Folks who have been paying attention know that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is a liar.
In fact, it has been proven that Martin has no problems lying under oath. That's an act commonly known as perjury, and it's something most of us could get in big trouble for doing. But not Alice Martin.
So it should not come as a surprise when I tell you that Alice Martin lied her conservative behind off in her comments for the Raw Story article about my firing at UAB.
As a refresher, here is the primary segment about Martin from the Raw Story piece:
Martin says Shuler's allegations don't fall under her office's purview.
"Mr. Shuler has made, in writing and in person, numerous allegations against various individuals to my office which, if memory serves deals with civil litigation," she wrote in an email to RAW STORY Wednesday. "Many of his allegations are set forth on his blog."
"The US Attorney, when receiving complaints, refers them to an appropriate federal or investigative agency, as we do not investigate cases," she added. "His complaints were forwarded to the US Postal Inspection Service, as I advised him in my email, as he asserted the mails were involved. He was also advised to contact the Alabama Bar Association. He met with an Assistant US Attorney and presented no evidence of an offense, only has opinions, [and was referred to agencies] that could conduct an independent investigation. I have no knowledge of him contacting those agencies."
She also denied her office was in any way involved with Shuler's termination.
"There has been no contact by the office to Mr Shuler's employer," she wrote.
Let us ponder some of the pure excrement that is oozing from Martin's quotes:
* Martin says Shuler's allegations don't fall under her office's purview.
Holy Heath Ledger, Batman! You mean federal prosecutors are not involved with federal crimes? We'd better bring the Batmobile to a screeching halt and stop the presses! Don't know if the citizens of Gotham City can handle this one. And by the way, Batman: If federal prosecutors aren't involved with federal crimes, what, pray tell, do federal prosecutors do?
* "Mr. Shuler has made, in writing and IN PERSON, numerous allegations against various individuals to my office which, if memory serves, deals with CIVIL LITIGATION."
In person? I've never laid eyes on Alice Martin or anyone else in her office. I don't even know where her office is located. That's because I've never been there.
Civil Litigation? What point is Martin trying to make here? That federal crimes can't be committed in civil litigation? Perhaps she should try telling that to Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, who currently are in federal prison for alleged crimes that arose from civil litigation.
* "Many of his allegations are set forth ON HIS BLOG."
Well, what do you know? Alice can tell the truth sometimes. She admits to reading my blog. Of course, I know from checking my blog statistics that numerous folks from "usdoj.gov" servers have been reading Legal Schnauzer. Despite that, wouldn't it have been smarter for Martin to respond to Raw Story by saying something like, "I've never heard of this Shuler dude, and I have no idea what a Legal Schnauzer is. Is that anything like a labradoodle? I'm busy arresting teachers for failing to execute their lessons plans. I don't have time to dilly dally around with blogs." I'm still amazed that Martin didn't claim she had no idea who I was.
* "His complaints were forwarded to the U.S. POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE . . . "
Which according to its own Web site, does not have jurisdiction to investigate possible violations of 18 U.S. Code 1346 (honest services mail fraud). Such violations must be investigated by this agency we call the FBI, an agency Martin made sure did not receive my allegations. In short, Martin sent my charges to the prosecutorial equivalent of Siberia, where they remain buried in cold storage--even in the midst of an Alabama summer.
* "He was also advised to contact the ALABAMA BAR ASSOCIATION . . . "
I published Alice Martin's "snail mail" response to me here, and a "child of three can plainly see" that she does not advise me to contact the Alabama State Bar. She also made no such suggestion in her e-mail communications with me. Even Alice Martin knows the Alabama State Bar is not in the business of investigating crimes, and it sure as heck is not in the business of investigating federal crimes.
* "He MET WITH an Assistant U.S. Attorney and presented NO EVIDENCE OF AN OFFENSE . . . "
Again, Alice appears to be living in Wonderland. I never met with an assistant U.S. attorney. As I stated earlier, I've never set foot in Martin's office or laid eyes on any members of her staff. I did, by some miracle, manage to reach Assistant U.S. Attorney Matt Hart via telephone one day, and after a brief conversation, he informed me "I kick cases all the time, and I'm going to kick yours." Pretty good attitude for a public servant, don't you think?
And presented "no evidence of an offense?" I posted the six-page letter I sent to Martin, and it was filled with evidence. And had Martin shown the slightest interest in actually doing her job, I would have sent her the entire case file, which shows blatant corruption by Alabama Republican judges.
* "There has been no contact by the office to Mr. Shuler's employer."
How positively Rovian. And how appropriate, considering that Karl Rove almost certainly is responsible for Martin's appointment as U.S. attorney.
Let's pick this statement apart:
Notice that Martin says there has been "no contact by the office." That doesn't mean there hasn't been contact by some of her GOP political supporters.
Notice that Martin says "to Mr. Shuler's employer." Well, Mr. Shuler's employer was UAB. But who oversees UAB? The University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which includes Martin's compatriot, Governor Bob Riley, as ex officio president. So Martin and her GOP hatchemen have all sorts of ways to put pressure on "Mr. Shuler's employer" without doing it directly.
Sort of reminds you of Karl Rove's "answers" to written questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) doesn't it?
And notice how Martin did not submit herself to questions from Raw Story reporter Lindsay Beyerstein. Another Rovian trick. Martin appears to be answering questions without actually answering questions at all.
In fact, that's the very same tactic UAB officials have used. President Carol Garrison issued a "statement" upon apparently receiving public heat over my termination. But did Garrison or anyone else at UAB submit themselves to questioning from Ms. Beyerstein? Did Garrison or anyone at UAB present any documents to support their claims that my termination was "solely related to work performance" and had nothing to do with "politics or conspiracies?"
Not on your life.
Heck, Beyerstein reports that most folks at UAB wouldn't even confirm their titles or the correct spellings of their names.
Got to love the transparency that emanates from UAB's campus on Birmingham's Southside--and from Alice Martin's office, which I understand is somewhere downtown. Isn't it interesting that the behavior of Martin and the behavior of UAB officials pretty much forms a mirror image these days?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Federal Judge Flushes Bushies Out of Their Holes
Bush White House claims of executive privilege took a major hit today when a federal judge ruled that presidential aides Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers must testify before Congress.
U.S. Judge John Bates found that Bolten and Miers must honor a Congressional subpoena. Bates ruled that the Bush aides could invoke executive privilege in regards to specific questions, but they could not simply ignore the subpoena and fail to appear before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
The judge also found that Bolten and Miers must supply all non-privileged documents requested in the subpoenas and they must supply specific descriptions of any documents withheld on the grounds of executive privilege.
Democratic leaders in Congress hailed the decision as a victory in their efforts to investigate the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and other issues related to politicalization of the Justice Department under Bush.
What does today's decision mean for former White House strategist Karl Rove and his efforts to avoid testifying about his role in the Don Siegelman case and other possible political prosecutions?
House speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bates' decision could pave the way for Congress to approve a contempt citation for Rove.
U.S. Judge John Bates found that Bolten and Miers must honor a Congressional subpoena. Bates ruled that the Bush aides could invoke executive privilege in regards to specific questions, but they could not simply ignore the subpoena and fail to appear before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
The judge also found that Bolten and Miers must supply all non-privileged documents requested in the subpoenas and they must supply specific descriptions of any documents withheld on the grounds of executive privilege.
Democratic leaders in Congress hailed the decision as a victory in their efforts to investigate the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and other issues related to politicalization of the Justice Department under Bush.
What does today's decision mean for former White House strategist Karl Rove and his efforts to avoid testifying about his role in the Don Siegelman case and other possible political prosecutions?
House speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bates' decision could pave the way for Congress to approve a contempt citation for Rove.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Has Karl Rove Sabotaged State Employees in Alabama?
As someone who was mysteriously fired from his job at an Alabama university a little more than two months ago, I was intrigued by a post today from Robby Scott Hill at Revolution Magazine.
Hill used to work at the State Lands Division, and confidential sources tell him that Rove was aware both of Hill's status as a state employee and as an applicant to the Alabama State Bar. It appears that once Rove's intelligence network sprung into action, Hill did not have a very bright future as either a state employee or an Alabama lawyer.
Hill says that former Governor Don Siegelman is far from alone in being targeted by Karl Rove:
Rove used his intelligence network to sabotage not only Siegelman, but any State Employee or politician whom he saw as adverse to the Bush Administration. Confidential sources tell me that Rove was aware of my employment at the State Lands Division and my status as a Bar Applicant. Was I seen as a barrier to Jack Abramoff’s casino gambling plans or possibly adverse to Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s offshore drilling plans complete with kickbacks to Colorado lawyers with ties to Rove? Or did a certain State Official simply have it in for me and call on Rove’s team to make life hard on me?
Hill does have some encouraging news:
My sources also tell me that Rove is about to be thrown under the bus by more than one of his assets.
What does this say about my employment situation at UAB? Well, I think it's safe to say that Dax Swatek, who used to work for Rove crony Bill Canary, is a card-carrying member of any Rove intelligence network. And I think it's safe to say that Alice Martin owes her plum spot as a U.S. attorney to Rove and his like-minded lieutenants.
Given that I have reported reams of posts about unlawful actions by William E. Swatek (Dax's pappy) and Alice Martin, that probably puts me right up there with Hill in the target category.
Hill used to work at the State Lands Division, and confidential sources tell him that Rove was aware both of Hill's status as a state employee and as an applicant to the Alabama State Bar. It appears that once Rove's intelligence network sprung into action, Hill did not have a very bright future as either a state employee or an Alabama lawyer.
Hill says that former Governor Don Siegelman is far from alone in being targeted by Karl Rove:
Rove used his intelligence network to sabotage not only Siegelman, but any State Employee or politician whom he saw as adverse to the Bush Administration. Confidential sources tell me that Rove was aware of my employment at the State Lands Division and my status as a Bar Applicant. Was I seen as a barrier to Jack Abramoff’s casino gambling plans or possibly adverse to Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s offshore drilling plans complete with kickbacks to Colorado lawyers with ties to Rove? Or did a certain State Official simply have it in for me and call on Rove’s team to make life hard on me?
Hill does have some encouraging news:
My sources also tell me that Rove is about to be thrown under the bus by more than one of his assets.
What does this say about my employment situation at UAB? Well, I think it's safe to say that Dax Swatek, who used to work for Rove crony Bill Canary, is a card-carrying member of any Rove intelligence network. And I think it's safe to say that Alice Martin owes her plum spot as a U.S. attorney to Rove and his like-minded lieutenants.
Given that I have reported reams of posts about unlawful actions by William E. Swatek (Dax's pappy) and Alice Martin, that probably puts me right up there with Hill in the target category.
Siegelman Jury Questions Center on Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama, home to the largest university in the state, is known as the "Loveliest Village on the Plains."
But a report from David Fiderer at Huffington Post indicates something not lovely might have been going on at Auburn University during the trial of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Fiderer reports that jurors Sam Hendrix and Katie Langer engaged in unlawful communication during the trial, using Langer's g-mail account and Hendrix' e-mail account at Auburn University, where he works as a fundraiser.
Evidence shows that Hendrix and Langer sent each other private messages both before and during jury deliberations.
Langer, who teaches gymnastics, is an Auburn graduate. Fiderer says copies of nine e-mails probably were sent via fax by someone in Auburn's development office:
But were the e-mails bona fide? As we learned last week, the saga of the e-mails has many sinister twists and turns. What emerged is a smoking gun that incriminated prosecutor Louis Franklin and Judge Fuller. They, like Hendrix and Langer, connived behind the backs of others.
Some of the nine messages had been sent anonymously by fax in July 2006. My guess is that the sender was someone on the development staff at Auburn. (It's a very small world in Alabama. Katie is an Auburn alumna. Auburn is run by its Trustees, all of whom are appointed by Governor Bob Riley. According to sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee, the governor's son, Rob Riley, was on the call in which Republican operative Bill Canary said that Karl Rove had arranged with Justice to destroy Siegelman.)
For good measure, Alabama Republican Party chairman Mike Hubbard used to work in the Auburn Sports Information Office and then started Auburn Network Inc., a company that handles the university's multimedia rights. Hubbard's wife, Susan, serves on the faculty at Auburn.
Hendrix and Langer, the only jurors to speak to the press, painted a picture of a jury that got along splendidly. But other jurors, Fiderer reports, tell a different story. Seven jurors admitted in a post-trial hearing knowing that Hendrix and Langer had used information not available to the others.
Fiderer says a postal inspection that found the e-mails were forged "was a sham," and he points to questionable actions by Judge Mark Fuller and Prosecutor Louis Franklin:
Three things suggest that the Postal Service inquiry was a sham: (1) The stated purpose of the inquiry was to determine who sent the letters, not the authenticity of the emails. Yet the Postal Service looked into the matter anyway; (2) The emails sent to Hendrix's work address at Auburn could have been easily authenticated by the university's IT department. The most obvious, commonsensical approach -- at least to this non-techie - was not taken; (3) Then there's the obvious red herring: "information from a co-worker of Juror 7 [Hendrix] who monitored Juror 7's emails during trial and did not see any incoming emails from Juror 40 [Langer]." The emails were always sent late at night, after 10:00 p.m. Of course Hendrix's coworkers would never see the messages, if they were deleted.
What does Siegelman think of the revelations in the Huffington Post article? Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, has reaction at his Politibits blog here.
But a report from David Fiderer at Huffington Post indicates something not lovely might have been going on at Auburn University during the trial of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Fiderer reports that jurors Sam Hendrix and Katie Langer engaged in unlawful communication during the trial, using Langer's g-mail account and Hendrix' e-mail account at Auburn University, where he works as a fundraiser.
Evidence shows that Hendrix and Langer sent each other private messages both before and during jury deliberations.
Langer, who teaches gymnastics, is an Auburn graduate. Fiderer says copies of nine e-mails probably were sent via fax by someone in Auburn's development office:
But were the e-mails bona fide? As we learned last week, the saga of the e-mails has many sinister twists and turns. What emerged is a smoking gun that incriminated prosecutor Louis Franklin and Judge Fuller. They, like Hendrix and Langer, connived behind the backs of others.
Some of the nine messages had been sent anonymously by fax in July 2006. My guess is that the sender was someone on the development staff at Auburn. (It's a very small world in Alabama. Katie is an Auburn alumna. Auburn is run by its Trustees, all of whom are appointed by Governor Bob Riley. According to sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee, the governor's son, Rob Riley, was on the call in which Republican operative Bill Canary said that Karl Rove had arranged with Justice to destroy Siegelman.)
For good measure, Alabama Republican Party chairman Mike Hubbard used to work in the Auburn Sports Information Office and then started Auburn Network Inc., a company that handles the university's multimedia rights. Hubbard's wife, Susan, serves on the faculty at Auburn.
Hendrix and Langer, the only jurors to speak to the press, painted a picture of a jury that got along splendidly. But other jurors, Fiderer reports, tell a different story. Seven jurors admitted in a post-trial hearing knowing that Hendrix and Langer had used information not available to the others.
Fiderer says a postal inspection that found the e-mails were forged "was a sham," and he points to questionable actions by Judge Mark Fuller and Prosecutor Louis Franklin:
Three things suggest that the Postal Service inquiry was a sham: (1) The stated purpose of the inquiry was to determine who sent the letters, not the authenticity of the emails. Yet the Postal Service looked into the matter anyway; (2) The emails sent to Hendrix's work address at Auburn could have been easily authenticated by the university's IT department. The most obvious, commonsensical approach -- at least to this non-techie - was not taken; (3) Then there's the obvious red herring: "information from a co-worker of Juror 7 [Hendrix] who monitored Juror 7's emails during trial and did not see any incoming emails from Juror 40 [Langer]." The emails were always sent late at night, after 10:00 p.m. Of course Hendrix's coworkers would never see the messages, if they were deleted.
What does Siegelman think of the revelations in the Huffington Post article? Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, has reaction at his Politibits blog here.
Is a Day of Reckoning Coming for Rove?
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted today to hold former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove in contempt for failing to appear after receipt of a Congressional subpoena.
In a sign that the modern Republican Party has lost its moral compass, the 20-14 vote was along party lines, with not one Republican calling on Rove to honor a Congressional subpoena.
The vote is a recommendation, and it remains unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will allow a vote of the full House.
The committee vote came as progressive groups delivered to Congress 127,000 signatures of people calling for Rove to be held in contempt.
Our friends from Writechic have an excellent account of the day's activities.
Alabama Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, a key figure in exposing the apparent political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, called on Pelosi to help clean up the mess left by the Bush White House.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, reports on Simpson's statements:
“The time is now,” Ms. Simpson said. “Ms. Pelosi promised when she took over the House after the 2006 elections to clean up. It’s time for her to clean the White House for thumbing their noses at Congress.”
Ms. Simpson says she feels akin to the 127,000 people who signed a petition calling on Congress to send Karl Rove to jail, she said, and she thinks the House should use the Sergeant at Arms to arrest him. Inherent contempt and the Sergeant at Arms have been rarely used in American history, she said, “because most people don’t thumb their noses at the United States Congress.”
“Mr. Rove has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.S. Congress, and he should have respect for the Constitution and the Congress,” she said. “The time has come to stop this.”
Saying the current situation is a "Constitutional crisis," Simpson called on Congress to hold the White House accountable:
Ms. Simpson commended Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee, along with committee chairman John Conyers and Birmingham Rep. Artur Davis, “for their valiant efforts to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States,” she said. “They need to do a thorough, to the bottom of the bucket investigation. Otherwise there is going to be a revolt.”
In a sign that the modern Republican Party has lost its moral compass, the 20-14 vote was along party lines, with not one Republican calling on Rove to honor a Congressional subpoena.
The vote is a recommendation, and it remains unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will allow a vote of the full House.
The committee vote came as progressive groups delivered to Congress 127,000 signatures of people calling for Rove to be held in contempt.
Our friends from Writechic have an excellent account of the day's activities.
Alabama Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, a key figure in exposing the apparent political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, called on Pelosi to help clean up the mess left by the Bush White House.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, reports on Simpson's statements:
“The time is now,” Ms. Simpson said. “Ms. Pelosi promised when she took over the House after the 2006 elections to clean up. It’s time for her to clean the White House for thumbing their noses at Congress.”
Ms. Simpson says she feels akin to the 127,000 people who signed a petition calling on Congress to send Karl Rove to jail, she said, and she thinks the House should use the Sergeant at Arms to arrest him. Inherent contempt and the Sergeant at Arms have been rarely used in American history, she said, “because most people don’t thumb their noses at the United States Congress.”
“Mr. Rove has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.S. Congress, and he should have respect for the Constitution and the Congress,” she said. “The time has come to stop this.”
Saying the current situation is a "Constitutional crisis," Simpson called on Congress to hold the White House accountable:
Ms. Simpson commended Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee, along with committee chairman John Conyers and Birmingham Rep. Artur Davis, “for their valiant efforts to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States,” she said. “They need to do a thorough, to the bottom of the bucket investigation. Otherwise there is going to be a revolt.”
Government Tries to Block Minor's Release to Visit His Dying Wife
Folks who have been paying attention already know the Bush Justice Department is populated by mass quantities of corrupt lackeys.
But thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, we learn today that the Bush DOJ also includes a number of heartless jackasses.
Alexandrovna reports that the government opposes a motion that would allow Minor to be released so that he can visit his wife who is dying of cancer.
And get this? The government claims Minor should not be released because he is a "danger to the community."
Right, and the fact that Minor became wealthy from successfully suing business interests (can we say big tobacco and big asbestos?), and shared large portions of his wealth with Democratic Party candidates, has nothing to do with it.
Of course, the government's motion wants to ignore the corrupt handling of the Minor case by U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, who made unlawful rulings that insured that Minor and codefendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield would be convicted.
The government response in full is here.
Oliver Diaz, a Mississippi Supreme Court Justice who was prosecuted twice by the Bush DOJ (and acquitted both times), has an interesting take on the Minor story. Diaz, by the way, is a Republican. But he committed the sin of not being sufficiently pro business, and of being friendly with plaintiff's attorneys such as Minor, and wound up being pursued by the Bush Brigade:
"Government prosecutors have chosen to continue the political prosecution of Paul Minor," Justice Diaz wrote RAW STORY by email Tuesday. "In a case where even the [Justice Department] has raised the question of improprieties, these prosecutors have refused to show compassion for a man whose wife is dying with cancer Instead, the politicization of the criminal justice system is continued by these protégée of Monica Goodling."
Alexandrovna provides an update on the condition of Minor's wife:
As previously reported by Raw Story, Minor’s wife Sylvia developed breast cancer during the trial, which metastasized to her brain and lungs. Last month doctors stopped all medications other than those for pain management, indicating that Mrs. Minor is in the final stages of her illness. Minor has been attempting to get an appeal bond to be with his wife before she passes.
According to Minor’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, it will be up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on Minor's appeal bond request. Lowell also indicates that Minor could apply for a furlough instead, writing in an email on Monday that Minor "can seek a compassionate furlough from the Bureau of Prisons based solely on his wife's condition."
But thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, we learn today that the Bush DOJ also includes a number of heartless jackasses.
