process not to help his community and those in need of GED training, but to line his pockets with over $300,000," Martin said. . . .
"I can already hear the rumble that these charges are politically motivated," she said, referring to McClain's case. "To that refrain let me say definitively -- today's charges are not politically motivated, but the crimes were committed by a politician and his co-conspirator, and we fully intend to show that through a mountain of evidence in a court of law."
Remember that claim: Alice Martin does not run her office in a politically motivated way. Um hmm.
Let's consider this passage from a story about Birmingham attorney Doug Jones and his charges that Martin indeed practices political prosecution:
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, the Republican appointee who succeeded Jones, said she's not surprised he has stepped up as the main critic of investigations involving Siegelman and others in his party. She said she doubts Jones truly believes there's politics behind her office's work because, if he did, he would have confronted her directly or filed formal complaints.
"That takes more than just a desire to say it in public. It takes having some evidence of it," Martin said. "I would put probably a little more weight on it if it wasn't somebody out there working a public media campaign for his client. I think this is just part of the defense."
Remember that bold assertion: "It takes having some evidence of (political prosecution)." Um hmm.
Consider this passage from an article about the indictment of state Senator E.B. McClain:
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin announced the indictment this morning, saying the charges prove public corruption "will be aggressively prosecuted" by her office.
"Senator McClain is charged with using his public office for personal profit. He worked the 'pass-through' grant process not to help his community and those in need of GED training, but to line his pockets with over $300,000," Martin said. . . .
"I can already hear the rumble that these charges are politically motivated," she said, referring to McClain's case. "To that refrain let me say definitively -- today's charges are not politically motivated, but the crimes were committed by a politician and his co-conspirator, and we fully intend to show that through a mountain of evidence in a court of law."
Remember that claim: Alice Martin does not run her office in a politically motivated way. Um hmm.
Let's consider this passage from a story about Birmingham attorney Doug Jones and his charges that Martin indeed practices political prosecution:
U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, the Republican appointee who succeeded Jones, said she's not surprised he has stepped up as the main critic of investigations involving Siegelman and others in his party. She said she doubts Jones truly believes there's politics behind her office's work because, if he did, he would have confronted her directly or filed formal complaints.
"That takes more than just a desire to say it in public. It takes having some evidence of it," Martin said. "I would put probably a little more weight on it if it wasn't somebody out there working a public media campaign for his client. I think this is just part of the defense."
Remember that bold assertion: "It takes having some evidence of (political prosecution)." Um hmm.
Let's consider this quote from one of Martin's colleagues, St. Clair County District Attorney Richard Minor, who is serving as acting Alabama attorney general in the two-year college investigation:
"This should send a message, if you steal state money or if you deprive the taxpayers of honest services, you will be prosecuted."
Remember that bold assertion: If you commit honest-services mail fraud in Alabama, you will be prosecuted. And Minor seems to be saying that applies to members of both political parties. Um hmm.
Finally, let's consider an interesting nugget from a Birmingham News article about the Sue Schmitz case. In the fourth paragraph, buried nice and low, the esteemed Brett Blackledge tells us the following:
Prosecutors added details to their case against Schmitz after U.S. Chief Magistrate Paul Greene said the defense should know more about the allegations against her.
Let's chew on that for a moment. I don't know about Judge Greene's political affiliation, but considering that we've had Republican presidents for 20 of the past 28 years, I think it's safe to assume he's a GOP appointee. And even this apparent GOP appointee seems to be telling Alice Martin's Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, "You know, gang, it would be nice if you at least told Ms. Schmitz and her defense exactly what actions she took that constitute a federal crime. Kind of hard to defend yourself against allegations that are as sloppy as the ones you've presented here."
And get this! Prosecutors claim that part of Schmitz' criminal mindset is shown by the fact that she sought the help of influential people in getting a job. Sweet Jehovah, I guess about 98 percent of the American workforce is heading for federal prison, including yours truly. Gosh, who knew that seeking the help of influential persons in finding a job is a federal crime?
I thought those were called references.
In the end, will we learn that Sue Schmitz and E.B. McClain are crooks? It's possible. But my guess is that these prosecutions are an elaborate diversion. They are intended to hide the fact that the real crook is the woman who runs the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Alabama. Goes by the name of Alice.