Alexandrovna reports that the government opposes a motion that would allow Minor to be released so that he can visit his wife who is dying of cancer.
And get this? The government claims Minor should not be released because he is a "danger to the community."
Right, and the fact that Minor became wealthy from successfully suing business interests (can we say big tobacco and big asbestos?), and shared large portions of his wealth with Democratic Party candidates, has nothing to do with it.
Of course, the government's motion wants to ignore the corrupt handling of the Minor case by U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, who made unlawful rulings that insured that Minor and codefendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield would be convicted.
The government response in full is here.
Oliver Diaz, a Mississippi Supreme Court Justice who was prosecuted twice by the Bush DOJ (and acquitted both times), has an interesting take on the Minor story. Diaz, by the way, is a Republican. But he committed the sin of not being sufficiently pro business, and of being friendly with plaintiff's attorneys such as Minor, and wound up being pursued by the Bush Brigade:
"Government prosecutors have chosen to continue the political prosecution of Paul Minor," Justice Diaz wrote RAW STORY by email Tuesday. "In a case where even the [Justice Department] has raised the question of improprieties, these prosecutors have refused to show compassion for a man whose wife is dying with cancer Instead, the politicization of the criminal justice system is continued by these protégée of Monica Goodling."
Alexandrovna provides an update on the condition of Minor's wife:
As previously reported by Raw Story, Minor’s wife Sylvia developed breast cancer during the trial, which metastasized to her brain and lungs. Last month doctors stopped all medications other than those for pain management, indicating that Mrs. Minor is in the final stages of her illness. Minor has been attempting to get an appeal bond to be with his wife before she passes.
According to Minor’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, it will be up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on Minor's appeal bond request. Lowell also indicates that Minor could apply for a furlough instead, writing in an email on Monday that Minor "can seek a compassionate furlough from the Bureau of Prisons based solely on his wife's condition."
Premises Liability: The Land for Opportunists
Premises liability is a concept that has a lot to do with my legal tale of woe. And it is the subject of an article in today's Birmingham News that shows just how easily the law can be abused.
Premises liability is the body of law that makes the person in possession of real property responsible for certain injuries suffered by persons who are on the property.
If you were to explain this concept to 1,000 random people and then ask them if they thought the law was fair, my guess is that a sizable majority would say the law is unfair.
How unfair can it be? Consider my situation.
My troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity, decided not long after he moved in that my property was essentially his property--never mind that, in a variety of ways, McGarity acted like a jackass toward my wife and me almost from the moment he moved in.
First, McGarity built a fence on our yard, taking about 400 square feet of our property. The fence would still be there if we hadn't had our yard resurveyed to determine it was wrongfully erected and forced him to move it. But did McGarity compensate us for the expenses we had incurred because of his screwup? Nope.
Once McGarity had built good will by cheating us on the fence situation, he decided it should be fine if he, his family members, and their guests came and went at will on our front yard (an area that, under covenants and restrictions in our neighborhood, we could not fence in order to keep them out).
When I told McGarity on multiple occasions to keep himself and others from trespassing from his yard onto ours, he threatened to sue me for "harassment." This is the problem that led to us swearing out a complaint against McGarity for criminal trespass third degree, to him being unlawfully acquitted (even though he unwittingly confessed to the crime), and to him filing a bogus lawsuit against me for malicious prosecution.
Fighting that case, and starting this blog to write about the corruption I had witnessed, is what led to my recent termination from UAB.
My wife and I have told this story to a number of people, and two of the most common questions we get are: (1) Why didn't you move? and (2) Why were you so concerned about trespassers?
The answer to the first question is this: We had lived there almost nine years, peacefully, before we had the misfortune of having a jackass move in next door. Don't know about you, but experience has taught me that running away from something is not the best way to deal with a problem--particularly when the law is on our side, and we had every right to use it in order to protect our property rights.
The second question has multiple answers. For one, it's bothersome and irritating to have people running around all over your property all the time. Second, I particularly don't like this kind of behavior when the people involved didn't have the decency to ask permission. Third, McGarity had already proven to be a knucklehead and a cheat, so we didn't want any part of him or anyone connected to him.
But fourth is the issue of premises liability. If any of the people trespassing from McGarity's property had been hurt on our property, we would have been held liable. Even though they were trespassing, because we were aware of them as trespassers, we would have been financially responsible. (Does that sound fair?)
Some folks might say, "Aw, any injury would be minor, and your insurance would cover it. Why worry?"
Well, consider this. The trespassers were constantly running over our concrete driveway and onto our grass. What if one of them had fallen and hit his head on our driveway, suffering head trauma? Yes, our insurance might cover it, but it also might raise our rates sky high or drop us as an insured altogether.
As you can see, for a whole bunch of reasons, it is not a good idea to allow trespassers on your property.
Which brings us to Birmingham City Councilman Joel Montgomery. In April 2007, Montgomery was injured when he fell in a parking lot in the city's Five Points South area. At the time of the incident, Montgomery was charged with public intoxication.
The misdemeanor criminal charge was dismissed by a special prosecutor who said Montgomery had completed alcohol counseling. Montgomery later denied receiving counseling, and the prosecutor tried to reinstate the charge. But a special judge denied the request, saying the deadline had elapsed for prosecuting the case.
Now Montgomery claims in a lawsuit that J.H. Berry and Co., owner of the parking lot where Montgomery fell, is responsible for his injuries--a bruise on his forehead, a broken nose, and a fractured vertebra.
Get this from Montgomery's attorney, Jon Vickers: "My client said he was not drunk, but he had a few drinks while he was out for dinner. He was walking along, looking at his truck when he walked right off the end of the wall and fell face first."
And the "few drinks" had nothing to do with it. Yeah, right.
Do some people have no shame? Not when premises liability and insurance money are involved.
Premises liability is the body of law that makes the person in possession of real property responsible for certain injuries suffered by persons who are on the property.
If you were to explain this concept to 1,000 random people and then ask them if they thought the law was fair, my guess is that a sizable majority would say the law is unfair.
How unfair can it be? Consider my situation.
My troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity, decided not long after he moved in that my property was essentially his property--never mind that, in a variety of ways, McGarity acted like a jackass toward my wife and me almost from the moment he moved in.
First, McGarity built a fence on our yard, taking about 400 square feet of our property. The fence would still be there if we hadn't had our yard resurveyed to determine it was wrongfully erected and forced him to move it. But did McGarity compensate us for the expenses we had incurred because of his screwup? Nope.
Once McGarity had built good will by cheating us on the fence situation, he decided it should be fine if he, his family members, and their guests came and went at will on our front yard (an area that, under covenants and restrictions in our neighborhood, we could not fence in order to keep them out).
When I told McGarity on multiple occasions to keep himself and others from trespassing from his yard onto ours, he threatened to sue me for "harassment." This is the problem that led to us swearing out a complaint against McGarity for criminal trespass third degree, to him being unlawfully acquitted (even though he unwittingly confessed to the crime), and to him filing a bogus lawsuit against me for malicious prosecution.
Fighting that case, and starting this blog to write about the corruption I had witnessed, is what led to my recent termination from UAB.
My wife and I have told this story to a number of people, and two of the most common questions we get are: (1) Why didn't you move? and (2) Why were you so concerned about trespassers?
The answer to the first question is this: We had lived there almost nine years, peacefully, before we had the misfortune of having a jackass move in next door. Don't know about you, but experience has taught me that running away from something is not the best way to deal with a problem--particularly when the law is on our side, and we had every right to use it in order to protect our property rights.
The second question has multiple answers. For one, it's bothersome and irritating to have people running around all over your property all the time. Second, I particularly don't like this kind of behavior when the people involved didn't have the decency to ask permission. Third, McGarity had already proven to be a knucklehead and a cheat, so we didn't want any part of him or anyone connected to him.
But fourth is the issue of premises liability. If any of the people trespassing from McGarity's property had been hurt on our property, we would have been held liable. Even though they were trespassing, because we were aware of them as trespassers, we would have been financially responsible. (Does that sound fair?)
Some folks might say, "Aw, any injury would be minor, and your insurance would cover it. Why worry?"
Well, consider this. The trespassers were constantly running over our concrete driveway and onto our grass. What if one of them had fallen and hit his head on our driveway, suffering head trauma? Yes, our insurance might cover it, but it also might raise our rates sky high or drop us as an insured altogether.
As you can see, for a whole bunch of reasons, it is not a good idea to allow trespassers on your property.
Which brings us to Birmingham City Councilman Joel Montgomery. In April 2007, Montgomery was injured when he fell in a parking lot in the city's Five Points South area. At the time of the incident, Montgomery was charged with public intoxication.
The misdemeanor criminal charge was dismissed by a special prosecutor who said Montgomery had completed alcohol counseling. Montgomery later denied receiving counseling, and the prosecutor tried to reinstate the charge. But a special judge denied the request, saying the deadline had elapsed for prosecuting the case.
Now Montgomery claims in a lawsuit that J.H. Berry and Co., owner of the parking lot where Montgomery fell, is responsible for his injuries--a bruise on his forehead, a broken nose, and a fractured vertebra.
Get this from Montgomery's attorney, Jon Vickers: "My client said he was not drunk, but he had a few drinks while he was out for dinner. He was walking along, looking at his truck when he walked right off the end of the wall and fell face first."
And the "few drinks" had nothing to do with it. Yeah, right.
Do some people have no shame? Not when premises liability and insurance money are involved.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
A Schnauzer Take on the Raw Story
Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story did such a splendid job on her piece about my termination from UAB that there is not a lot to add.
But we schnauzers never have been known as quiet, retiring types. So I can't resist adding my two cents. (Ms. Beyerstein interviewed me at length for her story, so I've probably already had more than my two cents. Let's consider the following my 20 cents.)
My hope is to add some insight to an already insightful article. Let's give it a shot:
Raw Story: "Shuler's problem arose not because he blogged nor because he did so from his workplace, because it's clear he didn't," says (Scott) Horton, who has been following both the Siegelman and Shuler cases closely. "His problem came from the fact that he wrote critical, well received insights targeting a number of very powerful figures in Alabama, starting with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and prominent Republicans with which she is aligned, and including a number of major figures in the Alabama media."
Legal Schnauzer: I love this quote from Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, because in just two sentences, he provides a true "nut graph" of what has occurred in my case. And he touches on an issue I would like to flesh out. When people hear the term "blogger," they think of someone who is presenting his opinions on various topics. Certainly I present my opinions and analysis, my take if you will, on a number of issues here at Legal Schnauzer. But in many instances, I've been more of a "citizen journalist" than a "blogger." And it's my role as a citizen journalist, I believe, that led to my dismissal at UAB. For example, I don't know that anyone in Alabama's GOP power structure would care all that much if I simply were offering critical opinions on this blog. But on at least some stories, I am doing more than that--I am acting as a journalist, reporting on stories that the local and regional mainstream press has largely ignored.
While I have presented evidence that UAB officials were concerned about my posts regarding the Don Siegelman case, I have been more of a follower than a leader on that story. The true groundbreakers on that story have been folks like Scott Horton at Harper's, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork World News, and Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story.
I have, however, broken ground on three other stories. They are:
1. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi--Horton and Alexandrovna have written a number of excellent overview pieces about the Minor case. My role has been to write a series of posts, showing in detail how the case was corruptly handled by U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee.
2. The Malice of Alice--No one has done more than Scott Horton to expose U.S. Attorney Alice Martin for the corrupt political hack that she is. But I have added an important component to the reporting on Martin, showing how she took my complaints of criminal wrongdoing by Alabama judges and lawyers and intentionally sent them to the wrong investigative agency, ensuring my charges never would see the light of day. Also, I showed how she violated prosecutorial ethics by failing to disclose her clear conflict of interest in my case. This conflict arose because my complaint included multiple charges against Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who just happens to be the father of Dax Swatek, Alice Martin's former campaign manager. Did Alice Martin inform me of this slight conflict? Nope. I provided a first-person account of Alice Martin's corrupt ways, and I'm guessing she wasn't real happy about it.
3. My Own Journey Through Legal Hell--This is the whole reason I started Legal Schnauzer, to show my fellow Alabamians that our state courts, in the Age of Rove, are a corrupt sewer. And I don't use that term "Age of Rove" lightly. It's a fact that Karl Rove, along with GOP operative Bill Canary, helped turn Alabama state courts from Democratic control to Republican control in the 1990s. It's a fact that Dax Swatek used to work for Bill Canary and remains a close confidante. It's a fact that Dax Swatek has served as campaign manager for Alice Martin (2000) and Governor Bob Riley (2006). Perhaps you've played that "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game involving all sorts of Hollywood actors and their ties to Kevin Bacon. In our Legal Schnauzer tale, the Kevin Bacon role is played by Dax Swatek. Because Dax Swatek's father (Bill Swatek) filed a bogus lawsuit against me, and because I had the temerity to write about the judicial corruption I had witnessed in the handling of that lawsuit, my story evolved from a minor local imbroglio to something that riled up important players in the GOP power structure.
The bottom line? I feel certain I was not fired because of the progressive opinions expressed on this blog. I was fired because of my reporting about Paul Minor, Alice Martin, and Bill/Dax Swatek.
---------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler has accused Martin of deliberately dragging her feet on the investigation to protect political allies. Shuler asserted that Martin was guilty of the same types of abuses of her official position that she and Canary had so vigilantly policed when they attempted to convict Siegelman and other Democratic elected officials in Alabama, including senior members of the state senate.
Legal Schnauzer: Another critical point. I have shown, in reporting on a detailed e-mail exchange I had with Martin, that she has committed honest-services mail fraud--the very offense that made up the majority of the charges against Don Siegelman. I'm not a federal prosecutor, but Martin's actions in my case also reflect possible obstruction of justice. Do you think Alice Martin was happy to see her crimes--in her very own words--presented on this blog? I don't think so either.
-------------------------
Raw Story: Martin says Shuler's allegations don't fall under her office's purview.
"Mr. Shuler has made, in writing and in person, numerous allegations against various individuals to my office which, if memory serves deals with civil litigation," she wrote in an email to RAW STORY Wednesday. "Many of his allegations are set forth on his blog."
"The US Attorney, when receiving complaints, refers them to an appropriate federal or investigative agency, as we do not investigate cases," she added. "His complaints were forwarded to the US Postal Inspection Service, as I advised him in my email, as he asserted the mails were involved. He was also advised to contact the Alabama Bar Association. He met with an Assistant US Attorney and presented no evidence of an offense, only has opinions, [and was referred to agencies] that could conduct an independent investigation. I have no knowledge of him contacting those agencies."
She also denied her office was in any way involved with Shuler's termination.
"There has been no contact by the office to Mr Shuler's employer," she wrote.
Legal Schnauzer: There are too many barnyard droppings in Martin's statements to do them justice here. I will address this in a separate post.
------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler, a journalist by training, has published numerous original investigative reports on Martin, Gov. Bob Riley, and both Leura and Bill Canary.
Riley also has close ties to Alice Martin. In 2007, whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson testified before the House Judiciary Committee that she heard Canary promise Gov. Riley that "his girls" would take care of Siegelman. Canary's "girls" were his wife, Leura Canary, and Alice Martin.
He's also president ex officio of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, and a frequent target of Shuler's barbs.
Legal Schnauzer: This is important, not only because Bob Riley is president ex offcio of the Board of Trustees, but the board itself serves as the boss of UAB president Carol Garrison. I've worked at UAB for 19 years, and I know that neither Carol Garrison, nor any other UAB president, would so blatantly violate federal law and university policy as she has done in my case without receiving the consent of, or pressure from, the Board of Trustees. That board hired Carol Garrison, and it can fire Carol Garrison. Do I think that board is a factor in my termination? You're darn tootin' I do. And that is not just based on my opinion. I am gathering facts that strongly point in the board's direction.
----------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler's blog-based reporting on the Siegelman prosecution and other high-profile cases has won him recognition in Alabama and beyond. Last month, Shuler was cited as an authority in an appeal filed by attorneys for prominent Mississippi Democrat Paul Minor, whom Shuler has defended as a victim of politically-motivated prosecution.
Shuler's reporting has also attracted interest from national media, including Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine, Raw Story, author Mark Crispin Miller and Jay Allbritton of AOL News. Prior to his dismissal, Shuler appeared on a local TV news segment about bloggers and the Siegelman case.
Legal Schnauzer: The importance of these paragraphs, in my mind, cannot be overstated. I started the blog in June 2007, and for about four months, the blog was relatively unknown (although I was pleased to see that readership grew steadily). But on October 23, 2007, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, and my blog was cited numerous times in documents entered regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. At about that same time, Scott Horton referenced my blog once or twice at his influential and widely read No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Suddenly, Legal Schnauzer wasn't unknown anymore. Important people were taking my work seriously. And in a little more than a month, strange things would start happening at work, events that would eventually lead to my firing at UAB.
-----------------------------
Raw Story: Alice Martin pursued a major whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of two UAB employees who reported that the University had misused federal grant money, and in 2005 the University agreed to pay $3.39 million to settle allegations that researchers double-billed on federal research grants. Under the terms of the settlement, Martin retained the power to reopen a civil or criminal investigation against UAB officials. This power, coupled with Martin's demonstrated enthusiasm for investigating corruption at universities, may have given UAB officials pause.
Legal Schnauzer: Again, it's hard to overstate the importance of these sentences. We will be writing in great detail about this whistleblower lawsuit, providing information that never has been written about in any news forum. I have conducted extensive research on this case, and I will show that Alice Martin essentially has a cocked pistol pointed at UAB's collective head, ready to fire it at any time. I will show that Alice Martin did UAB a colossal favor in the handling of this lawsuit, and the university has lots of reasons (millions of them, in fact) to want to return the favor.
And how might the university do that? By unlawfully terminating an employee who was proving to be a thorn in Alice Martin's deeply conservative side.
But we schnauzers never have been known as quiet, retiring types. So I can't resist adding my two cents. (Ms. Beyerstein interviewed me at length for her story, so I've probably already had more than my two cents. Let's consider the following my 20 cents.)
My hope is to add some insight to an already insightful article. Let's give it a shot:
Raw Story: "Shuler's problem arose not because he blogged nor because he did so from his workplace, because it's clear he didn't," says (Scott) Horton, who has been following both the Siegelman and Shuler cases closely. "His problem came from the fact that he wrote critical, well received insights targeting a number of very powerful figures in Alabama, starting with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and prominent Republicans with which she is aligned, and including a number of major figures in the Alabama media."
Legal Schnauzer: I love this quote from Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, because in just two sentences, he provides a true "nut graph" of what has occurred in my case. And he touches on an issue I would like to flesh out. When people hear the term "blogger," they think of someone who is presenting his opinions on various topics. Certainly I present my opinions and analysis, my take if you will, on a number of issues here at Legal Schnauzer. But in many instances, I've been more of a "citizen journalist" than a "blogger." And it's my role as a citizen journalist, I believe, that led to my dismissal at UAB. For example, I don't know that anyone in Alabama's GOP power structure would care all that much if I simply were offering critical opinions on this blog. But on at least some stories, I am doing more than that--I am acting as a journalist, reporting on stories that the local and regional mainstream press has largely ignored.
While I have presented evidence that UAB officials were concerned about my posts regarding the Don Siegelman case, I have been more of a follower than a leader on that story. The true groundbreakers on that story have been folks like Scott Horton at Harper's, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork World News, and Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story.
I have, however, broken ground on three other stories. They are:
1. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi--Horton and Alexandrovna have written a number of excellent overview pieces about the Minor case. My role has been to write a series of posts, showing in detail how the case was corruptly handled by U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee.
2. The Malice of Alice--No one has done more than Scott Horton to expose U.S. Attorney Alice Martin for the corrupt political hack that she is. But I have added an important component to the reporting on Martin, showing how she took my complaints of criminal wrongdoing by Alabama judges and lawyers and intentionally sent them to the wrong investigative agency, ensuring my charges never would see the light of day. Also, I showed how she violated prosecutorial ethics by failing to disclose her clear conflict of interest in my case. This conflict arose because my complaint included multiple charges against Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who just happens to be the father of Dax Swatek, Alice Martin's former campaign manager. Did Alice Martin inform me of this slight conflict? Nope. I provided a first-person account of Alice Martin's corrupt ways, and I'm guessing she wasn't real happy about it.
3. My Own Journey Through Legal Hell--This is the whole reason I started Legal Schnauzer, to show my fellow Alabamians that our state courts, in the Age of Rove, are a corrupt sewer. And I don't use that term "Age of Rove" lightly. It's a fact that Karl Rove, along with GOP operative Bill Canary, helped turn Alabama state courts from Democratic control to Republican control in the 1990s. It's a fact that Dax Swatek used to work for Bill Canary and remains a close confidante. It's a fact that Dax Swatek has served as campaign manager for Alice Martin (2000) and Governor Bob Riley (2006). Perhaps you've played that "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game involving all sorts of Hollywood actors and their ties to Kevin Bacon. In our Legal Schnauzer tale, the Kevin Bacon role is played by Dax Swatek. Because Dax Swatek's father (Bill Swatek) filed a bogus lawsuit against me, and because I had the temerity to write about the judicial corruption I had witnessed in the handling of that lawsuit, my story evolved from a minor local imbroglio to something that riled up important players in the GOP power structure.
The bottom line? I feel certain I was not fired because of the progressive opinions expressed on this blog. I was fired because of my reporting about Paul Minor, Alice Martin, and Bill/Dax Swatek.
---------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler's initial goal as a blogger--at his personal blog, Legal Schnauzer--was to expose the corruption of a local lawyer and his allies in the local judiciary, he says.
Legal Schnauzer: An important point. The local lawyer was William E. Swatek. His primary ally in the local judiciary was Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner. And Swatek's client, my troublesome "neighbor from hell," was Mike McGarity. These are the three people who started this whole process. What do we know about these folks? Public records show that Bill Swatek has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of "fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and dishonesty," and he has been tried in criminal court of perjury. Class act. Public records show that Mike McGarity has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. All are misdemeanors, but they include at least one violence-related offense and one sex-related offense. Another class act. And Joiner's handling of my case indicates that he should be serving "5 to 10" in a federal penitentiary. He has committed heinous acts of honest services mail fraud and probably conspiracy and God knows what else. A final class act.---------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler has accused Martin of deliberately dragging her feet on the investigation to protect political allies. Shuler asserted that Martin was guilty of the same types of abuses of her official position that she and Canary had so vigilantly policed when they attempted to convict Siegelman and other Democratic elected officials in Alabama, including senior members of the state senate.
Legal Schnauzer: Another critical point. I have shown, in reporting on a detailed e-mail exchange I had with Martin, that she has committed honest-services mail fraud--the very offense that made up the majority of the charges against Don Siegelman. I'm not a federal prosecutor, but Martin's actions in my case also reflect possible obstruction of justice. Do you think Alice Martin was happy to see her crimes--in her very own words--presented on this blog? I don't think so either.
-------------------------
Raw Story: Martin says Shuler's allegations don't fall under her office's purview.
"Mr. Shuler has made, in writing and in person, numerous allegations against various individuals to my office which, if memory serves deals with civil litigation," she wrote in an email to RAW STORY Wednesday. "Many of his allegations are set forth on his blog."
"The US Attorney, when receiving complaints, refers them to an appropriate federal or investigative agency, as we do not investigate cases," she added. "His complaints were forwarded to the US Postal Inspection Service, as I advised him in my email, as he asserted the mails were involved. He was also advised to contact the Alabama Bar Association. He met with an Assistant US Attorney and presented no evidence of an offense, only has opinions, [and was referred to agencies] that could conduct an independent investigation. I have no knowledge of him contacting those agencies."
She also denied her office was in any way involved with Shuler's termination.
"There has been no contact by the office to Mr Shuler's employer," she wrote.
Legal Schnauzer: There are too many barnyard droppings in Martin's statements to do them justice here. I will address this in a separate post.
------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler, a journalist by training, has published numerous original investigative reports on Martin, Gov. Bob Riley, and both Leura and Bill Canary.
Riley also has close ties to Alice Martin. In 2007, whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson testified before the House Judiciary Committee that she heard Canary promise Gov. Riley that "his girls" would take care of Siegelman. Canary's "girls" were his wife, Leura Canary, and Alice Martin.
He's also president ex officio of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, and a frequent target of Shuler's barbs.
Legal Schnauzer: This is important, not only because Bob Riley is president ex offcio of the Board of Trustees, but the board itself serves as the boss of UAB president Carol Garrison. I've worked at UAB for 19 years, and I know that neither Carol Garrison, nor any other UAB president, would so blatantly violate federal law and university policy as she has done in my case without receiving the consent of, or pressure from, the Board of Trustees. That board hired Carol Garrison, and it can fire Carol Garrison. Do I think that board is a factor in my termination? You're darn tootin' I do. And that is not just based on my opinion. I am gathering facts that strongly point in the board's direction.
----------------------------
Raw Story: Shuler's blog-based reporting on the Siegelman prosecution and other high-profile cases has won him recognition in Alabama and beyond. Last month, Shuler was cited as an authority in an appeal filed by attorneys for prominent Mississippi Democrat Paul Minor, whom Shuler has defended as a victim of politically-motivated prosecution.
Shuler's reporting has also attracted interest from national media, including Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine, Raw Story, author Mark Crispin Miller and Jay Allbritton of AOL News. Prior to his dismissal, Shuler appeared on a local TV news segment about bloggers and the Siegelman case.
Legal Schnauzer: The importance of these paragraphs, in my mind, cannot be overstated. I started the blog in June 2007, and for about four months, the blog was relatively unknown (although I was pleased to see that readership grew steadily). But on October 23, 2007, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, and my blog was cited numerous times in documents entered regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. At about that same time, Scott Horton referenced my blog once or twice at his influential and widely read No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Suddenly, Legal Schnauzer wasn't unknown anymore. Important people were taking my work seriously. And in a little more than a month, strange things would start happening at work, events that would eventually lead to my firing at UAB.
-----------------------------
Raw Story: Alice Martin pursued a major whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of two UAB employees who reported that the University had misused federal grant money, and in 2005 the University agreed to pay $3.39 million to settle allegations that researchers double-billed on federal research grants. Under the terms of the settlement, Martin retained the power to reopen a civil or criminal investigation against UAB officials. This power, coupled with Martin's demonstrated enthusiasm for investigating corruption at universities, may have given UAB officials pause.
Legal Schnauzer: Again, it's hard to overstate the importance of these sentences. We will be writing in great detail about this whistleblower lawsuit, providing information that never has been written about in any news forum. I have conducted extensive research on this case, and I will show that Alice Martin essentially has a cocked pistol pointed at UAB's collective head, ready to fire it at any time. I will show that Alice Martin did UAB a colossal favor in the handling of this lawsuit, and the university has lots of reasons (millions of them, in fact) to want to return the favor.
And how might the university do that? By unlawfully terminating an employee who was proving to be a thorn in Alice Martin's deeply conservative side.
The Grievance Project: The Power of Shame
I've been intrigued for some time by a blog called Grievance Project.
It is written by a lawyer who goes by the initials "E.M." (Ethics Matter?), and you can learn more about the author here.
The main idea behind Grievance Project seems to be this: Bar associations and judicial oversight groups don't seem to be up to the task of policing their own, so someone needs to step in and help shame wayward lawyers and judges back onto the right track.
Not sure I'm stating E.M's goals accurately here. But if that is the general idea, I'm all for it. And it's refreshing to see an attorney acknowledge that the self-regulating profession of law does not do a very good job of policing itself.
Grievance Project has a particularly interesting post today about Kyle Sampson, who was at the heart of unlawful hiring practices in the Bush Justice Department.
E.M.'s efforts hit close to home for us here at Legal Schnauzer. As someone who has been repeatedly cheated by multiple attorneys--both my own and the dirtbag on the other side--and seen unlawful rulings issued by some 20 judges, I have enough material to keep Grievance Project going for months.
It would be nice to see other lawyers join E.M. in an effort to shine light on a profession that badly needs to be sanitized.
Unfortunately, most lawyers I'm aware of are making a pretty good living with the system the way it is. They don't want to upset an ugly applecart that is compensating them far better than some other profession (journalism?) would.
I don' t look for a rush of lawyers to join Grievance Project. But it would be nice for the public to help E.M. along in what seems to be a noble effort.
It is written by a lawyer who goes by the initials "E.M." (Ethics Matter?), and you can learn more about the author here.
The main idea behind Grievance Project seems to be this: Bar associations and judicial oversight groups don't seem to be up to the task of policing their own, so someone needs to step in and help shame wayward lawyers and judges back onto the right track.
Not sure I'm stating E.M's goals accurately here. But if that is the general idea, I'm all for it. And it's refreshing to see an attorney acknowledge that the self-regulating profession of law does not do a very good job of policing itself.
Grievance Project has a particularly interesting post today about Kyle Sampson, who was at the heart of unlawful hiring practices in the Bush Justice Department.
E.M.'s efforts hit close to home for us here at Legal Schnauzer. As someone who has been repeatedly cheated by multiple attorneys--both my own and the dirtbag on the other side--and seen unlawful rulings issued by some 20 judges, I have enough material to keep Grievance Project going for months.
It would be nice to see other lawyers join E.M. in an effort to shine light on a profession that badly needs to be sanitized.
Unfortunately, most lawyers I'm aware of are making a pretty good living with the system the way it is. They don't want to upset an ugly applecart that is compensating them far better than some other profession (journalism?) would.
I don' t look for a rush of lawyers to join Grievance Project. But it would be nice for the public to help E.M. along in what seems to be a noble effort.
Draining the Bush DOJ Swamp
Is it possible that some of the muck finally is being removed from the cesspool created at the Bush Department of Justice?
Are the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG)--both units of the Justice Department--capable of cleaning up the mess from within?
I put a lot of faith in what Scott Horton writes at Harper's.org, and he has indicated that he has little faith in OPR. Horton seems to hold OIG, particularly director Glenn Fine, in pretty high regard.
So what to make of news reports that OPR and OIG are combining to unearth evidence of criminal activity in the political machinations by loyal Bushies at main Justice?
Like Horton, I'm not convinced these DOJ units are "man enough" to truly drain the Bush sewer. But at least they are exposing political hacks like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. And perhaps that's a belated, if worthwhile, start.
The New York Times gets appropriately riled up in an editorial today, calling the OPR/OIG findings "appalling" and saying Attorney General Michael Mukasey's response was "disgracefully lukewarm."
Richard B. Schmitt, of the Los Angeles Times, adds to the story today with a major piece about employees or job candidates being rejected based on rumors about homosexuality.
The bottom line? The Bush Justice Department was willing to break the law in its efforts to appoint only conservative Republicans to what are supposed to be apolitical positions.
Was this mindset present when U.S. attorneys were being appointed? I suspect that it was.
And what did the public wind up with as a result? In Alabama, we have political hacks like Leura Canary in Montgomery and Alice Martin in Birmingham.
Canary led the effort to get former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, and that case has become the "poster child" for political prosecution by loyal Bushies.
But don't forget Alice Martin. We certainly haven't here at Legal Schnauzer. She was the first prosecutor to go after Siegelman, with a case that was so weak it was promptly booted out of court. She has a lengthy record of going after Democrats, particularly those with dark skin, while ignoring wrongdoing by Republicans. And in the shameful case of Alex Latifi, she appears to have intentionally ruined a man's business, all because he happens to be of Iranian descent.
I have my own Alice Martin stories, and they point very strongly toward her involvement in my termination at UAB. Martin reportedly is under investigation by OPR and OIG, and I will make sure folks in those offices know about my experiences with our local prosecutor.
My research in recent days is yielding some interesting connections between Alice Martin and UAB, connections that might help explain why I no longer have a job. I've also uncovered connections between the Department of Justice and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.
Many more details to come.
Are the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG)--both units of the Justice Department--capable of cleaning up the mess from within?
I put a lot of faith in what Scott Horton writes at Harper's.org, and he has indicated that he has little faith in OPR. Horton seems to hold OIG, particularly director Glenn Fine, in pretty high regard.
So what to make of news reports that OPR and OIG are combining to unearth evidence of criminal activity in the political machinations by loyal Bushies at main Justice?
Like Horton, I'm not convinced these DOJ units are "man enough" to truly drain the Bush sewer. But at least they are exposing political hacks like Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. And perhaps that's a belated, if worthwhile, start.
The New York Times gets appropriately riled up in an editorial today, calling the OPR/OIG findings "appalling" and saying Attorney General Michael Mukasey's response was "disgracefully lukewarm."
Richard B. Schmitt, of the Los Angeles Times, adds to the story today with a major piece about employees or job candidates being rejected based on rumors about homosexuality.
The bottom line? The Bush Justice Department was willing to break the law in its efforts to appoint only conservative Republicans to what are supposed to be apolitical positions.
Was this mindset present when U.S. attorneys were being appointed? I suspect that it was.
And what did the public wind up with as a result? In Alabama, we have political hacks like Leura Canary in Montgomery and Alice Martin in Birmingham.
Canary led the effort to get former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, and that case has become the "poster child" for political prosecution by loyal Bushies.
But don't forget Alice Martin. We certainly haven't here at Legal Schnauzer. She was the first prosecutor to go after Siegelman, with a case that was so weak it was promptly booted out of court. She has a lengthy record of going after Democrats, particularly those with dark skin, while ignoring wrongdoing by Republicans. And in the shameful case of Alex Latifi, she appears to have intentionally ruined a man's business, all because he happens to be of Iranian descent.
I have my own Alice Martin stories, and they point very strongly toward her involvement in my termination at UAB. Martin reportedly is under investigation by OPR and OIG, and I will make sure folks in those offices know about my experiences with our local prosecutor.
My research in recent days is yielding some interesting connections between Alice Martin and UAB, connections that might help explain why I no longer have a job. I've also uncovered connections between the Department of Justice and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.
Many more details to come.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Final Questions for UAB's President--For Now
In two previous posts, which can be read here and here, we posed a number of questions about my termination for UAB President Carol Garrison.
These questions were prompted by the public statement Garrison and her trusty PR guy Gary Mans distributed to folks who had voiced concerns about my firing. As I've noted previously, I'm sure Garrison and Mans would be delighted to hear from you if you would like to pose my questions, or some of your own, regarding their actions in my case. They can be reached at:
Carol Garrison: cgarrison@uab.edu; 934-4636
Gary Mans: gmans@uab.edu; 934-3884
So let's ponder a few more questions for Dr. Garrison, who serves as chief executive of an institution that receives more than $400 million a year in federal taxpayer dollars:
* As part of its core curriculum, UAB has an Ethics and Civic Responsibility (ECR) requirement for its students. You, Dr. Garrison, have enthusiastically pushed this initiative. The goal of the ECR program is stated as follows:
Ethics and Civic Responsibility (ECR)
The role of a university is to prepare students to function effectively and engage responsibly in both the academic community and post-graduation life. Excellence and integrity should be academic, personal, and professional goals for everyone. Effective and responsible living depends upon the ability of individuals to strive for excellence, to make informed and ethical decisions, to accept responsibility for one’s choices, and to practice good citizenship as part of multiple larger social units.
Part of the ECR effort is a campuswide "discussion book" program, which you have encouraged UAB students, faculty, and staff to participate in. You have touted this as part of your Quality Enhancement Plan for UAB.
The discussion book for 2008 is Field Notes From a Catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert. Previous discussion books have been The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (2005), The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini (2006), and All Over But the Shoutin' by Rick Bragg (2007).
I was a UAB employee at the time you announced your discussion-book initiative, and I thought it was a terrific idea. In fact, I've read two of the four books in the series and have the other two on my "Read This, Pronto" list.
Now that I've been cheated out of my job at UAB, I wonder about your plans to promote "ethics and civic responsibility" on the UAB campus. And the word hypocrisy creeps into my mind.
While you promote ethics and responsibility for UAB faculty, staff, and students, I wonder about the ethics of the president's office--and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor's Office, which oversees the University of Alabama System. It appears that ethics is promoted for the "commoners" in the UAB community, but they do not seem to apply at the upper reaches of the university structure--where you reside?
How do you square your promotion of an ECR program with your own behavior in my case? Do you feel like a hypocrite--even just a little?
* Here's a question I really wrestle with. As a middle-class guy who struggles to make it from paycheck to paycheck (or, now, unemployment check to unemployment check), I can't imagine what it is like to have it pretty much made financially.
From where I sit, you appear to be financially set--whether you remain UAB president for the long term or not. I'm sure you enjoy the power and prestige that comes with your elevated position. I'm sure you value the core tasks, challenges, and relationships that come with working in an academic environment. (I, too, enjoyed the tasks, challenges, and relationships of my job--until I was cheated out of it.) And I'm sure the $487,620 that UAB pays you annually comes in handy.
But your financial picture goes well beyond your UAB salary. A couple of years ago, you married a gentleman named Julian Banton, who is retired as president of SouthTrust Corporation and CEO of SouthTrust Bank. Mr. Banton has been a generous supporter of UAB and other worthy causes, and I think its safe to say his net worth runs into the several millions. It's pretty clear that Mr. Banton runs in the kind of financial circles with which most regular folks are not familiar.
So here is what I don't get about you: Why would someone of your financial means let themselves be pressured into unlawfully firing a 19-year employee who had done nothing to merit discipline of any kind, much less termination? I don't know what it's like to walk in your shoes. But if I were in your shoes, and someone pressured me to unlawfully fire one of my employees, I think I would tell the person, "Go to hell."
If you have the kind of ethics that you espouse for other UAB employees, that's certainly what you should have said. But evidently you did not say that. And news reports indicate you have allowed yourself to be pressured before.
When UAB was in the market for a new football coach two years, it was widely reported that the university was set to hire LSU assistant coach Jimbo Fisher, considered by many to be a rising star in the coaching ranks. Instead, UAB wound up hiring Georgia assistant Neil Callaway, a University of Alabama alumnus and former player for UA coaching icon Paul "Bear" Bryant. News reports stated that UA Chancellor Malcolm Portera and the Board of Trustees, led by Bryant's son Paul W. Bryant Jr., pressured UAB into hiring Callaway rather than Fisher. You evidently caved in, and Neil Callaway is now UAB's head coach. Jimbo Fisher is at Florida State, where he is designated to follow legendary head coach Bobby Bowden upon Bowden's retirement.
(A personal note: I think UAB wound up with a good football coach in Neil Callaway. I got to know Coach Callaway in the mid to late 1980s when he was an assistant at Auburn University, and I was Auburn beat writer for the Birmingham Post-Herald. He impressed me as a solid, no-nonsense coach then, and I thought he did a good job last year of getting UAB's program turned back in the right direction, providing much needed discipline and stability to a team that had gone off the tracks in recent years.)
I think there is a good chance that UAB football will thrive under Neil Callaway. But that's not the point here. The point is that you apparently caved in to pressure from Paul Bryant Jr. and Malcolm Portera. As a result, UAB did not hire the coach it really wanted to hire.
And my question again is why didn't you tell them to "go to hell." What were they going to do, fire you? They already had a discrimination lawsuit hanging over their heads from the exit of their previous female president, Ann Reynolds. You think they wanted another lawsuit, from their second female president? And even if they did fire you, so what? You're married to a gazillionnaire.
If you can't have some spine when you are married to a wealthy dude, when can you have some spine? And speaking of Bryant Jr. and Portera, I'm wondering if they--or someone in their general clan--provided some pressure for you to fire me?
Hmmm.
* In your public statement, you said that I was not fired because of politics. But Anita Bonasera, your own director of employee relations, stated in an audiotaped conversation that the "investigation" of my computer use at UAB indeed was prompted by political considerations--that I write a personal blog having to do with the Don Siegelman case. If you haven't heard that audio, you can check it out here. How do you square your statement with a statement from your own employee relations director indicating that my termination was driven by politics?
* I noted in a earlier post that you seem to have adopted the management style of Republican strategist Karl Rove. Given that Mr. Rove almost certainly has committed federal crimes in promoting political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department, you shouldn't take that as a compliment. Your public statement has a Rovian quality throughout. For example, you say you haven't been contacted by any public officials or representatives of such regarding my termination. But that doesn't answer this question: Were you pressured by Malcolm Portera, Paul Bryant Jr., or some other representative of the Board of Trustees or Chancellor's Office for which you serve? Your statement reminds me of Rove's not-so-clever written statement that doesn't address whether he consulted Alabama operatives such as Bill Canary and Rob Riley regarding the Siegelman prosecution.
On the one hand, you are promoting ethics and responsibility for the UAB community. But on the other hand, regarding my termination, you seem to be behaving like Karl Rove--a name not often associated with ethics and responsibility.
Do you see a disconnect there?
These questions were prompted by the public statement Garrison and her trusty PR guy Gary Mans distributed to folks who had voiced concerns about my firing. As I've noted previously, I'm sure Garrison and Mans would be delighted to hear from you if you would like to pose my questions, or some of your own, regarding their actions in my case. They can be reached at:
Carol Garrison: cgarrison@uab.edu; 934-4636
Gary Mans: gmans@uab.edu; 934-3884
So let's ponder a few more questions for Dr. Garrison, who serves as chief executive of an institution that receives more than $400 million a year in federal taxpayer dollars:
* As part of its core curriculum, UAB has an Ethics and Civic Responsibility (ECR) requirement for its students. You, Dr. Garrison, have enthusiastically pushed this initiative. The goal of the ECR program is stated as follows:
Ethics and Civic Responsibility (ECR)
The role of a university is to prepare students to function effectively and engage responsibly in both the academic community and post-graduation life. Excellence and integrity should be academic, personal, and professional goals for everyone. Effective and responsible living depends upon the ability of individuals to strive for excellence, to make informed and ethical decisions, to accept responsibility for one’s choices, and to practice good citizenship as part of multiple larger social units.
Part of the ECR effort is a campuswide "discussion book" program, which you have encouraged UAB students, faculty, and staff to participate in. You have touted this as part of your Quality Enhancement Plan for UAB.
The discussion book for 2008 is Field Notes From a Catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert. Previous discussion books have been The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (2005), The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini (2006), and All Over But the Shoutin' by Rick Bragg (2007).