We at Legal Schnauzer are about to show you, in an up close and personal way, just what Alice Martin is all about.
Chronic Myopia and The Birmingham News
Alabama newspapers in Birmingham, Mobile, and Huntsville--all owned by Advance Publications--seem to have a chronic case of myopia when it comes to covering anything having to do with the Bush Justice Department.
The latest example comes from a Saturday editorial in The Birmingham News.
The editorial gives the appearance of being "fair and balanced," stating that federal prosecutors should not use their jobs for political ends--and unscrupulous politicians should not cry "political prosecution" when they get busted.
On the surface, that seems fair enough. But when you read the entire editorial--and if you have closely followed Bush DOJ issues in Alabama--you realize the News leaves out several salient points:
* The News references a number of folks who have pleaded guilty in connection to the investigation of Alabama's two-year colleges. But the News fails to mention compelling evidence that Justice Department officials in Alabama use threats and browbeating in order to get guilty pleas from suspects. And the strongest evidence of such threats comes from the wife of a Republican, former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White.
* The News seems to stand up for Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, who recently received stiff criticism from Birmingham lawyer and former U.S. attorney Doug Jones. But the News fails to point out the overwhelming evidence that Martin lied under oath in an employment-related matter, even though she was cleared of perjury charges by . . . the Bush Justice Department.
* The News applauds U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Greene for rejecting Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz' claims that she was the target of a political prosecution. But the News fails to point out that its own story reveals that Greene also required prosecutors to make more definitive statements regarding the alleged crimes Schmitz committed. Greene seems to be saying that the government's initial indictment was so weak or poorly worded that Schmitz and her defense team had little way of knowing what specific crimes she is alleged to have committed. By the way, we learn today that Schmitz' attorneys are appealing Greene's ruling regarding political prosecution.
* It's possible that Sue Schmitz, E.B. McClain, and other Democrats implicated in the two-year colleges investigation will prove to be crooks. If so, they deserve to be prosecuted. But here's the problem any rational reader should have with The Birmingham News and the Bush Justice Department: State government in Alabama has three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial. Only one of those branches, the legislative, is controlled by Democrats. And which branch has been the subject of intense scrutiny from the News and the Bush DOJ? You got it: the legislative. Evidence abounds of wrongdoing in the executive branch, led by Republican Governor Bob Riley. Have the News or the DOJ looked at Riley with any skepticism? Nope. And this blog is dedicated to showing--with clear, irrefutable evidence--that the Republicans who control the judicial branch are corrupt. I've made reams of information available both to the News and the DOJ. Have they done anything with it? Nope.
* That's called a "double standard," and a recent op-ed piece in the Montgomery Independent brings this issue into focus. The piece is written by Dr. Paul Hubbert, head of the Alabama Education Association. Hubbert points out that one of the biggest "double dippers" in the Alabama Legislature is House Republican leader Mike Hubbard. According to Hubbert, one of the prime opponents of a recent bill that would have allowed public employees to serve in legislature was none other than Hubbard. And here is Hubbert's take on that subject:
Opposition to the bill was lead by Representative Mike Hubbard, of Auburn, who received a contract from Auburn University worth millions for rights to broadcast Auburn sports. Representative Hubbard was involved in passing a bill granting an extension on his and other similar contracts. After getting his contract extended by several years, he then sold his company to a competitor who had offered more for Auburn sports broadcasting than Hubbard had. Hubbard now serves as president of Auburn broadcasting for that company.
Talk about "double-dipping!" Representative Hubbard takes the prize. Contract language calls for Hubbard's company to have 547 football season tickets, three luxury skybox suites, and 100 premium parking places for all football games. Yet, last week he claimed Democrats "threw ethics out the window" when they pushed through legislation allowing public employees to continue serving, when elected, as they have since 1819 when Alabama became a state.
Without a doubt, the amount of money Representative Mike Hubbard has made from his contracts with Auburn University would make him the "King of Double-Dippers."
Deep down he knows that he has made more through his sweetheart contracts with this institution than all the other educator legislators' salaries combined.
So there you have it: A Republican, and a loyal Bushie, is the "King of Double Dippers" in the Alabama Legislature, making megabucks from his relationship with Auburn University. Have The Birmingham News or the Bush DOJ even cast a glance in Mike Hubbard's direction?