I was a UAB employee at the time you announced your discussion-book initiative, and I thought it was a terrific idea. In fact, I've read two of the four books in the series and have the other two on my "Read This, Pronto" list.
Now that I've been cheated out of my job at UAB, I wonder about your plans to promote "ethics and civic responsibility" on the UAB campus. And the word hypocrisy creeps into my mind.
While you promote ethics and responsibility for UAB faculty, staff, and students, I wonder about the ethics of the president's office--and the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor's Office, which oversees the University of Alabama System. It appears that ethics is promoted for the "commoners" in the UAB community, but they do not seem to apply at the upper reaches of the university structure--where you reside?
How do you square your promotion of an ECR program with your own behavior in my case? Do you feel like a hypocrite--even just a little?
* Here's a question I really wrestle with. As a middle-class guy who struggles to make it from paycheck to paycheck (or, now, unemployment check to unemployment check), I can't imagine what it is like to have it pretty much made financially.
From where I sit, you appear to be financially set--whether you remain UAB president for the long term or not. I'm sure you enjoy the power and prestige that comes with your elevated position. I'm sure you value the core tasks, challenges, and relationships that come with working in an academic environment. (I, too, enjoyed the tasks, challenges, and relationships of my job--until I was cheated out of it.) And I'm sure the $487,620 that UAB pays you annually comes in handy.
But your financial picture goes well beyond your UAB salary. A couple of years ago, you married a gentleman named Julian Banton, who is retired as president of SouthTrust Corporation and CEO of SouthTrust Bank. Mr. Banton has been a generous supporter of UAB and other worthy causes, and I think its safe to say his net worth runs into the several millions. It's pretty clear that Mr. Banton runs in the kind of financial circles with which most regular folks are not familiar.
So here is what I don't get about you: Why would someone of your financial means let themselves be pressured into unlawfully firing a 19-year employee who had done nothing to merit discipline of any kind, much less termination? I don't know what it's like to walk in your shoes. But if I were in your shoes, and someone pressured me to unlawfully fire one of my employees, I think I would tell the person, "Go to hell."
If you have the kind of ethics that you espouse for other UAB employees, that's certainly what you should have said. But evidently you did not say that. And news reports indicate you have allowed yourself to be pressured before.
When UAB was in the market for a new football coach two years, it was widely reported that the university was set to hire LSU assistant coach Jimbo Fisher, considered by many to be a rising star in the coaching ranks. Instead, UAB wound up hiring Georgia assistant Neil Callaway, a University of Alabama alumnus and former player for UA coaching icon Paul "Bear" Bryant. News reports stated that UA Chancellor Malcolm Portera and the Board of Trustees, led by Bryant's son Paul W. Bryant Jr., pressured UAB into hiring Callaway rather than Fisher. You evidently caved in, and Neil Callaway is now UAB's head coach. Jimbo Fisher is at Florida State, where he is designated to follow legendary head coach Bobby Bowden upon Bowden's retirement.
(A personal note: I think UAB wound up with a good football coach in Neil Callaway. I got to know Coach Callaway in the mid to late 1980s when he was an assistant at Auburn University, and I was Auburn beat writer for the Birmingham Post-Herald. He impressed me as a solid, no-nonsense coach then, and I thought he did a good job last year of getting UAB's program turned back in the right direction, providing much needed discipline and stability to a team that had gone off the tracks in recent years.)
I think there is a good chance that UAB football will thrive under Neil Callaway. But that's not the point here. The point is that you apparently caved in to pressure from Paul Bryant Jr. and Malcolm Portera. As a result, UAB did not hire the coach it really wanted to hire.
And my question again is why didn't you tell them to "go to hell." What were they going to do, fire you? They already had a discrimination lawsuit hanging over their heads from the exit of their previous female president, Ann Reynolds. You think they wanted another lawsuit, from their second female president? And even if they did fire you, so what? You're married to a gazillionnaire.
If you can't have some spine when you are married to a wealthy dude, when can you have some spine? And speaking of Bryant Jr. and Portera, I'm wondering if they--or someone in their general clan--provided some pressure for you to fire me?
Hmmm.
* In your public statement, you said that I was not fired because of politics. But Anita Bonasera, your own director of employee relations, stated in an audiotaped conversation that the "investigation" of my computer use at UAB indeed was prompted by political considerations--that I write a personal blog having to do with the Don Siegelman case. If you haven't heard that audio, you can check it out here. How do you square your statement with a statement from your own employee relations director indicating that my termination was driven by politics?
* I noted in a earlier post that you seem to have adopted the management style of Republican strategist Karl Rove. Given that Mr. Rove almost certainly has committed federal crimes in promoting political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department, you shouldn't take that as a compliment. Your public statement has a Rovian quality throughout. For example, you say you haven't been contacted by any public officials or representatives of such regarding my termination. But that doesn't answer this question: Were you pressured by Malcolm Portera, Paul Bryant Jr., or some other representative of the Board of Trustees or Chancellor's Office for which you serve? Your statement reminds me of Rove's not-so-clever written statement that doesn't address whether he consulted Alabama operatives such as Bill Canary and Rob Riley regarding the Siegelman prosecution.
On the one hand, you are promoting ethics and responsibility for the UAB community. But on the other hand, regarding my termination, you seem to be behaving like Karl Rove--a name not often associated with ethics and responsibility.
Do you see a disconnect there?
The Original Legal Schnauzer, Part II
Here is another in our series of posts about the Original Legal Schnauzer, our wonderful girl Murphy (1993-2004). She helped us survive the worst of our legal nightmare and serves as the inspiration for this blog.
As you can see, she was a ridiculously cute puppy. Little wonder we fell in love with her right off the bat.
This is one of the first pictures we took of Murphy, just a few days after we brought her home from her birthplace in Selma, Alabama (actually about 15 miles south of Selma, near a wide spot in the road called Sardis, Alabama).
My wife and I particularly love this picture because it shows that "schnauzer look" Murphy has in her eyes. The schnauzer has been called "the dog with a human brain." In a way, that's an insult to schnauzers because the human brain can be filled with all kinds of evil intent--as evidenced by the actions we've reported on this blog.
From having Murphy at the center of our lives for 11 years, we feel the schnauzer brain is filled with nothing but good stuff. Maybe the phrase should be revised to say "the dog with the good part of the human brain."
By "schnauzer look" I mean this riveting gaze where you feel like your dog is trying to read your mind. And she wouldn't just do it when she wanted something, like supper or a walk or a game of hide-and-seek. Certainly there were times when Murphy was trying to tell us something, something she needed or wanted. But to us, it seemed like she spent a lot of time trying to figure out what we needed.
Murphy would lock eyes with us, and you could almost hear the wheels spinning in her head: "What are they thinking?" "What do they need? "How can I help?"
Murphy's inquisitive nature, playful spirit, and desire to help only seemed to grow stronger as she got older. As cute and wonderful as she was in her puppy years, Murphy was even more cool as an adult dog.
As you can see, she was a ridiculously cute puppy. Little wonder we fell in love with her right off the bat.
This is one of the first pictures we took of Murphy, just a few days after we brought her home from her birthplace in Selma, Alabama (actually about 15 miles south of Selma, near a wide spot in the road called Sardis, Alabama).
My wife and I particularly love this picture because it shows that "schnauzer look" Murphy has in her eyes. The schnauzer has been called "the dog with a human brain." In a way, that's an insult to schnauzers because the human brain can be filled with all kinds of evil intent--as evidenced by the actions we've reported on this blog.
From having Murphy at the center of our lives for 11 years, we feel the schnauzer brain is filled with nothing but good stuff. Maybe the phrase should be revised to say "the dog with the good part of the human brain."
By "schnauzer look" I mean this riveting gaze where you feel like your dog is trying to read your mind. And she wouldn't just do it when she wanted something, like supper or a walk or a game of hide-and-seek. Certainly there were times when Murphy was trying to tell us something, something she needed or wanted. But to us, it seemed like she spent a lot of time trying to figure out what we needed.
Murphy would lock eyes with us, and you could almost hear the wheels spinning in her head: "What are they thinking?" "What do they need? "How can I help?"
Murphy's inquisitive nature, playful spirit, and desire to help only seemed to grow stronger as she got older. As cute and wonderful as she was in her puppy years, Murphy was even more cool as an adult dog.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
What Really Ails UAB's Research Machine
UAB attracts more than $400 million a year in federal research money, and those dollars have become a driving force behind the Birmingham economy.
But The Birmingham News reports today that UAB is losing quite a few of its top researchers. Reporter Hannah Wolfson writes that UAB's "brain drain" is caused partly by strong incentive packages that states such as Georgia and Kentucky can offer top researchers.
Problems with UAB's research enterprise, however, go deeper than that. I know because I worked there for 19 years before recently being fired, apparently because I write a blog (on my own time, with my own resources) that caused discomfort for folks connected to the Bush Justice Department.
Wolfson mentions seven scientists who have left UAB in recent years, but that is only a small sampling of the researchers who have hit the exits on the Southside. And they all have not left because of attractive incentive packages from other states. Some of them, I feel certain, were aware of irregularities at UAB and wanted to get out while the gettin' was good.
People close to UAB know that the university has had, and probably still has, significant problems with the way it administers its research programs. Vast sums of research money have been mismanaged at UAB over the past 10 years or so--at least--and the local press and law-enforcement officials have done a wonderful job of looking the other way.
In fact, the willingness of local law-enforcement officials to look the other way probably has a lot to do with why the university was so willing to unlawfully terminate me. UAB owed somebody a favor, and somebody was calling in the chips.
Well, we schnauzers are not prone to looking the other way when we smell wrongdoing. And there has been serious wrongdoing in the research game at UAB. We will be spelling it out, in excruciating detail, here at Legal Schnauzer.
In a general sense, UAB has experienced a leadership vacuum since Dr. Charles A. McCallum resigned as president in 1993, apparently because he was sick of dealing with interference from the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. McCallum went on to become mayor of Vestavia Hills, Alabama, and now in his early 80s, he will step down from that post at the end of 2008.
UAB was built by a series of visionary leaders--Tinsley Harrison, James Pittman, Joseph Volker, S. Richardson Hill, to name a few. McCallum is the last in a line of outstanding leaders, and that kind of vision is becoming a distant memory on Birmingham's Southside.
My little tale of woe is a tiny slice of UAB history. But it is symptomatic of a much bigger problem at one of Alabama's most important institutions. The wrongful termination of a 19-year employee, all because certain politicos don't like the truths presented in the employee's personal blog, is the kind of stupidity that would not have taken place when people like Dick Hill and Scotty McCallum were in charge at UAB.
But it did take place with Carol Garrison in charge. And a lot of dumb stuff also took place under her predecessors--Ann Reynolds and Claude Bennett. The sad truth is that UAB has had weak presidents for 15 of the past 19 years. It's a wonder I was able to work there as long as I did.
At one time, I had high hopes for Carol Garrison. For one, she is a UAB alum, with a master's degree in nursing, and I thought it was a good thing to have one of our own serve as the university's president. Garrison's personality and management style seemed to be a major improvement over that of Reynolds--of course, a wolverine from the forests of northern Michigan would have been an improvement in temperament over Reynolds.
But it seems apparent that Garrison will allow herself to be pushed around by certain political forces. And while Garrison talks a good game about ethics, evidence is mounting that she's not always the best about putting those thoughts into practice.
As for today's story, I don't normally have kind things to say about The Birmingham News and its right-wing ways. But I will give the paper and Ms. Wolfson credit for tackling an important subject with its UAB research story.
The story is interesting and addresses a number of important issues. But it doesn't really get beneath the surface of the problems connected to research at UAB.
To understand that, you will need to read Legal Schnauzer.
But The Birmingham News reports today that UAB is losing quite a few of its top researchers. Reporter Hannah Wolfson writes that UAB's "brain drain" is caused partly by strong incentive packages that states such as Georgia and Kentucky can offer top researchers.
Problems with UAB's research enterprise, however, go deeper than that. I know because I worked there for 19 years before recently being fired, apparently because I write a blog (on my own time, with my own resources) that caused discomfort for folks connected to the Bush Justice Department.
Wolfson mentions seven scientists who have left UAB in recent years, but that is only a small sampling of the researchers who have hit the exits on the Southside. And they all have not left because of attractive incentive packages from other states. Some of them, I feel certain, were aware of irregularities at UAB and wanted to get out while the gettin' was good.
People close to UAB know that the university has had, and probably still has, significant problems with the way it administers its research programs. Vast sums of research money have been mismanaged at UAB over the past 10 years or so--at least--and the local press and law-enforcement officials have done a wonderful job of looking the other way.
In fact, the willingness of local law-enforcement officials to look the other way probably has a lot to do with why the university was so willing to unlawfully terminate me. UAB owed somebody a favor, and somebody was calling in the chips.
Well, we schnauzers are not prone to looking the other way when we smell wrongdoing. And there has been serious wrongdoing in the research game at UAB. We will be spelling it out, in excruciating detail, here at Legal Schnauzer.
In a general sense, UAB has experienced a leadership vacuum since Dr. Charles A. McCallum resigned as president in 1993, apparently because he was sick of dealing with interference from the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. McCallum went on to become mayor of Vestavia Hills, Alabama, and now in his early 80s, he will step down from that post at the end of 2008.
UAB was built by a series of visionary leaders--Tinsley Harrison, James Pittman, Joseph Volker, S. Richardson Hill, to name a few. McCallum is the last in a line of outstanding leaders, and that kind of vision is becoming a distant memory on Birmingham's Southside.
My little tale of woe is a tiny slice of UAB history. But it is symptomatic of a much bigger problem at one of Alabama's most important institutions. The wrongful termination of a 19-year employee, all because certain politicos don't like the truths presented in the employee's personal blog, is the kind of stupidity that would not have taken place when people like Dick Hill and Scotty McCallum were in charge at UAB.
But it did take place with Carol Garrison in charge. And a lot of dumb stuff also took place under her predecessors--Ann Reynolds and Claude Bennett. The sad truth is that UAB has had weak presidents for 15 of the past 19 years. It's a wonder I was able to work there as long as I did.
At one time, I had high hopes for Carol Garrison. For one, she is a UAB alum, with a master's degree in nursing, and I thought it was a good thing to have one of our own serve as the university's president. Garrison's personality and management style seemed to be a major improvement over that of Reynolds--of course, a wolverine from the forests of northern Michigan would have been an improvement in temperament over Reynolds.
But it seems apparent that Garrison will allow herself to be pushed around by certain political forces. And while Garrison talks a good game about ethics, evidence is mounting that she's not always the best about putting those thoughts into practice.
As for today's story, I don't normally have kind things to say about The Birmingham News and its right-wing ways. But I will give the paper and Ms. Wolfson credit for tackling an important subject with its UAB research story.
The story is interesting and addresses a number of important issues. But it doesn't really get beneath the surface of the problems connected to research at UAB.
To understand that, you will need to read Legal Schnauzer.
Turd Blossom Keeps Stepping in It
To folks in the journalism business, few things in life are sweeter than a great "lede."
And what is a lede? It's the first few sentences of a story, the part that either grabs a reader (if the lede is good) or sends them scurrying to the next page (if the lede is not so good).
The lede is to journalism what the lead-off man is to baseball. If you have a good lede, you are likely to have a good story. If your lead-off man gets on base regularly, you are likely to have a winning baseball team.
So it was with delight that I read today's op-ed column by Editor Bob Davis in the Anniston Star. Davis, writing about former White House strategist Karl Rove and his role in the Bush Justice Department scandal, fashions one of the best ledes I've read in awhile:
Poor Karl, he can't help it. He was born with a silver knife in his hand. To stick into his opponents' backs.
Who could resist a lede like that? Why, even Republicans would want to read the rest of that story.
And Davis does not disappoint as his piece moves along:
Funny thing about old Turd Blossom, he keeps stepping in it.
Most prominently we saw this during the outing of a covert CIA agent. Rove denied taking part in a plan to exact revenge upon a White House critic by exposing his wife's cover as a spy on behalf of the United States. According to a book by a former Bush spokesman, Rove said his hands were clean. That was revealed as false during the investigation.
Then there are the many cases involving rivals of political candidates hired by Rove. Untrue smear campaigns seem to follow many of those foes. The seeming Rove specialty is sex — this candidate is a closeted lesbian, this one is a pedophile, this one had an adulterous affair.
Rove manages to stay above it all, allowing the trained surrogates three degrees removed to do the dirty work.
Same rule applies to the scandal over the several U.S. attorneys who say they lost their jobs because they wouldn't pursue Democratic politicians in close elections against Republicans. A Rove aide's fingerprints are all over the firings.
Turn now to the Republican political briefing led by another Rove staffer who encouraged federal government employees to "support our candidates." Political activity on government time, by the way, is illegal.
That last sentence certainly jumped out to us here at Legal Schnauzer. One of the "grounds" UAB cited for my recent termination was that I was using government resources for "political activity." That charge, however, doesn't hold water--not even a drop. UAB's own IT guy, who allegedly monitored my computer use for a month, said I did not write the first word on my blog while on university time.
UAB's "investigation" seemed driven by a desire to see whether I had ever read anything on my computer involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. (Never mind that part of my job description is to keep up with news and issues related to Alabama, such as the Siegelman case.) But here's the strange thing: UAB policy defines improper political activity as having to do with a "political candidate, organization, or campaign." Since I started my blog in June 2007, Don Siegelman has been involved in none of those things. Mostly, he's been a federal prisoner.
So by UAB's own definition, I wasn't engaged in improper political activity. But it is clear that Karl Rove and his minions have long been using government property for political activity. And that only strengthens my suspicions that someone connected to Rove is behind my termination.
It's a classic Rove ploy: Charge your opponent (wrongfully) with the very offenses that you commit yourself.
Is it little wonder that the Bush administration, almost certainly the most corrupt in our nation's history, has been obsessed with bringing public-corruption charges against its opponents?
Like me, Davis sees the rich irony in the actions of Rove, Bush and their kin:
For his part, Karl wants us to believe he's done nothing wrong. Too bad he won't tell it under oath. He claims executive privilege, the limited right to shield conversations between a president and his staff.
Seems like President Bush would chisel out a door to his stonewall just this once. Let old Turd Blossom stand before the committee and answer what he knows under oath and the threat of perjury.
Rove is no stranger to talking. He's on the payroll of Fox News — naturally — as a commentator. He frequently dispenses his views on air.
Maybe he could find a little time to tell what he knows to the House Judiciary Committee and a public that needs assurances that its highest law-enforcers aren't under the sway of political operatives.
And what is a lede? It's the first few sentences of a story, the part that either grabs a reader (if the lede is good) or sends them scurrying to the next page (if the lede is not so good).
The lede is to journalism what the lead-off man is to baseball. If you have a good lede, you are likely to have a good story. If your lead-off man gets on base regularly, you are likely to have a winning baseball team.
So it was with delight that I read today's op-ed column by Editor Bob Davis in the Anniston Star. Davis, writing about former White House strategist Karl Rove and his role in the Bush Justice Department scandal, fashions one of the best ledes I've read in awhile:
Poor Karl, he can't help it. He was born with a silver knife in his hand. To stick into his opponents' backs.
Who could resist a lede like that? Why, even Republicans would want to read the rest of that story.
And Davis does not disappoint as his piece moves along:
Funny thing about old Turd Blossom, he keeps stepping in it.
Most prominently we saw this during the outing of a covert CIA agent. Rove denied taking part in a plan to exact revenge upon a White House critic by exposing his wife's cover as a spy on behalf of the United States. According to a book by a former Bush spokesman, Rove said his hands were clean. That was revealed as false during the investigation.
Then there are the many cases involving rivals of political candidates hired by Rove. Untrue smear campaigns seem to follow many of those foes. The seeming Rove specialty is sex — this candidate is a closeted lesbian, this one is a pedophile, this one had an adulterous affair.
Rove manages to stay above it all, allowing the trained surrogates three degrees removed to do the dirty work.
Same rule applies to the scandal over the several U.S. attorneys who say they lost their jobs because they wouldn't pursue Democratic politicians in close elections against Republicans. A Rove aide's fingerprints are all over the firings.
Turn now to the Republican political briefing led by another Rove staffer who encouraged federal government employees to "support our candidates." Political activity on government time, by the way, is illegal.
That last sentence certainly jumped out to us here at Legal Schnauzer. One of the "grounds" UAB cited for my recent termination was that I was using government resources for "political activity." That charge, however, doesn't hold water--not even a drop. UAB's own IT guy, who allegedly monitored my computer use for a month, said I did not write the first word on my blog while on university time.
UAB's "investigation" seemed driven by a desire to see whether I had ever read anything on my computer involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. (Never mind that part of my job description is to keep up with news and issues related to Alabama, such as the Siegelman case.) But here's the strange thing: UAB policy defines improper political activity as having to do with a "political candidate, organization, or campaign." Since I started my blog in June 2007, Don Siegelman has been involved in none of those things. Mostly, he's been a federal prisoner.
So by UAB's own definition, I wasn't engaged in improper political activity. But it is clear that Karl Rove and his minions have long been using government property for political activity. And that only strengthens my suspicions that someone connected to Rove is behind my termination.