Not a chance.
If someone in authority starts looking at people like Hubbard, perhaps we will have reason to believe the prosecution of someone like Sue Schmitz is legitimate.
The latest example comes from a Saturday editorial in The Birmingham News.
The editorial gives the appearance of being "fair and balanced," stating that federal prosecutors should not use their jobs for political ends--and unscrupulous politicians should not cry "political prosecution" when they get busted.
On the surface, that seems fair enough. But when you read the entire editorial--and if you have closely followed Bush DOJ issues in Alabama--you realize the News leaves out several salient points:
* The News references a number of folks who have pleaded guilty in connection to the investigation of Alabama's two-year colleges. But the News fails to mention compelling evidence that Justice Department officials in Alabama use threats and browbeating in order to get guilty pleas from suspects. And the strongest evidence of such threats comes from the wife of a Republican, former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White.
* The News seems to stand up for Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, who recently received stiff criticism from Birmingham lawyer and former U.S. attorney Doug Jones. But the News fails to point out the overwhelming evidence that Martin lied under oath in an employment-related matter, even though she was cleared of perjury charges by . . . the Bush Justice Department.
* The News applauds U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Paul Greene for rejecting Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz' claims that she was the target of a political prosecution. But the News fails to point out that its own story reveals that Greene also required prosecutors to make more definitive statements regarding the alleged crimes Schmitz committed. Greene seems to be saying that the government's initial indictment was so weak or poorly worded that Schmitz and her defense team had little way of knowing what specific crimes she is alleged to have committed. By the way, we learn today that Schmitz' attorneys are appealing Greene's ruling regarding political prosecution.
* It's possible that Sue Schmitz, E.B. McClain, and other Democrats implicated in the two-year colleges investigation will prove to be crooks. If so, they deserve to be prosecuted. But here's the problem any rational reader should have with The Birmingham News and the Bush Justice Department: State government in Alabama has three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial. Only one of those branches, the legislative, is controlled by Democrats. And which branch has been the subject of intense scrutiny from the News and the Bush DOJ? You got it: the legislative. Evidence abounds of wrongdoing in the executive branch, led by Republican Governor Bob Riley. Have the News or the DOJ looked at Riley with any skepticism? Nope. And this blog is dedicated to showing--with clear, irrefutable evidence--that the Republicans who control the judicial branch are corrupt. I've made reams of information available both to the News and the DOJ. Have they done anything with it? Nope.
* That's called a "double standard," and a recent op-ed piece in the Montgomery Independent brings this issue into focus. The piece is written by Dr. Paul Hubbert, head of the Alabama Education Association. Hubbert points out that one of the biggest "double dippers" in the Alabama Legislature is House Republican leader Mike Hubbard. According to Hubbert, one of the prime opponents of a recent bill that would have allowed public employees to serve in legislature was none other than Hubbard. And here is Hubbert's take on that subject:
Opposition to the bill was lead by Representative Mike Hubbard, of Auburn, who received a contract from Auburn University worth millions for rights to broadcast Auburn sports. Representative Hubbard was involved in passing a bill granting an extension on his and other similar contracts. After getting his contract extended by several years, he then sold his company to a competitor who had offered more for Auburn sports broadcasting than Hubbard had. Hubbard now serves as president of Auburn broadcasting for that company.
Talk about "double-dipping!" Representative Hubbard takes the prize. Contract language calls for Hubbard's company to have 547 football season tickets, three luxury skybox suites, and 100 premium parking places for all football games. Yet, last week he claimed Democrats "threw ethics out the window" when they pushed through legislation allowing public employees to continue serving, when elected, as they have since 1819 when Alabama became a state.
Without a doubt, the amount of money Representative Mike Hubbard has made from his contracts with Auburn University would make him the "King of Double-Dippers."
Deep down he knows that he has made more through his sweetheart contracts with this institution than all the other educator legislators' salaries combined.
So there you have it: A Republican, and a loyal Bushie, is the "King of Double Dippers" in the Alabama Legislature, making megabucks from his relationship with Auburn University. Have The Birmingham News or the Bush DOJ even cast a glance in Mike Hubbard's direction?
Not a chance.
If someone in authority starts looking at people like Hubbard, perhaps we will have reason to believe the prosecution of someone like Sue Schmitz is legitimate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)