It's a classic Rove ploy: Charge your opponent (wrongfully) with the very offenses that you commit yourself.
Is it little wonder that the Bush administration, almost certainly the most corrupt in our nation's history, has been obsessed with bringing public-corruption charges against its opponents?
Like me, Davis sees the rich irony in the actions of Rove, Bush and their kin:
For his part, Karl wants us to believe he's done nothing wrong. Too bad he won't tell it under oath. He claims executive privilege, the limited right to shield conversations between a president and his staff.
Seems like President Bush would chisel out a door to his stonewall just this once. Let old Turd Blossom stand before the committee and answer what he knows under oath and the threat of perjury.
Rove is no stranger to talking. He's on the payroll of Fox News — naturally — as a commentator. He frequently dispenses his views on air.
Maybe he could find a little time to tell what he knows to the House Judiciary Committee and a public that needs assurances that its highest law-enforcers aren't under the sway of political operatives.
Friday, July 25, 2008
More Questions for UAB's President
We noted in a previous post that UAB President Carol Garrison, apparently receiving heat from the public, had issued a statement that my termination was based solely on work performance.
Like many "official statements," the one from Garrison raised a number of questions but provided almost no answers. So we started a list of questions for UAB's chief executive, a list we will continue here.
If you would like to pose these or other questions to Dr. Garrison or her trusty PR guy Gary Mans, I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you. They can be reached at:
Carol Garrison: cgarrison@uab.edu; (205) 934-4636
Gary Mans: gmans@uab.edu; (205) 934-3884
Let's continue with our questions for Dr. Garrison:
* You seemed anxious to issue a written statement regarding my termination once you started receiving questions from the public about it. But when Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story was working on her recent investigative piece about my firing, she gave you and other UAB officials numerous opportunities to answer questions for publications. But you and others chose not to respond. Some of your underlings would not even confirm the spellings of their names or their job titles. Why is that? Your approach seems similar to the way former White House strategist Karl Rove is handling his subpoena from Congress. Mr. Rove is happy to provide "answers" in writing, but he refuses to be questioned about his role in the apparent political prosecutions of a number of public officials, including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Do you model your management style after that of Karl Rove? Is he a public figure you seek to emulate?
* Dale Turnbough, your associate vice president for public relations and marketing, did tell Raw Story that I was not terminated because of my personal blog, but she said she could not comment further on a personnel matter. And yet you, through Gary Mans, proceeded to comment further on a personnel matter. Are the "left hand" and the "right hand" at UAB acquainted?
* During your tenure at UAB, can you cite another case where a 19-year employee (or an employee of any tenure, for that matter) has been terminated without warning, without any form of progressive discipline, as called for in the You & UAB Handbook, particularly for alleged offenses that didn't even come close to calling for immediate discharge?
* During your tenure at UAB, can you cite another case where an employee has been fired roughly three weeks after having filed a grievance against his supervisor? UAB policy says that an employee is to use the grievance process without fear of reprisal or penalty. Does that apply in all cases or only in some cases? Who makes that call?
* You state that my termination had nothing to do with "politics" or a "conspiracy" and that you have not been contacted by any public officials or representatives of public officials regarding my termination. Would you be willing to make your personal and professional e-mail and phone records available as a way of supporting that statement? What about members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees or representatives of the University of Alabama System Office? They certainly could act as a go-between for any public official who was unhappy about the coverage of public events on my blog. Have you discussed my termination with any board members or system office personnel?
* UAB receives more than $400 million a year in federal research, and my understanding is that part of every grant application is a commitment that the recipient will abide by federal law and act in a nondiscriminatory way. Has UAB lived up to that commitment with its handling of my case?
* For years, UAB has touted the caring, "high touch" nature of its health care. One ad campaign stated "At the center is you." On a personal level, you have training as a nurse, a profession known for sensitivity and compassion. How does UAB's ad campaigns and your personal background square with your actions in my case. Let me share with you the human side of wrongfully terminating a 19-year employee--one whom your own grievance committee said should never have been fired, one whom evidence at a grievance hearing showed should not have been disciplined at all. My wife and I have received all of our health care at UAB throughout the 19 years I've worked there. Dr. Edward Childs at The Kirklin Clinic has been our primary-care physician, and we consider him to be both a superb clinician and a friend. Both my wife and I have been poked and probed, cut on and comforted, cared for and listened to--all at UAB. But someone in a place of power chose to complain because I was writing uncomfortable truths on my blog (on my own time, with my own resources). As a result, I'm out of a job and my wife and I have joined the millions of Americans who are without health insurance. We are fortunate to enjoy pretty good health, but we still have health-care needs--and it has been delightful to know that UAB has both cheated me out of a job and cheated my family out of health-care coverage. When I was forced to leave UAB, your benefits representative told me my coverage through VIVA Health (a company UAB started) would extend through August 1. Last week, my wife went to the pharmacy to get some medicine and was told our coverage had elapsed. We had to pay more than $300 for just a handful of prescriptions. Are there any other ways that UAB can screw this situation up? If I had done something to merit termination, that would be one thing. Losing your health insurance when you've behaved in an incompetent or stupid way on the job, is just part of the deal. But your own grievance committee found my termination was not based in fact. Which raises this question: Does UAB really care about its patients or is that just a clever slogan?
Like many "official statements," the one from Garrison raised a number of questions but provided almost no answers. So we started a list of questions for UAB's chief executive, a list we will continue here.
If you would like to pose these or other questions to Dr. Garrison or her trusty PR guy Gary Mans, I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you. They can be reached at:
Carol Garrison: cgarrison@uab.edu; (205) 934-4636
Gary Mans: gmans@uab.edu; (205) 934-3884
Let's continue with our questions for Dr. Garrison:
* You seemed anxious to issue a written statement regarding my termination once you started receiving questions from the public about it. But when Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story was working on her recent investigative piece about my firing, she gave you and other UAB officials numerous opportunities to answer questions for publications. But you and others chose not to respond. Some of your underlings would not even confirm the spellings of their names or their job titles. Why is that? Your approach seems similar to the way former White House strategist Karl Rove is handling his subpoena from Congress. Mr. Rove is happy to provide "answers" in writing, but he refuses to be questioned about his role in the apparent political prosecutions of a number of public officials, including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Do you model your management style after that of Karl Rove? Is he a public figure you seek to emulate?
* Dale Turnbough, your associate vice president for public relations and marketing, did tell Raw Story that I was not terminated because of my personal blog, but she said she could not comment further on a personnel matter. And yet you, through Gary Mans, proceeded to comment further on a personnel matter. Are the "left hand" and the "right hand" at UAB acquainted?
* During your tenure at UAB, can you cite another case where a 19-year employee (or an employee of any tenure, for that matter) has been terminated without warning, without any form of progressive discipline, as called for in the You & UAB Handbook, particularly for alleged offenses that didn't even come close to calling for immediate discharge?
* During your tenure at UAB, can you cite another case where an employee has been fired roughly three weeks after having filed a grievance against his supervisor? UAB policy says that an employee is to use the grievance process without fear of reprisal or penalty. Does that apply in all cases or only in some cases? Who makes that call?
* You state that my termination had nothing to do with "politics" or a "conspiracy" and that you have not been contacted by any public officials or representatives of public officials regarding my termination. Would you be willing to make your personal and professional e-mail and phone records available as a way of supporting that statement? What about members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees or representatives of the University of Alabama System Office? They certainly could act as a go-between for any public official who was unhappy about the coverage of public events on my blog. Have you discussed my termination with any board members or system office personnel?
* UAB receives more than $400 million a year in federal research, and my understanding is that part of every grant application is a commitment that the recipient will abide by federal law and act in a nondiscriminatory way. Has UAB lived up to that commitment with its handling of my case?
* For years, UAB has touted the caring, "high touch" nature of its health care. One ad campaign stated "At the center is you." On a personal level, you have training as a nurse, a profession known for sensitivity and compassion. How does UAB's ad campaigns and your personal background square with your actions in my case. Let me share with you the human side of wrongfully terminating a 19-year employee--one whom your own grievance committee said should never have been fired, one whom evidence at a grievance hearing showed should not have been disciplined at all. My wife and I have received all of our health care at UAB throughout the 19 years I've worked there. Dr. Edward Childs at The Kirklin Clinic has been our primary-care physician, and we consider him to be both a superb clinician and a friend. Both my wife and I have been poked and probed, cut on and comforted, cared for and listened to--all at UAB. But someone in a place of power chose to complain because I was writing uncomfortable truths on my blog (on my own time, with my own resources). As a result, I'm out of a job and my wife and I have joined the millions of Americans who are without health insurance. We are fortunate to enjoy pretty good health, but we still have health-care needs--and it has been delightful to know that UAB has both cheated me out of a job and cheated my family out of health-care coverage. When I was forced to leave UAB, your benefits representative told me my coverage through VIVA Health (a company UAB started) would extend through August 1. Last week, my wife went to the pharmacy to get some medicine and was told our coverage had elapsed. We had to pay more than $300 for just a handful of prescriptions. Are there any other ways that UAB can screw this situation up? If I had done something to merit termination, that would be one thing. Losing your health insurance when you've behaved in an incompetent or stupid way on the job, is just part of the deal. But your own grievance committee found my termination was not based in fact. Which raises this question: Does UAB really care about its patients or is that just a clever slogan?
Has Rove Created a Culture of Threats?
While conducting research at one of our local courthouses recently, I stumbled upon an intriguing lawsuit.
It was filed last year in Alabama state court, in Montgomery, and contained important information about several prominent GOP political figures. The lawsuit received scant attention in the Alabama press, and the stories that were written about it left out some of the key points in the case--points that did not make two Alabama Republicans look so good.
We soon will be reporting in detail about this case and an apparent effort by the Alabama press to protect folks in the GOP power structure. But for now, I just want to mention one aspect of the lawsuit.
It features an allegation of a prominent Republican political operative making a threat to another statewide political figure. What was the subject that prompted the threat? Gambling. And Mississippi.
Hmmm.
This all comes to mind today as we read Brad Friedman's report that Karl Rove threatened a GOP high-tech guru if he does not "take the fall" for voting fraud in Ohio that decided the 2004 presidential election.
Friedman has reported that the high-tech guru, Mike Connell, has been at the scene of all recent Republican crimes, including Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Connell works for New Media Communications, a Republican firm, and now it looks like Rove wants Connell to be the fall guy when the you-know-what hits the fan. And it sounds like something might be hitting the fan soon.
Here at Legal Schnauzer we are intimately familiar with GOPers and their tendency to make threats. We've been on the receiving end of quite a few threats. Like most cowards, the GOPers tend to make their threats anonymously.
But I have some real good ideas about the sources of threats directed at me. And the fine folks at Democratic Underground are looking for clues.
Interesting to see that Karl Rove, when under fire, tends to resort to threats. We have a Karl Rove wannabe in our state, and it looks like he does the same thing.
More from a most interesting Alabama lawsuit coming soon.
It was filed last year in Alabama state court, in Montgomery, and contained important information about several prominent GOP political figures. The lawsuit received scant attention in the Alabama press, and the stories that were written about it left out some of the key points in the case--points that did not make two Alabama Republicans look so good.
We soon will be reporting in detail about this case and an apparent effort by the Alabama press to protect folks in the GOP power structure. But for now, I just want to mention one aspect of the lawsuit.
It features an allegation of a prominent Republican political operative making a threat to another statewide political figure. What was the subject that prompted the threat? Gambling. And Mississippi.
Hmmm.
This all comes to mind today as we read Brad Friedman's report that Karl Rove threatened a GOP high-tech guru if he does not "take the fall" for voting fraud in Ohio that decided the 2004 presidential election.
Friedman has reported that the high-tech guru, Mike Connell, has been at the scene of all recent Republican crimes, including Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Connell works for New Media Communications, a Republican firm, and now it looks like Rove wants Connell to be the fall guy when the you-know-what hits the fan. And it sounds like something might be hitting the fan soon.
Here at Legal Schnauzer we are intimately familiar with GOPers and their tendency to make threats. We've been on the receiving end of quite a few threats. Like most cowards, the GOPers tend to make their threats anonymously.
But I have some real good ideas about the sources of threats directed at me. And the fine folks at Democratic Underground are looking for clues.
Interesting to see that Karl Rove, when under fire, tends to resort to threats. We have a Karl Rove wannabe in our state, and it looks like he does the same thing.
More from a most interesting Alabama lawsuit coming soon.
Huntsville TV Station Shows How Journalism is Done
Huntsville television station WHNT shows that at least one mainstream Alabama news outfit can produce real journalism on the brewing Bush Justice Department scandal.
Reporter Greg Privett discusses former Governor Don Siegelman's efforts to see that Karl Rove is held accountable for his role in apparent political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department.
Siegelman, Privett reports, has started ContemptForRove.com, an online archive of information about the use of the justice system for political purposes.
Drawing particular scorn from Siegelman was Rove's written answers this week to questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a former Rove client:
"Even his written non-answers were not under oath and clearly evasive," Siegelman told us. "Rove refused to deny that he had plotted with the U.S. Attorney's husband, Bill Canary."
WHNT then gets to the core of Siegelman's concerns about Rove's recent actions:
Siegelman accuses Rove of plotting with the Canary couple along with Alabama's Attorney General. Siegelman did not mention him by name; but, at the time, the A.G. was Bill Pryor. The Bush-appointee now sits as a judge on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his letter to the Judiciary Committee, Rove fails to detail other relationships. Specifically, Siegelman says Rove does not deny communicating with Rob Riley, Governor Riley's son.
"According to sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee, both Bill Canary and Rob Riley were on the call in which Canary said that Karl had it worked out with Justice to destroy me," Siegelman explains. "A business associate of Rob Riley's in Florida told Time Magazine that Rob Riley always bragged about his relationship with Rove."
Siegelman tells NewsChannel 19 that Alabama is one of Rove's favorite political stomping grounds. "Karl Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary." Governor Siegelman explained how Attorney General Pryor's office started investigating him in 1999, "right after I endorsed Al Gore," Siegelman said. "Leura Canary, accelerated the case federally in 2001, she indicted me during the 2006 campaign, and she brought me to trial less than four weeks before the election."
Reporter Greg Privett discusses former Governor Don Siegelman's efforts to see that Karl Rove is held accountable for his role in apparent political prosecutions by the Bush Justice Department.
Siegelman, Privett reports, has started ContemptForRove.com, an online archive of information about the use of the justice system for political purposes.
Drawing particular scorn from Siegelman was Rove's written answers this week to questions from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a former Rove client:
"Even his written non-answers were not under oath and clearly evasive," Siegelman told us. "Rove refused to deny that he had plotted with the U.S. Attorney's husband, Bill Canary."
WHNT then gets to the core of Siegelman's concerns about Rove's recent actions:
Siegelman accuses Rove of plotting with the Canary couple along with Alabama's Attorney General. Siegelman did not mention him by name; but, at the time, the A.G. was Bill Pryor. The Bush-appointee now sits as a judge on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his letter to the Judiciary Committee, Rove fails to detail other relationships. Specifically, Siegelman says Rove does not deny communicating with Rob Riley, Governor Riley's son.
"According to sworn testimony before the Judiciary Committee, both Bill Canary and Rob Riley were on the call in which Canary said that Karl had it worked out with Justice to destroy me," Siegelman explains. "A business associate of Rob Riley's in Florida told Time Magazine that Rob Riley always bragged about his relationship with Rove."
Siegelman tells NewsChannel 19 that Alabama is one of Rove's favorite political stomping grounds. "Karl Rove built his career in Alabama working with Bill Canary." Governor Siegelman explained how Attorney General Pryor's office started investigating him in 1999, "right after I endorsed Al Gore," Siegelman said. "Leura Canary, accelerated the case federally in 2001, she indicted me during the 2006 campaign, and she brought me to trial less than four weeks before the election."
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Some Questions for UAB's President
After receiving heat about my termination, UAB president Carol Garrison issued a public statement through her public relations director Gary Mans.
The statement raises more questions than it answers. Actually, it doesn't answer any questions, other than perhaps these: (1) Does anyone at UAB have a clue? (Answer: Evidently not); (2) Is anyone at UAB capable of giving an honest answer to a simple question? (Answer: Evidently not)
I figured I might as well be the guy to raise some questions with Dr. Garrison. If you would like to pose the following questions, or some of your own, I'm sure Dr. Garrison and her pal Gary Mans would be delighted to hear from you. You can reach them at:
* Carol Garrison: cgarrison@uab.edu; (205) 934-4636
* Gary Mans: gmans@uab.edu; (205) 934-3884
For review purposes, here is the statement regarding my termination from Carol Garrison:
Contrary to Mr. Shuler's statements, his termination had nothing to do with politics or any conspiracy, and the university has not been contacted by any public official or representative of such about this matter. Mr. Shuler was dismissed based solely on his work performance. Because this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.
Let's ponder a few questions for Dr. Garrison:
* According to UAB policy, you make the final decision regarding any appeal through the university's Problem Resolution Procedure (PRP). An employee can appeal a decision of the grievance committee to the human resources director (Cheryl Locke). If Locke rules against the employee (as she has indicated she will do in my case, even though the grievance committee recommended that I be reinstated), you are the last line of appeal. Despite your important role in this process, you already have publicly stated that my termination was based solely on work performance and evidently, in your mind, was justified. Why should I expect an objective review from you, given that you already have stated your opinion on the matter?
* You have stated that my termination was based on work performance. But your own employee grievance committee has found that my termination was wrongful and I should be reinstated. How do you square your statement with what my peers at UAB already have found?
* Your own human resources director, Cheryl Locke, has confirmed in writing--as reported on this blog--that the grievance committee found I should be reinstated? Why does your statement differ so radically from that of your HR director?
* You state that my termination was based on work performance. But I sat through the entire grievance hearing and heard the committee repeatedly ask my supervisor (Pam Powell) for documentation to support her claims that my performance was subpar. When asked multiple times if she could present such documentation, Powell answered, "No." How do you square your statement with the total lack of evidence to support a claim that I was fired for poor work performance?
* I filed a grievance against my supervisor, Pam Powell, on April 22. UAB policy is clear: An employee is to use the grievance process without fear of reprisal or penalty. And yet, after filing a grievance, I was fired. And my termination was based on the word of the supervisor against whom I had filed a grievance. As UAB's chief executive, why would you allow the university's policies to be violated in this way?
* Even if the charges against me were true--and the grievance hearing clearly showed they were not--UAB policy states that supervisors are to use a "progressive discipline" process. This means the least severe form of discipline, oral warning, should be applied before more severe forms of discipline (written warning, suspension, probation, termination) come into play. I never received an oral warning about any of the issues upon which my termination was allegedly based. Again, as UAB's chief executive, why would you allow the university's policies to be violated in this way?
* In my case, a 19-year employee was immediately terminated, with no warning. The You & UAB Handbook gives examples of offenses that call for immediate termination. These include offenses such as fighting, stealing, being drunk on the job, being under the influence of illegal drugs on the job, etc. Even if true (and they are not), the allegations against me do not come close to this level of offense. Does the UAB handbook mean anything, or are managers allowed to terminate employees according to whim?
(To be continued)
The statement raises more questions than it answers. Actually, it doesn't answer any questions, other than perhaps these: (1) Does anyone at UAB have a clue? (Answer: Evidently not); (2) Is anyone at UAB capable of giving an honest answer to a simple question? (Answer: Evidently not)
I figured I might as well be the guy to raise some questions with Dr. Garrison. If you would like to pose the following questions, or some of your own, I'm sure Dr. Garrison and her pal Gary Mans would be delighted to hear from you. You can reach them at:
* Carol Garrison: cgarrison@uab.edu; (205) 934-4636
* Gary Mans: gmans@uab.edu; (205) 934-3884
For review purposes, here is the statement regarding my termination from Carol Garrison:
Contrary to Mr. Shuler's statements, his termination had nothing to do with politics or any conspiracy, and the university has not been contacted by any public official or representative of such about this matter. Mr. Shuler was dismissed based solely on his work performance. Because this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.
Let's ponder a few questions for Dr. Garrison:
* According to UAB policy, you make the final decision regarding any appeal through the university's Problem Resolution Procedure (PRP). An employee can appeal a decision of the grievance committee to the human resources director (Cheryl Locke). If Locke rules against the employee (as she has indicated she will do in my case, even though the grievance committee recommended that I be reinstated), you are the last line of appeal. Despite your important role in this process, you already have publicly stated that my termination was based solely on work performance and evidently, in your mind, was justified. Why should I expect an objective review from you, given that you already have stated your opinion on the matter?
* You have stated that my termination was based on work performance. But your own employee grievance committee has found that my termination was wrongful and I should be reinstated. How do you square your statement with what my peers at UAB already have found?
* Your own human resources director, Cheryl Locke, has confirmed in writing--as reported on this blog--that the grievance committee found I should be reinstated? Why does your statement differ so radically from that of your HR director?
* You state that my termination was based on work performance. But I sat through the entire grievance hearing and heard the committee repeatedly ask my supervisor (Pam Powell) for documentation to support her claims that my performance was subpar. When asked multiple times if she could present such documentation, Powell answered, "No." How do you square your statement with the total lack of evidence to support a claim that I was fired for poor work performance?
* I filed a grievance against my supervisor, Pam Powell, on April 22. UAB policy is clear: An employee is to use the grievance process without fear of reprisal or penalty. And yet, after filing a grievance, I was fired. And my termination was based on the word of the supervisor against whom I had filed a grievance. As UAB's chief executive, why would you allow the university's policies to be violated in this way?
* Even if the charges against me were true--and the grievance hearing clearly showed they were not--UAB policy states that supervisors are to use a "progressive discipline" process. This means the least severe form of discipline, oral warning, should be applied before more severe forms of discipline (written warning, suspension, probation, termination) come into play. I never received an oral warning about any of the issues upon which my termination was allegedly based. Again, as UAB's chief executive, why would you allow the university's policies to be violated in this way?
* In my case, a 19-year employee was immediately terminated, with no warning. The You & UAB Handbook gives examples of offenses that call for immediate termination. These include offenses such as fighting, stealing, being drunk on the job, being under the influence of illegal drugs on the job, etc. Even if true (and they are not), the allegations against me do not come close to this level of offense. Does the UAB handbook mean anything, or are managers allowed to terminate employees according to whim?
(To be continued)
Fix Was in on Siegelman Case
MSNBC's Dan Abrams has broken a new chapter in the story of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Julian Epstein, former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, told Abrams that a number of Republicans have admitted to him off camera that the Siegelman case was fixed.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, has a complete report here.
Wilson also has a link to a scathing new post from Harper's Scott Horton. A law professor at Columbia University, Horton essentially says that Attorney General Michael Mukasey has been no more accountable than his disgraced predecessor Alberto Gonzalez.
Specifically, Horton raises these issues regarding Mukasey and the Justice Department:
* Why were prosecutors in the Siegelman case allowed to hold improper ex parte dealings with trial judge Mark Fuller?
* What evidence has the Justice Department uncovered to indicate that e-mails between jurors in the Siegelman case were "fakes?" Steps taken by postal inspectors do not warrant that conclusion, and steps that could have settled the matter were not taken. Why?
* Defense counsel during the Siegelman trial asked the court to issue subpoenas to Internet service providers to ascertain whether the e-mails were genuine and to learn who sent them. Prosecutors objected, and Judge Mark Fuller refused to issue subpoenas. Instead, he held off on sentencing for almost one year, a period which coincides with the retention period of many Internet service providers. Did Fuller delay sentencing so that the truth behind the juror e-mails would not be discovered?
Julian Epstein, former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, told Abrams that a number of Republicans have admitted to him off camera that the Siegelman case was fixed.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, has a complete report here.
Wilson also has a link to a scathing new post from Harper's Scott Horton. A law professor at Columbia University, Horton essentially says that Attorney General Michael Mukasey has been no more accountable than his disgraced predecessor Alberto Gonzalez.
Specifically, Horton raises these issues regarding Mukasey and the Justice Department:
* Why were prosecutors in the Siegelman case allowed to hold improper ex parte dealings with trial judge Mark Fuller?
* What evidence has the Justice Department uncovered to indicate that e-mails between jurors in the Siegelman case were "fakes?" Steps taken by postal inspectors do not warrant that conclusion, and steps that could have settled the matter were not taken. Why?
* Defense counsel during the Siegelman trial asked the court to issue subpoenas to Internet service providers to ascertain whether the e-mails were genuine and to learn who sent them. Prosecutors objected, and Judge Mark Fuller refused to issue subpoenas. Instead, he held off on sentencing for almost one year, a period which coincides with the retention period of many Internet service providers. Did Fuller delay sentencing so that the truth behind the juror e-mails would not be discovered?
Siegelman Judge Pulled a Fast One on Defense Team
A number of national journalists, especially Scott Horton of Harper's, have presented ample evidence that U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller was hardly an impartial arbiter in his handling of the Don Siegelman case.
New evidence, out today, should erase any doubts that Fuller acted corruptly in the trial that saw the former Alabama governor convicted along with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
A Justice Department letter dated July 8 shows that communications regarding possible juror misconduct were kept from defense attorneys.
Postal inspectors determined the e-mails between jurors were fakes, and that information was presented to Fuller and prosecutors. The information was withheld from defense attorneys. Inspectors were not able to determine where the e-mails originated.
Fuller twice ruled that jurors were not improperly influenced by outside information and denied defense motions for new trials.
"The obvious question is whether the judge's rulings were influenced by information he had that wasn't available to defense counsel," said U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL).
Folks who regularly read The Birmingham News probably will not be surprised by the difference in the paper's coverage compared to that of Associated Press reporter Ben Evans.
The AP report mentions right up front that the story involves possible improper behavior by prosecutors in judge. In the News' story by Mary Orndorff we do not learn that the story has anything to do with Fuller until the eighth paragraph.
Hmmm.
New evidence, out today, should erase any doubts that Fuller acted corruptly in the trial that saw the former Alabama governor convicted along with former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
A Justice Department letter dated July 8 shows that communications regarding possible juror misconduct were kept from defense attorneys.
Postal inspectors determined the e-mails between jurors were fakes, and that information was presented to Fuller and prosecutors. The information was withheld from defense attorneys. Inspectors were not able to determine where the e-mails originated.
Fuller twice ruled that jurors were not improperly influenced by outside information and denied defense motions for new trials.
"The obvious question is whether the judge's rulings were influenced by information he had that wasn't available to defense counsel," said U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL).
Folks who regularly read The Birmingham News probably will not be surprised by the difference in the paper's coverage compared to that of Associated Press reporter Ben Evans.
The AP report mentions right up front that the story involves possible improper behavior by prosecutors in judge. In the News' story by Mary Orndorff we do not learn that the story has anything to do with Fuller until the eighth paragraph.
Hmmm.
Bush Justice Department Produces Bipartisan Victims
Folks on the right side of the political spectrum have tended to portray the Bush Justice Department scandal as a partisan matter.
A recent example comes from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee. He offers up written questions to former White House strategist Karl Rove regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. Smith is a former client of Rove's, and the Congressman evidently is unaware of how absurd his actions appear.
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, is acutely aware of the absurdity here, and she does a bang-up job of illustrating the inanity of Smith's questions, particularly his insistence upon leaving Alabama political operative Bill Canary out of the equation.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, has an excellent overview of the Rove/Smith tango, including comments from exclusive interviews with Scott Horton and Jill Simpson.
While folks like Smith attempt to treat this in a partisan fashion, people who are paying attention know that the Bush Justice Department has created victims on all sides of the political spectrum. In fact, the first known victims, nine fired U.S. attorneys, were all Republicans and Bush appointees. Perhaps the most heroic figure in the whole story, Alabama whistleblower Jill Simpson, is a longtime Republican who has seen her professional life damaged and her personal life threatened.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reminds us of the bipartisan nature of the Bush DOJ story by presenting a splendid interview with David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico and one of the nine USAs targeted for dismissal by the loyal Bushies at main Justice. Iglesias' crime? Failure to prosecute voter fraud cases when an investigation produced no solid evidence of voter fraud.
Horton notes that rather than honor a subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, Rove attended a gathering of post-Soviet oligarchs in Ukraine. Why would Rove do such a thing? Horton asks Iglesias if it has something to do with 18 U.S. Code 1503(a), which prohibits "corruptly influencing" a criminal prosecution:
Rove should have appeared before Congress and claimed privilege. Rather, he thumbed his nose at a co-equal branch of government and showed his utter disregard for their powers. His actions are contemptuous per se and he should be held in contempt by the House. The language of 18 USC § 1503(a) is broad since it speaks of “influencing” an “officer…of the United States” in the “discharge of his duties” including the “due administration of justice.”
Applying this test to the allegations concerning the Siegelman matter, for instance, the evidence suggests that Rove influenced a U.S. Attorney in the discharge of her duties. This is a very serious matter and needs to be fully investigated since a non-attorney policy adviser has no business influencing the indictment of an elected official.
What about the future? Horton asks Iglesias about the challenges facing the next U.S. attorney general:
The Justice Department’s reservoir of trust is empty and dry. It will take completely new leadership at main Justice and in the field to re-build the faith the public once had in the fairness of the federal criminal system. This is the real tragedy of the scandal—certainly it is not about a few highly performing U.S. Attorneys being fired for improper political reasons; rather, it is the unintended consequence of serious damage to the reputation to the nation’s premier crime fighting organization. It doesn’t help when the press officers are engaging in a pattern of obfuscation, half truths and untruths as former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins so forcefully described in his Washington Monthly article. . . .
The next attorney general needs to understand the historic independence and integrity of the U.S. attorney. We are not merely politically appointees—we are the only members of the administration who can take away your life, liberty and property. Ultimately we need leaders at main Justice who understand that the administration of justice is a matter of right and wrong, not a matter of right or left.
A recent example comes from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), ranking minority member on the House Judiciary Committee. He offers up written questions to former White House strategist Karl Rove regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. Smith is a former client of Rove's, and the Congressman evidently is unaware of how absurd his actions appear.
Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, is acutely aware of the absurdity here, and she does a bang-up job of illustrating the inanity of Smith's questions, particularly his insistence upon leaving Alabama political operative Bill Canary out of the equation.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News, has an excellent overview of the Rove/Smith tango, including comments from exclusive interviews with Scott Horton and Jill Simpson.
While folks like Smith attempt to treat this in a partisan fashion, people who are paying attention know that the Bush Justice Department has created victims on all sides of the political spectrum. In fact, the first known victims, nine fired U.S. attorneys, were all Republicans and Bush appointees. Perhaps the most heroic figure in the whole story, Alabama whistleblower Jill Simpson, is a longtime Republican who has seen her professional life damaged and her personal life threatened.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reminds us of the bipartisan nature of the Bush DOJ story by presenting a splendid interview with David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico and one of the nine USAs targeted for dismissal by the loyal Bushies at main Justice. Iglesias' crime? Failure to prosecute voter fraud cases when an investigation produced no solid evidence of voter fraud.
Horton notes that rather than honor a subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, Rove attended a gathering of post-Soviet oligarchs in Ukraine. Why would Rove do such a thing? Horton asks Iglesias if it has something to do with 18 U.S. Code 1503(a), which prohibits "corruptly influencing" a criminal prosecution:
Rove should have appeared before Congress and claimed privilege. Rather, he thumbed his nose at a co-equal branch of government and showed his utter disregard for their powers. His actions are contemptuous per se and he should be held in contempt by the House. The language of 18 USC § 1503(a) is broad since it speaks of “influencing” an “officer…of the United States” in the “discharge of his duties” including the “due administration of justice.”
Applying this test to the allegations concerning the Siegelman matter, for instance, the evidence suggests that Rove influenced a U.S. Attorney in the discharge of her duties. This is a very serious matter and needs to be fully investigated since a non-attorney policy adviser has no business influencing the indictment of an elected official.
What about the future? Horton asks Iglesias about the challenges facing the next U.S. attorney general:
The Justice Department’s reservoir of trust is empty and dry. It will take completely new leadership at main Justice and in the field to re-build the faith the public once had in the fairness of the federal criminal system. This is the real tragedy of the scandal—certainly it is not about a few highly performing U.S. Attorneys being fired for improper political reasons; rather, it is the unintended consequence of serious damage to the reputation to the nation’s premier crime fighting organization. It doesn’t help when the press officers are engaging in a pattern of obfuscation, half truths and untruths as former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins so forcefully described in his Washington Monthly article. . . .
The next attorney general needs to understand the historic independence and integrity of the U.S. attorney. We are not merely politically appointees—we are the only members of the administration who can take away your life, liberty and property. Ultimately we need leaders at main Justice who understand that the administration of justice is a matter of right and wrong, not a matter of right or left.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
What On Earth Was Obama's Legal Advisor Thinking?
Cass Sunstein obviously is a bright guy. He used to be at the University of Chicago Law School, and earlier this year, he joined the faculty at Harvard Law School. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama thinks enough of Sunstein to make him an informal legal advisor.
So how could Sunstein utter the dumbfoundingly stupid comment he made to Ari Melber at last week's Netroots Nation event in Austin, Texas.
Melber, reporting at The Nation and Huffington Post, said Sunstein cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct by the Bush administration. Holding the Bushies accountable would risk a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, Sunstein said.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, one of the primary attractions at Netroots Nation and the most famous victim of the Bush Justice Department, treated Sunstein's comments with more dignity than they deserved. "Give me a break," Siegelman said when told about the statements from Obama's legal advisor.
I will be less diplomatic than Siegelman was. Sunstein's comments are unfettered horsefeathers. To the many people who have suffered at the hands of the Bush Justice Department--like Siegelman and yours truly--Sunstein's words are insulting, condescending, and enraging.
Here's something Sunstein should try. He should present his ideas to the families of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield, three Mississippians who remain in federal prison for the crime of behaving as Democrats in a blood-red Deep South state.
I don't think Sunstein would want to be locked in a room with my wife at the moment. Her "Serbian temper" went off like a rocket when she saw a report about Sunstein's comments on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last night.
Does my wife know what it's like to suffer in Karl Rove's Alabama? You're darn tootin'. She has seen our life savings wiped out because we had to fight a bogus lawsuit filed by a corrupt lawyer with direct family ties to Karl Rove. She has seen her house--or at least a portion of it--unlawfully auctioned off because of actions by this corrupt lawyer and the corrupt sheriff in Shelby County, Alabama, where we live. She has lost out on any number of job possibilities under peculiar circumstances that strongly suggest someone was checking our home phone and calling around to prospective employers to cost her jobs. (How's that for the Bush surveillance state?) And most recently, she saw her husband (me) lose his job at UAB in a career assassination that clearly was driven by loyal Bushies who are uncomfortable with the truths being reported on this blog.
Listen up, Mr. Sunstein. Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, my wife, me, and many others do not view the Bush Justice Department in a theoretical sense. We don't see it as a political issue, the way you evidently do. We see it as a matter of life and death, of justice, of right and wrong. We have been assaulted by loyal Bushies, and to quote the Big Guy in the Good Book, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord!"
Are you with us or not?
Thankfully, not all legal scholars think as you do. Jonathan Turley, of Georgetown University, took you to serious task, both on his personal blog and the Olbermann show. After noting that you had been so kind as to say that "egregious crimes should not be ignored," Turley had this splendid question: Since when have we had non-egregious crimes? Why should we ignore any crimes?
The Bushies have made mincemeat of our constitution. Can crime get more egregious than that?
Those of us who had planned to vote for Obama did so partly because we considered him a man of good judgment. But if he is surrounding himself with advisors like Sunstein, how good of judgment does Obama have? And those of us whose lives have been damaged or ruined by loyal Bushies were counting on Obama to have a spine. If we want a spineless leader with poor judgment, we might as well keep the president we've got.
Some unsolicited advice for Obama: Cut ties with Cass Sunstein immediately and repudiate his remarks in clear and concise language. Make it clear that your administration will stand for the rule of law--no ifs, ands, or buts. And state unequivocally that you support full investigation and prosecution of any crimes committed by the Bush administration.
If you do not take these steps, and do it in a big hurry, this is one (former?) Democrat who will be voting for Ralph Nader.
So how could Sunstein utter the dumbfoundingly stupid comment he made to Ari Melber at last week's Netroots Nation event in Austin, Texas.
Melber, reporting at The Nation and Huffington Post, said Sunstein cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct by the Bush administration. Holding the Bushies accountable would risk a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, Sunstein said.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, one of the primary attractions at Netroots Nation and the most famous victim of the Bush Justice Department, treated Sunstein's comments with more dignity than they deserved. "Give me a break," Siegelman said when told about the statements from Obama's legal advisor.
I will be less diplomatic than Siegelman was. Sunstein's comments are unfettered horsefeathers. To the many people who have suffered at the hands of the Bush Justice Department--like Siegelman and yours truly--Sunstein's words are insulting, condescending, and enraging.
Here's something Sunstein should try. He should present his ideas to the families of Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield, three Mississippians who remain in federal prison for the crime of behaving as Democrats in a blood-red Deep South state.
I don't think Sunstein would want to be locked in a room with my wife at the moment. Her "Serbian temper" went off like a rocket when she saw a report about Sunstein's comments on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last night.
Does my wife know what it's like to suffer in Karl Rove's Alabama? You're darn tootin'. She has seen our life savings wiped out because we had to fight a bogus lawsuit filed by a corrupt lawyer with direct family ties to Karl Rove. She has seen her house--or at least a portion of it--unlawfully auctioned off because of actions by this corrupt lawyer and the corrupt sheriff in Shelby County, Alabama, where we live. She has lost out on any number of job possibilities under peculiar circumstances that strongly suggest someone was checking our home phone and calling around to prospective employers to cost her jobs. (How's that for the Bush surveillance state?) And most recently, she saw her husband (me) lose his job at UAB in a career assassination that clearly was driven by loyal Bushies who are uncomfortable with the truths being reported on this blog.
Listen up, Mr. Sunstein. Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, my wife, me, and many others do not view the Bush Justice Department in a theoretical sense. We don't see it as a political issue, the way you evidently do. We see it as a matter of life and death, of justice, of right and wrong. We have been assaulted by loyal Bushies, and to quote the Big Guy in the Good Book, "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord!"
Are you with us or not?
Thankfully, not all legal scholars think as you do. Jonathan Turley, of Georgetown University, took you to serious task, both on his personal blog and the Olbermann show. After noting that you had been so kind as to say that "egregious crimes should not be ignored," Turley had this splendid question: Since when have we had non-egregious crimes? Why should we ignore any crimes?
The Bushies have made mincemeat of our constitution. Can crime get more egregious than that?
Those of us who had planned to vote for Obama did so partly because we considered him a man of good judgment. But if he is surrounding himself with advisors like Sunstein, how good of judgment does Obama have? And those of us whose lives have been damaged or ruined by loyal Bushies were counting on Obama to have a spine. If we want a spineless leader with poor judgment, we might as well keep the president we've got.
Some unsolicited advice for Obama: Cut ties with Cass Sunstein immediately and repudiate his remarks in clear and concise language. Make it clear that your administration will stand for the rule of law--no ifs, ands, or buts. And state unequivocally that you support full investigation and prosecution of any crimes committed by the Bush administration.
If you do not take these steps, and do it in a big hurry, this is one (former?) Democrat who will be voting for Ralph Nader.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Was I Fired Because of Politics? You Make the Call
We have UAB's two spinmeisters making public statements that my termination had nothing to do with blogging or politics.
Do Dale Turnbough and Gary Mans know what they are talking about?
Well, let's just say we have some evidence that begs to differ with the UAB spin machine.
This evidence comes from Anita Bonasera, director of employee relations at UAB. Bonasera conducted the May 7 meeting at which I was placed on administrative leave (before being fired on May 19).
At the close of the May 7 meeting, Bonasera asked for my employee badge and office key, told me I was not to report to work until further notice, and that I would not be allowed to return to my desk to gather my personal belongings. You might say I now know what it is like to be treated like a criminal. (By the way, more than two months later, UAB still has a number of my personal belongings--even though I have repeatedly asked for their return.)
Since that May 7 meeting, a UAB employee grievance committee has found that I never should have been terminated. I sat through the entire grievance hearing, and saw that not one shred of documentation was presented to support my termination, the administrative leave, or any other form of discipline.
In short, UAB's own committee found that the university screwed up royally. But I'm still waiting for an apology from Bonasera for seeing to it that I was treated like a criminal. I'm also still waiting to be reinstated to the job I never should have had stolen from me--and to have my personnel file cleared of bogus written warnings that never should have been there.
So far, UAB Human Resources Director Cheryl Locke has insisted that I can only return to UAB with two written warnings in my file and if I accept a position other than the one I used to hold. I've refused those conditions for reasons I cited here, so I expect to receive written notice in the mail any day that Locke is going to uphold a termination that her own committee found was wrongful.
But let's return to the subject of Bonasera. Before making sure I was treated like a criminal, she told me that I could file a written response to the administrative leave letter from my supervisor, Pam Powell. (The same Pam Powell against whom I had a pending grievance at the time I was placed on leave. UAB policy says an employee cannot be penalized for filing a grievance. But I was fired after filing a grievance. Policy, schmolicy.)
Powell's letter was so vague, and the issues raised verbally in the meeting had been so off-the-wall, that I needed to call Bonasera to ask her several questions regarding my response.
For one thing, I wanted to ask Bonasera for an extension of time to prepare the response. One of the most baffling charges in the meeting had been that I had engaged in excessive "non-work related activity" (NWR) on my work computer. I had never heard of the term NWR while at UAB and had never seen it defined in UAB policy. Also, I had no idea who made the determination that something was or was not NWR. (Bonasera informed me that Pam Powell made that determination, the same Pam Powell against whom I had a pending grievance. How's that for objectivity?)
For some reason, I thought it might be helpful to explain the nature of my job to Bonasera, to show that what Powell was suddenly calling NWR actually was activity that was part of my job requirements (as outlined numerous times over the years by Powell herself).
I thought it might be helpful to tape record my conversation with Bonasera. After sitting through the administrative-leave meeting, with its Alice in Wonderland qualities, I wanted to make sure I had a record of the charges being leveled against me. Seeing as how UAB had not given me a written description of these charges, I thought I had better get a tape recorded version of them myself. (By the way, it is legal in Alabama to tape record a phone conversation, as long as one party knows about it.)
Following is a roughly three-minute segment of my conversation with Anita Bonasera. It leaves little doubt about what was actually behind the process that led to my termination at UAB. The key statements from Bonasera--regarding the role blogging and Don Siegelman played in the investigation of my computer usage--start at about the 1:50 mark.
You can listen to the audio here.
Do UAB's high-paid PR flacks have a clue about what really happened in my case? Or are they just "expert" liars? Did my termination really have anything to do with work performance? Or was it a political "career assassination," driven by right-wingers who were uncomfortable with the truths presented on this blog?
You make the call.
Do Dale Turnbough and Gary Mans know what they are talking about?
Well, let's just say we have some evidence that begs to differ with the UAB spin machine.
This evidence comes from Anita Bonasera, director of employee relations at UAB. Bonasera conducted the May 7 meeting at which I was placed on administrative leave (before being fired on May 19).
At the close of the May 7 meeting, Bonasera asked for my employee badge and office key, told me I was not to report to work until further notice, and that I would not be allowed to return to my desk to gather my personal belongings. You might say I now know what it is like to be treated like a criminal. (By the way, more than two months later, UAB still has a number of my personal belongings--even though I have repeatedly asked for their return.)
Since that May 7 meeting, a UAB employee grievance committee has found that I never should have been terminated. I sat through the entire grievance hearing, and saw that not one shred of documentation was presented to support my termination, the administrative leave, or any other form of discipline.
In short, UAB's own committee found that the university screwed up royally. But I'm still waiting for an apology from Bonasera for seeing to it that I was treated like a criminal. I'm also still waiting to be reinstated to the job I never should have had stolen from me--and to have my personnel file cleared of bogus written warnings that never should have been there.
So far, UAB Human Resources Director Cheryl Locke has insisted that I can only return to UAB with two written warnings in my file and if I accept a position other than the one I used to hold. I've refused those conditions for reasons I cited here, so I expect to receive written notice in the mail any day that Locke is going to uphold a termination that her own committee found was wrongful.
But let's return to the subject of Bonasera. Before making sure I was treated like a criminal, she told me that I could file a written response to the administrative leave letter from my supervisor, Pam Powell. (The same Pam Powell against whom I had a pending grievance at the time I was placed on leave. UAB policy says an employee cannot be penalized for filing a grievance. But I was fired after filing a grievance. Policy, schmolicy.)
Powell's letter was so vague, and the issues raised verbally in the meeting had been so off-the-wall, that I needed to call Bonasera to ask her several questions regarding my response.
For one thing, I wanted to ask Bonasera for an extension of time to prepare the response. One of the most baffling charges in the meeting had been that I had engaged in excessive "non-work related activity" (NWR) on my work computer. I had never heard of the term NWR while at UAB and had never seen it defined in UAB policy. Also, I had no idea who made the determination that something was or was not NWR. (Bonasera informed me that Pam Powell made that determination, the same Pam Powell against whom I had a pending grievance. How's that for objectivity?)
For some reason, I thought it might be helpful to explain the nature of my job to Bonasera, to show that what Powell was suddenly calling NWR actually was activity that was part of my job requirements (as outlined numerous times over the years by Powell herself).
I thought it might be helpful to tape record my conversation with Bonasera. After sitting through the administrative-leave meeting, with its Alice in Wonderland qualities, I wanted to make sure I had a record of the charges being leveled against me. Seeing as how UAB had not given me a written description of these charges, I thought I had better get a tape recorded version of them myself. (By the way, it is legal in Alabama to tape record a phone conversation, as long as one party knows about it.)
Following is a roughly three-minute segment of my conversation with Anita Bonasera. It leaves little doubt about what was actually behind the process that led to my termination at UAB. The key statements from Bonasera--regarding the role blogging and Don Siegelman played in the investigation of my computer usage--start at about the 1:50 mark.
You can listen to the audio here.
Do UAB's high-paid PR flacks have a clue about what really happened in my case? Or are they just "expert" liars? Did my termination really have anything to do with work performance? Or was it a political "career assassination," driven by right-wingers who were uncomfortable with the truths presented on this blog?
You make the call.
UAB's Spin Machine Lurches Into Action
Enough concerned citizens apparently have contacted UAB about my termination that President Carol Garrison ordered her PR machine into the fray.
Garrison might have been better served by leaving her clunky PR apparatus parked in the garage.
How did Garrison decide to deal with the heat she was receiving? Why, by making false and defamatory statements about the very employee her institution had wrongfully terminated.
You would think that someone with the letters "Ph.D." after her name would be smarter than that. You would think that someone with a background in nursing would have more sensitivity than that.
You would be wrong.
Garrison, of course, could not lower herself to trash me herself. So she assigned that duty to her PR hatchetman, Gary Mans.
A number of folks who had contacted UAB about my termination received canned replies late last week. Several of those folks were kind enough to share the responses with me.
Here is UAB's official reply from Gary Mans, speaking on Carol Garrison's behalf:
President Garrison asked that I respond to you. Contrary to Mr. Shuler's statements, his termination had nothing to do with politics or any conspiracy, and the university has not been contacted by any public official or representative of such about this matter. Mr. Shuler was dismissed based solely on his work performance. Because this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.
Gary Mans, Director
UAB Public Relations
For good measure, Mans went to the trouble of posting his reply as a comment to the Chronicle of Higher Education article about my termination. You can check out Mans' handiwork here. His comment is No. 16. The commenter at No. 17 promptly ripped Mans a new one. Excellent work by the Chronicle crowd. They don't suffer fools gladly.
Is Gary Mans careless, clueless, or spineless--or perhaps a little of all three. Is Carol Garrison in way over her head as the president of one of the top biomedical research institutions in the country? Does Carol Garrison allow herself to be pushed around by public officials of a certain political stripe? And does Carol Garrison let herself be pushed around by certain members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, who "manage" the UAB campus.
Let's examine the Garrison/Mans reply in some detail.
They say I was "dismissed based solely on [my] work performance."
Isn't that interesting? UAB's own employee grievance committee, which spent three-plus hours going over the details of my case, determined that I should not have been terminated at all.
As we reported here last Thursday, the grievance committee found that I was wrongfully terminated. We even presented the following written statement from Cheryl Locke, UAB's director of human resources: "The committee recommended that you be reinstated."
So Garrison/Mans say I was dismissed based solely on my work performance. A UAB grievance committee, which Garrison and Mans should be familiar with, says I should not have been terminated at all.
Bottom line? Garrison and Mans have gone out of their collective way to make a false statement that has damaged my reputation. And they have made sure it was distributed to numerous third parties. That's a serious civil wrong. A malicious civil wrong, I would say.
But that might be the least of UAB's problems. If my termination was the result of a conspiracy to commit fraud, and I will present evidence that it was, UAB personnel appear to be furthering that fraudulent scheme by use of the federal wires (sending messages via computer). That's dancing real close to federal-crime territory.
Of course, with a loyal Bushie such as Alice Martin serving as our area's U.S. attorney, no one at UAB has anything to worry about--for now. And given that Martin almost certainly played a role in getting me fired, UAB types probably are acting as her compliant compadres.
But if there is a God in heaven, Alice Martin will be out of office come early 2009. And given that she is being investigated by several federal entities, Ms. Martin might have some serious legal headaches of her own down the road.
UAB could be left with a real U.S. attorney, someone who might be interested in their actions regarding my termination--and a number of other interesting activities on the Southside over the past 10 years or so. Said U.S. attorney also might be interested in some interesting business activities involving one or two members of the University of Alabama Boad of Trustees.
Speaking of strange stuff on the Southside, here is something to chew on--straight from public records. UAB pays Gary Mans, its public-relations guru, $99,999.96 a year. The university pays his immediate superior, associate vice president Dale Turnbough, $200,000.40 a year. What does UAB pay one of its top history professors? Try $82,800. What does UAB pay one of its top English professors? Try $78,710.
Does UAB have its priorities in order or what? It pays two PR flacks a combined $300,000-plus a year. And yet highly accomplished professors of history and English, people with doctoral degrees and years of classroom and research experience, make barely half that, combined.
What does UAB get from its high-paid PR flacks? Well, we've already shown you Gary Mans' handiwork above. What about Dale Turnbough? Consider this paragraph from the Raw Story article about my firing:
When asked whether Shuler was fired for blogging, Turnbough wrote in an e-mail, "No, as I said before, that is inaccurate, but we cannot comment further on this personnel matter." (Sounds like Garrison and Mans didn't have any problem commenting further!)
How inept has UAB been in handling this situation? Gary Mans' office is on the 13th floor of the UAB Administration Building. Cheryl Locke's office is on the second floor of the same building. If you time the elevators right, you can get from Mans' office to Locke's office in under a minute. And yet, Mans could not be bothered to check with Locke before issuing a public statement regarding my firing--one that directly contradicts what Locke had already said.
And we mentioned spine earlier. If Carol Garrison insisted on making this statement regarding "work performance," wouldn't you think Mans might say something like, "You know, I don't think it's a good idea to say anything about his work performance, particularly when you consider that Dale Turnbough already has said we can't comment on a personnel matter?"
Of course, it would require some spine to say that to the president of the university. And I guess you have to pay more than $100,000 a year to get a PR guy with a spine.
So we have Gary Mans saying my termination had nothing to do with politics. And we have Dale Turnbough saying my termination had nothing to do with blogging.
Well, I have some evidence that suggests they are both wrong.
That is coming up next.
Garrison might have been better served by leaving her clunky PR apparatus parked in the garage.
How did Garrison decide to deal with the heat she was receiving? Why, by making false and defamatory statements about the very employee her institution had wrongfully terminated.
You would think that someone with the letters "Ph.D." after her name would be smarter than that. You would think that someone with a background in nursing would have more sensitivity than that.
You would be wrong.
Garrison, of course, could not lower herself to trash me herself. So she assigned that duty to her PR hatchetman, Gary Mans.
A number of folks who had contacted UAB about my termination received canned replies late last week. Several of those folks were kind enough to share the responses with me.
Here is UAB's official reply from Gary Mans, speaking on Carol Garrison's behalf:
President Garrison asked that I respond to you. Contrary to Mr. Shuler's statements, his termination had nothing to do with politics or any conspiracy, and the university has not been contacted by any public official or representative of such about this matter. Mr. Shuler was dismissed based solely on his work performance. Because this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.
Gary Mans, Director
UAB Public Relations
For good measure, Mans went to the trouble of posting his reply as a comment to the Chronicle of Higher Education article about my termination. You can check out Mans' handiwork here. His comment is No. 16. The commenter at No. 17 promptly ripped Mans a new one. Excellent work by the Chronicle crowd. They don't suffer fools gladly.
Is Gary Mans careless, clueless, or spineless--or perhaps a little of all three. Is Carol Garrison in way over her head as the president of one of the top biomedical research institutions in the country? Does Carol Garrison allow herself to be pushed around by public officials of a certain political stripe? And does Carol Garrison let herself be pushed around by certain members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, who "manage" the UAB campus.
Let's examine the Garrison/Mans reply in some detail.
They say I was "dismissed based solely on [my] work performance."
Isn't that interesting? UAB's own employee grievance committee, which spent three-plus hours going over the details of my case, determined that I should not have been terminated at all.
As we reported here last Thursday, the grievance committee found that I was wrongfully terminated. We even presented the following written statement from Cheryl Locke, UAB's director of human resources: "The committee recommended that you be reinstated."
So Garrison/Mans say I was dismissed based solely on my work performance. A UAB grievance committee, which Garrison and Mans should be familiar with, says I should not have been terminated at all.
Bottom line? Garrison and Mans have gone out of their collective way to make a false statement that has damaged my reputation. And they have made sure it was distributed to numerous third parties. That's a serious civil wrong. A malicious civil wrong, I would say.
But that might be the least of UAB's problems. If my termination was the result of a conspiracy to commit fraud, and I will present evidence that it was, UAB personnel appear to be furthering that fraudulent scheme by use of the federal wires (sending messages via computer). That's dancing real close to federal-crime territory.
Of course, with a loyal Bushie such as Alice Martin serving as our area's U.S. attorney, no one at UAB has anything to worry about--for now. And given that Martin almost certainly played a role in getting me fired, UAB types probably are acting as her compliant compadres.
But if there is a God in heaven, Alice Martin will be out of office come early 2009. And given that she is being investigated by several federal entities, Ms. Martin might have some serious legal headaches of her own down the road.
UAB could be left with a real U.S. attorney, someone who might be interested in their actions regarding my termination--and a number of other interesting activities on the Southside over the past 10 years or so. Said U.S. attorney also might be interested in some interesting business activities involving one or two members of the University of Alabama Boad of Trustees.
Speaking of strange stuff on the Southside, here is something to chew on--straight from public records. UAB pays Gary Mans, its public-relations guru, $99,999.96 a year. The university pays his immediate superior, associate vice president Dale Turnbough, $200,000.40 a year. What does UAB pay one of its top history professors? Try $82,800. What does UAB pay one of its top English professors? Try $78,710.
Does UAB have its priorities in order or what? It pays two PR flacks a combined $300,000-plus a year. And yet highly accomplished professors of history and English, people with doctoral degrees and years of classroom and research experience, make barely half that, combined.
What does UAB get from its high-paid PR flacks? Well, we've already shown you Gary Mans' handiwork above. What about Dale Turnbough? Consider this paragraph from the Raw Story article about my firing:
When asked whether Shuler was fired for blogging, Turnbough wrote in an e-mail, "No, as I said before, that is inaccurate, but we cannot comment further on this personnel matter." (Sounds like Garrison and Mans didn't have any problem commenting further!)
How inept has UAB been in handling this situation? Gary Mans' office is on the 13th floor of the UAB Administration Building. Cheryl Locke's office is on the second floor of the same building. If you time the elevators right, you can get from Mans' office to Locke's office in under a minute. And yet, Mans could not be bothered to check with Locke before issuing a public statement regarding my firing--one that directly contradicts what Locke had already said.
And we mentioned spine earlier. If Carol Garrison insisted on making this statement regarding "work performance," wouldn't you think Mans might say something like, "You know, I don't think it's a good idea to say anything about his work performance, particularly when you consider that Dale Turnbough already has said we can't comment on a personnel matter?"
Of course, it would require some spine to say that to the president of the university. And I guess you have to pay more than $100,000 a year to get a PR guy with a spine.
So we have Gary Mans saying my termination had nothing to do with politics. And we have Dale Turnbough saying my termination had nothing to do with blogging.
Well, I have some evidence that suggests they are both wrong.
That is coming up next.
Neighbors Are Fussin' and Feudin' in Homewood, Alabama
Since a troublesome neighbor has caused me untold grief, I can't resist reading stories about other people and their neighbor troubles.
Psychologists might say that's not the healthiest approach to take. But I must confess to feeling the slightest tingle of delight when I read about someone else having to deal with a jackass next door.
If someone has been mugged, are they interested in stories about other muggings? Probably so.
With that in mind, I couldn't help but do some rubbernecking when I came upon a story today about a neighbor feud that resulted in three people being arrested and two dogs being shot. (I hate that part about the dogs being shot; one died and the other was injured.)
Guess where all this hubbub took place? In the tony Birmingham suburb of Homewood.
Now Homewood isn't tony as in Mountain Brook or Vestavia Hills tony. That's where truly wealthy people tend to congregate. But property values in Homewood are absurd, mainly because of its "good" (read predominantly white) school system. You can find a "cottage" in Homewood, with lots of "curb appeal," for, oh, about $350,000.
Pretty much the same house, probably bigger and in better shape, can be found in Birmingham's western section for about $85,000. Those neighborhoods have "bad" (read predominantly black) schools.
Anyway, back to the feudin' in Homewood. Seems that four recent college graduates moved in next door to a family on South Brook Circle. A father and son claimed the college grads had damaged the fence between the two homes. When officers arrived on the scene, two dogs (who looked like pit bulls) got loose from the college dudes (I'm assuming they are dudes), and police wound up shooting the animals.
This all happened on Saturday, but the feud was rekindled on Sunday--and that led to arrests. The father and son were arrested on misdemeanor menacing charges for being armed while confronting one of the dudes. The dude, in turn, was arrested on harassment charges because he threatened to get a gun and shoot the father and son.
Here's something interesting about the coverage in The Birmingham News. This clearly is public information, but no names were given in the story. If a similar event took place in a predominantly black neighborhood, I'm guessing names would have been used.
I've noticed this tendency to protect suburbanites before. Some years ago, the wife of a prominent restaurateur died in a mysterious fire at her Mountain Brook home. As I recall, the house was not destroyed or even damaged to a great degree. But somehow the woman managed to die in the fire--and very little was written about it.
About two years ago, a woman from Gardendale was killed in an automobile crash while driving south on Highway 280 to her job at Infinity Insurance. A northbound vehicle, almost certainly a resident from the southern suburbs, somehow managed to cross the median and hit the woman head on. I remember driving past the scene that morning and thinking it was the worst looking wreck I had ever seen on 280. The News never reported the name of the driver of the vehicle that struck the woman's car. And the paper never reported what caused the accident. My guess? Someone was talking on a cellphone.
As for events in Homewood, I'm guessing real-estate agents are already figuring out ways to take advantage of the feud. Imagine this ad for a small house on South Brook Circle:
"Charming fixer upper. 2 BR, 1 BA, carport, wooded lot. Lively, spirited neighbors. Never a dull moment in this desirable neighborhood!"
Psychologists might say that's not the healthiest approach to take. But I must confess to feeling the slightest tingle of delight when I read about someone else having to deal with a jackass next door.
If someone has been mugged, are they interested in stories about other muggings? Probably so.
With that in mind, I couldn't help but do some rubbernecking when I came upon a story today about a neighbor feud that resulted in three people being arrested and two dogs being shot. (I hate that part about the dogs being shot; one died and the other was injured.)
Guess where all this hubbub took place? In the tony Birmingham suburb of Homewood.
Now Homewood isn't tony as in Mountain Brook or Vestavia Hills tony. That's where truly wealthy people tend to congregate. But property values in Homewood are absurd, mainly because of its "good" (read predominantly white) school system. You can find a "cottage" in Homewood, with lots of "curb appeal," for, oh, about $350,000.
Pretty much the same house, probably bigger and in better shape, can be found in Birmingham's western section for about $85,000. Those neighborhoods have "bad" (read predominantly black) schools.
Anyway, back to the feudin' in Homewood. Seems that four recent college graduates moved in next door to a family on South Brook Circle. A father and son claimed the college grads had damaged the fence between the two homes. When officers arrived on the scene, two dogs (who looked like pit bulls) got loose from the college dudes (I'm assuming they are dudes), and police wound up shooting the animals.
This all happened on Saturday, but the feud was rekindled on Sunday--and that led to arrests. The father and son were arrested on misdemeanor menacing charges for being armed while confronting one of the dudes. The dude, in turn, was arrested on harassment charges because he threatened to get a gun and shoot the father and son.
Here's something interesting about the coverage in The Birmingham News. This clearly is public information, but no names were given in the story. If a similar event took place in a predominantly black neighborhood, I'm guessing names would have been used.
I've noticed this tendency to protect suburbanites before. Some years ago, the wife of a prominent restaurateur died in a mysterious fire at her Mountain Brook home. As I recall, the house was not destroyed or even damaged to a great degree. But somehow the woman managed to die in the fire--and very little was written about it.
About two years ago, a woman from Gardendale was killed in an automobile crash while driving south on Highway 280 to her job at Infinity Insurance. A northbound vehicle, almost certainly a resident from the southern suburbs, somehow managed to cross the median and hit the woman head on. I remember driving past the scene that morning and thinking it was the worst looking wreck I had ever seen on 280. The News never reported the name of the driver of the vehicle that struck the woman's car. And the paper never reported what caused the accident. My guess? Someone was talking on a cellphone.
As for events in Homewood, I'm guessing real-estate agents are already figuring out ways to take advantage of the feud. Imagine this ad for a small house on South Brook Circle:
"Charming fixer upper. 2 BR, 1 BA, carport, wooded lot. Lively, spirited neighbors. Never a dull moment in this desirable neighborhood!"
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Unmasking Right-Wing Sickos?
The fine folks at Democratic Underground have an intriguing thread going, and I wanted to share it with Legal Schnauzer readers.
The DU folks are combing through the numerous threatening anonymous comments I've received in the weeks and months leading up to my termination at UAB. They are searching for clues that might shine light on who sent these comments--and who contributed to getting me fired.
My wife and I hardly have words to say how much we appreciate this kind of effort. The task is difficult because, as I understand it, Google puts a block on comments to its blogs (I guess as a privacy measure). The company says it will reveal the source of such comments only if it receives a subpoena, forcing it to do so.
Seeing as how I'm almost certainly going to have to file an employment-related lawsuit against UAB (actually the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama), a subpoena may indeed be in Google's future.
But I certainly welcome efforts like the one going on at Democratic Underground. In order to help the cause, I should point out that I moderate my comments, and the DU folks have only been able to see the nasty stuff I've allowed to be published.
To truly grasp the depravity of the right-wing fear mongers, you need to see the anonymous comments I have not let through. Following is a sampler of such comments divided up by subject:
ON OUR DOG MURPHY
* From: AnonymousDate: Jun 30, 2008 8:58 PM
are you sure your dog died a natural death? maybe, maybe not...you will never know will you?
* From: AnonymousDate: Jun 12, 2008 10:18 PM
you are a fool like your dead dog
* From: AnonymousDate: May 20, 2008 9:25 PM
You are such a little man...such the small person. You offer nothing to the world other than your pitiful rantings. How is your dog?
* From: AnonymousDate: May 19, 2008 7:27 PM
Your Schnauzer has no bite because he is dead. Why did you roll over and kill your dog? Possible animal cruelty charges to come.
ON MY JOB/GENERAL THREATS
* Date: Jun 3, 2008 5:01 PMSubject:
Did your employer UAB give you the boot up the schnauzer?
* From: AnonymousDate: May 15, 2008 9:33 PM
You are in deep do-do Schnauzer
* From: AnonymousDate: May 13, 2008 9:03 PM
you deserve everything coming your way plus some
* From: AnonymousDate: May 8, 2008 12:55 PM
and now you have crossed the line. this will be fun watching your miserable self destruct
* From: AnonymousDate: Apr 7, 2008 9:16 PM
You better sweep yours Schnauzer we know every move you make.
* From: AnonymousDate: Mar 20, 2008 7:12 PM
I cannot even begin to say what an idiot you are. Not only have you butchered now the facts of the case, but the law involved as well. I'll just leave it to the fact that you, along with your bloated buddy Mr. Horton, and your co-conspirators (you probably don't even realize who they are) working in Montgomery and Birmingham law firms, are out of your fucking minds. What an idiot.
ON THE UNLAWFUL AUCTION OF OUR HOUSE:
* From: AnonymousDate: May 8, 2008 5:13 PM
How much is your house worth schnauzer?I'm thinking of buying it for pennies on the dollar.Haven't heard you talk about AMEX lately.the folks still treating you nice?HA Ha
The DU folks are combing through the numerous threatening anonymous comments I've received in the weeks and months leading up to my termination at UAB. They are searching for clues that might shine light on who sent these comments--and who contributed to getting me fired.
My wife and I hardly have words to say how much we appreciate this kind of effort. The task is difficult because, as I understand it, Google puts a block on comments to its blogs (I guess as a privacy measure). The company says it will reveal the source of such comments only if it receives a subpoena, forcing it to do so.
Seeing as how I'm almost certainly going to have to file an employment-related lawsuit against UAB (actually the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama), a subpoena may indeed be in Google's future.
But I certainly welcome efforts like the one going on at Democratic Underground. In order to help the cause, I should point out that I moderate my comments, and the DU folks have only been able to see the nasty stuff I've allowed to be published.
To truly grasp the depravity of the right-wing fear mongers, you need to see the anonymous comments I have not let through. Following is a sampler of such comments divided up by subject:
ON OUR DOG MURPHY
* From: Anonymous
are you sure your dog died a natural death? maybe, maybe not...you will never know will you?
* From: Anonymous
you are a fool like your dead dog
* From: Anonymous
You are such a little man...such the small person. You offer nothing to the world other than your pitiful rantings. How is your dog?
* From: Anonymous
Your Schnauzer has no bite because he is dead. Why did you roll over and kill your dog? Possible animal cruelty charges to come.
ON MY JOB/GENERAL THREATS
* Date: Jun 3, 2008 5:01 PMSubject:
Did your employer UAB give you the boot up the schnauzer?
* Date: Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Keep it up you piece of shit and see how YOUR life turns out in the end.
* From: Anonymous
* From: Anonymous
You are in deep do-do Schnauzer
* From: Anonymous
you deserve everything coming your way plus some
* From: Anonymous
and now you have crossed the line. this will be fun watching your miserable self destruct
* From: Anonymous
You better sweep yours Schnauzer we know every move you make.
* From: Anonymous
I cannot even begin to say what an idiot you are. Not only have you butchered now the facts of the case, but the law involved as well. I'll just leave it to the fact that you, along with your bloated buddy Mr. Horton, and your co-conspirators (you probably don't even realize who they are) working in Montgomery and Birmingham law firms, are out of your fucking minds. What an idiot.
ON THE UNLAWFUL AUCTION OF OUR HOUSE:
* From: Anonymous
How much is your house worth schnauzer?I'm thinking of buying it for pennies on the dollar.Haven't heard you talk about AMEX lately.the folks still treating you nice?HA Ha
The Original Legal Schnauzer
One of the side benefits of Raw Story's piece about my termination at UAB is that it has given me an opportunity to introduce you to the original Legal Schnauzer.
That of course would be Murphy, our miniature schnauzer (1993-2004) who helped my wife and me survive the worst of our legal nightmare and serves as the inspiration for this blog.
I was telling someone the other day that when the idea of a blog first occurred to me, I thought of such clever titles as "corruptjudges.com" and "judgessuck.com." While those titles captured the kind of rage my wife and I have felt from being victimized by our "justice system," they did not capture what I was after with this blog.
For one thing, I wanted the blog to be about more than just our personal tale of legal woe, so it needed a title with some breadth to it. And I wanted it to help educate citizens about the potential dangers that lurk in America's courtrooms. In other words, I wanted it to have a consumer, "news-you-can-use" feel to it. I wanted it to be helpful, and I think that prompted the name "Legal Schnauzer" to pop into my brain.
No living being has been more helpful to my wife and me--at a time when we desperately needed help--than Murphy was. Her playful spirit and her seemingly innate sense of right and wrong (at least that's how we saw it) helped keep us going at times when we both wanted to curl up in a corner and not move again.
If I had picked one of those impersonal blog titles, I think I would have given up the blogging gig a long time ago. Blogging, I've learned, is very time consuming, and it's hard work--particularly when you are writing about a complicated, important subject. I can't remember the last time I read a book, and my exercise regimen has pretty much gone down the drain.
Murphy had many attributes that we found endearing. But one of our favorites was her sense of duty. We called her our "little security guard." She saw it as her job to protect our house and let out a clarion call if any strangers came into her line of sight. That was her duty, and by God, she took it seriously.
At times when I've thought about packing it in on this whole blog thing--particularly when it became evident that we could pay a huge price because of the truths contained herein--I remembered Murphy and her deeply ingrained sense of duty. That inspired me to keep going. To borrow from a religious theme, it was kind of a WWMWMTD kind of thing--What Would Murphy Want Me To Do.
My wife and I agree that she would want us to push forward--even though I've lost my job, we might lose our house, and our lives are definitely on the edge of being ruined. I've never considered myself to be a particularly brave person. I've never been in the military and had to lay my life on the line for this country. But I do have some ability to research information and string sentences together in a somewhat coherent way. So I guess you might say that writing Legal Schnauzer a kind of patriotic duty--its my way of joining the chorus of folks who are trying to warn our fellow Americans about the grave dangers currently threatening our democracy.
It's been said that "a little child shall lead them." Here at Legal Schnauzer, it's been a little dog who has led us. We hope that journey will eventually lead to a restoration of justice in our country. If that effort fails, at least it won't be because we didn't try.
Our cover schnauzer is a strapping, handsome fellow named Gumpie-Poo. He is from Queensland, Australia, and the fine folks at Valleyview Dog Breeders gave us permission to use his picture.
We had never run a picture of Murphy because we didn't have any in a digital format. All of our photos are prints, and since I'm a little slow on the technological uptake, I wasn't sure how to solve that problem.
When the fine folks at Raw Story said they would like to run a photo of Murphy and me ("So people can see the original Legal Schnauzer," Lindsay Beyerstein said), I thought it was a great idea. But I was too dense to figure out how to get around the techno stumbling block.
Fortunately, my wife was on the ball. "Hey," she said, "I think places like OfficeMax can scan photo prints for us."
By golly, she was right. And that's what allowed us to provide the photo you see above.
Regular readers have a pretty good idea of how much Murphy meant to my wife and me. In fact, I've written a number of posts about her. Dog and animal lovers, or just folks who are curious about what inspired this blog, can check out these posts:
I thought it might be a neat idea to occasionally run a photo of Murphy (now that I know how to do it), perhaps as a reminder of the little dog who did so much to help us survive years of untold legal mayhem.
If, through these words and pictures, someone else might come to understand how much a special pet can mean--particularly in troubled times--that would be great, too.
For now, here is a photo of Murphy as a puppy, and I think this is the first shot we took of her, on her first day at home.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Siegelman Says McCain Should Call Out Rove
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman today called on Republican presidential nominee John McCain to call for former White House strategist to testify before Congress.
Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, reports on Siegelman's comments at Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas.
"Sen. McCain should distance himself from Karl Rove," said Siegelman. "And I think it is important and a smart political move [for him] to call on Rove to go and obey the law and to show up before the Judiciary Committee, to put his hand on the Bible, and to try to tell the truth - or at least plead the fifth."
Siegelman, whose controversial trial for corruption contained many Rove fingerprints, would not go so far as to claim that by employing Rove as a consultant, McCain was sullying his own good-government credentials. "That's a question that is left to the people and the electorate and they will have an opportunity to express themselves in November," he said.
Siegelman didn't just direct his comments toward McCain:
"I would like to see Senator Obama speak out on this issue and call on Congress to hold Rove in contempt because no man is above the law," he said. "And I think its set a terrible example going forward if we do not hold Rove accountable."
Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, reports on Siegelman's comments at Netroots Nation in Austin, Texas.
"Sen. McCain should distance himself from Karl Rove," said Siegelman. "And I think it is important and a smart political move [for him] to call on Rove to go and obey the law and to show up before the Judiciary Committee, to put his hand on the Bible, and to try to tell the truth - or at least plead the fifth."
Siegelman, whose controversial trial for corruption contained many Rove fingerprints, would not go so far as to claim that by employing Rove as a consultant, McCain was sullying his own good-government credentials. "That's a question that is left to the people and the electorate and they will have an opportunity to express themselves in November," he said.
Siegelman didn't just direct his comments toward McCain:
"I would like to see Senator Obama speak out on this issue and call on Congress to hold Rove in contempt because no man is above the law," he said. "And I think its set a terrible example going forward if we do not hold Rove accountable."
Election Intrigue in the Deep South
Those of us in Alabama are intimately aware of our 2002 gubernatorial election, when votes mysteriously shifted in the middle of the night, giving Bob Riley a razor thin "victory" over incumbent Democrat Don Siegelman.
Thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane at Raw Story, we now know about electoral hanky-panky right next door, in Georgia.
Raw Story reports that a leading cyber-security expert, and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections:
Stephen Spoonamore is the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. At a little noticed press conference in Columbus, Ohio Thursday, he discussed his investigation of a computer patch that was applied to Diebold Election Systems voting machines in Georgia right before that state's November 2002 election.
Spoonamore is one of the most prominent cyber-security experts in the country. He has appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs and ABC's World News Tonight, and has security clearances from his work with the intelligence community and other government agencies, as well as the Department of Defense, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on hacking and cyber-espionage.
How did the story unfold?
Spoonamore received the Diebold patch from a whistleblower close to the office of Cathy Cox, Georgia’s then-Secretary of State. In discussions with RAW STORY, the whistleblower -- who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation -- said that he became suspicious of Diebold's actions in Georgia for two reasons. The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds. The source states that Cox was not privy to these changes until after the election and that she became particularly concerned over the patch being installed in just those two counties.
The whistleblower said another flag went up when it became apparent that the patch installed by Urosevich had failed to fix a problem with the computer clock, which employees from Diebold and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office had been told the patch was designed specifically to address.
What impact could this have had:
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken a week before the vote, lost 53% to 46%. Incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, who led challenger Sonny Perdue in the polls by eleven points, lost 51% to 46%. However, because the Diebold machines used throughout the state provided no paper trail, it was impossible to ask for a recount in either case.
Concerned by the electoral outcome, the whistleblower approached Spoonamore because of his qualifications and asked him to examine the Diebold patch.
Thanks to Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane at Raw Story, we now know about electoral hanky-panky right next door, in Georgia.
Raw Story reports that a leading cyber-security expert, and former adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) says he has fresh evidence regarding election fraud on Diebold electronic voting machines during the 2002 Georgia gubernatorial and senatorial elections:
Stephen Spoonamore is the founder and until recently the CEO of Cybrinth LLC, an information technology policy and security firm that serves Fortune 100 companies. At a little noticed press conference in Columbus, Ohio Thursday, he discussed his investigation of a computer patch that was applied to Diebold Election Systems voting machines in Georgia right before that state's November 2002 election.
Spoonamore is one of the most prominent cyber-security experts in the country. He has appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs and ABC's World News Tonight, and has security clearances from his work with the intelligence community and other government agencies, as well as the Department of Defense, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on hacking and cyber-espionage.
How did the story unfold?
Spoonamore received the Diebold patch from a whistleblower close to the office of Cathy Cox, Georgia’s then-Secretary of State. In discussions with RAW STORY, the whistleblower -- who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation -- said that he became suspicious of Diebold's actions in Georgia for two reasons. The first red flag went up when the computer patch was installed in person by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, who flew in from Texas and applied it in just two counties, DeKalb and Fulton, both Democratic strongholds. The source states that Cox was not privy to these changes until after the election and that she became particularly concerned over the patch being installed in just those two counties.
The whistleblower said another flag went up when it became apparent that the patch installed by Urosevich had failed to fix a problem with the computer clock, which employees from Diebold and the Georgia Secretary of State’s office had been told the patch was designed specifically to address.
What impact could this have had:
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who was five percentage points ahead of Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss in polls taken a week before the vote, lost 53% to 46%. Incumbent Democratic Governor Roy Barnes, who led challenger Sonny Perdue in the polls by eleven points, lost 51% to 46%. However, because the Diebold machines used throughout the state provided no paper trail, it was impossible to ask for a recount in either case.
Concerned by the electoral outcome, the whistleblower approached Spoonamore because of his qualifications and asked him to examine the Diebold patch.
Is Alice Martin Getting In Deeper and Deeper?
The negative attention just keeps on coming for Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Couldn't happen to a more deserving gal.
The latest comes from reporter Kate Klonick at TPM Muckraker, outlining the scrutiny Martin is receiving for her mishandling of the Alex Latifi/Axion case in Huntsville.
Klonick reports:
The new OPR investigation stems from a case involving Axion Corp., which was acquitted in October 2007 of violating the Arms Export Control Act. In an interview with TPMmuckraker this morning, Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Axion Corp., confirmed that they had sent a letter of complaint against Martin to the OPR on May 9. News of the investigation was first reported by Scott Horton, at the American Lawyer, citing anonymous sources.
"We consider this a serious case of prosecutorial misconduct that impacted the rights of the defendant," Frohsin, of the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, told us, "and we intend to rigorously pursue this matter with authorities at the Department of Justice."
Frohsin also stated that a DOJ attorney had been assigned to look into their complaint.
What's the latest on Latifi's fight for justice? Klonick provides some answers:
Latifi, an engineer trained at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, will be able to collect about $500,000 in expenses, said his Birmingham attorney, Henry Frohsin. Latifi contends that he was selected for prosecution under arms-export laws because of his ethnic background.
And apparently the DOJ immediately started covering its tracks:
Johnson's ruling also said the government has withdrawn its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That eliminates any chances for Axion's lawyers to demand a hearing to examine the Justice Department's memos, legal papers and investigative methods, said Frohsin, a lawyer with the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.
The latest comes from reporter Kate Klonick at TPM Muckraker, outlining the scrutiny Martin is receiving for her mishandling of the Alex Latifi/Axion case in Huntsville.
Klonick reports:
The new OPR investigation stems from a case involving Axion Corp., which was acquitted in October 2007 of violating the Arms Export Control Act. In an interview with TPMmuckraker this morning, Henry Frohsin, an attorney for Axion Corp., confirmed that they had sent a letter of complaint against Martin to the OPR on May 9. News of the investigation was first reported by Scott Horton, at the American Lawyer, citing anonymous sources.
"We consider this a serious case of prosecutorial misconduct that impacted the rights of the defendant," Frohsin, of the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, told us, "and we intend to rigorously pursue this matter with authorities at the Department of Justice."
Frohsin also stated that a DOJ attorney had been assigned to look into their complaint.
What's the latest on Latifi's fight for justice? Klonick provides some answers:
Latifi, an engineer trained at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, will be able to collect about $500,000 in expenses, said his Birmingham attorney, Henry Frohsin. Latifi contends that he was selected for prosecution under arms-export laws because of his ethnic background.
And apparently the DOJ immediately started covering its tracks:
Johnson's ruling also said the government has withdrawn its request for a certification from the court endorsing the asset seizure as having had a reasonable cause. That eliminates any chances for Axion's lawyers to demand a hearing to examine the Justice Department's memos, legal papers and investigative methods, said Frohsin, a lawyer with the Birmingham office of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.
Alabama Press Still Does the Siegelman Tango
In less than an hour, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be featured at the Netroots Nation event in Austin, Texas.
"A Conversation With Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama" will begin at 10:30 a.m. and run until 11:45 a.m. Sam Seder, radio show host on Air America, will moderate the conversation, and it will be streamed live at Air America. You can catch the presentation here.
What is Netroots Nation? You can check it out here. And you can check out the full agenda here. Definitely makes me wish I could be there, and I'm heartened to know that a number of Alabama progressives are there.
Reading about this event makes me wonder about the strange world we live in, particularly here in Karl Rove's Alabama.
In the wake of Raw Story's investigative piece about my termination at UAB, I was invited to appear on the Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins radio shows. Where are they based? In Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, respectively. I was impressed that both hosts clearly were well grounded in Alabama events related to the Bush Justice Department, particularly the Siegelman prosecution.
Have I been invited to be on any radio shows in Alabama--Birmingham, Mobile, Huntsville, Prattville, Boaz, Burnt Corn? Nope.
But let's consider the issue of Don Siegelman. He is one of the prime attractions at an event in Austin, Texas, an event that will be streamed live across the country on Air America. Apparently quite a few people around the country "get" his case and realize it raises disturbing questions about the Bush Justice Department.
Does the press in Alabama "get" the Siegelman case? Has it even made any attempt to "get" the Siegelman case?
Consider a recent editorial from our friends at The Birmingham News. The Newsies seem to revel in their ignorance about the Siegelman case. The editorial is filled with smug, condescending, uninformed claptrap. It's truly embarrassing that editorial writers from our state's largest paper make no effort to educate themselves before putting pen to paper.
Consider this from the Newsies:
Taxpayers should welcome the U.S. Department of Justice's internal investigation about alleged political motivations behind the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Not because there's such solid evidence Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. There isn't. But there's been enough political taint to some of the Justice Department's other conduct - and enough spin by Team Siegelman - to all but demand a response from the agency.
There isn't solid evidence that Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons? Where have these people been?
What we've seen so far certainly hasn't sold us on the notion Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. His administration dabbled so much in shady business that nobody should have been surprised when federal investigators started sniffing around, least of all an old pro like Siegelman. Plus, those making the allegations about political motives haven't exactly inspired confidence in the credibility department.
Shady business? What exactly is the News referring to, and who establishes the definition of "shady business?" Was Siegelman's "shady business" any different from the "shady business" of other Alabama governors--including Bob Riley? Or was the amount of scrutiny Siegelman received different? And since when is anyone sent to federal prison for alleged "shady business." Our criminal courts are about crimes, not shady business. Has any Alabama newspaper unearthed any facts, and presented any law, showing Siegelman committed a crime? Answer: No.
Indeed, the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory have nothing at all to do with his case. The Justice Department's dismissal of prosecutors who crossed the Republican Party, as well as its political screening of young hires in its intern and honors programs, lend more credence to Siegelman's claims of partisanship than any evidence he has turned up related to his bribery conviction.
Here is where the News really shows its ignorance. By far the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory can be found right in his case. In fact, all one has to do is examine the words of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who "oversaw" the case. In his memorandum opinion attempting to justify Siegelman's immediate imprisonment, Fuller clearly showed that he either was ignorant of federal bribery and mail-fraud law or he intentionally misstated the nature of the laws in his jury instructions. That, to a large degree, is why the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released Siegelman pending appeal: The judge himself could not justify the outcome in the case.
The truth of what happened to Don Siegelman is right there in his case. But to get at the truth requires reading key portions of the transcript and researching the actual law. That's too much effort apparently for the folks at the News.
"A Conversation With Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama" will begin at 10:30 a.m. and run until 11:45 a.m. Sam Seder, radio show host on Air America, will moderate the conversation, and it will be streamed live at Air America. You can catch the presentation here.
What is Netroots Nation? You can check it out here. And you can check out the full agenda here. Definitely makes me wish I could be there, and I'm heartened to know that a number of Alabama progressives are there.
Reading about this event makes me wonder about the strange world we live in, particularly here in Karl Rove's Alabama.
In the wake of Raw Story's investigative piece about my termination at UAB, I was invited to appear on the Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins radio shows. Where are they based? In Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco, California, respectively. I was impressed that both hosts clearly were well grounded in Alabama events related to the Bush Justice Department, particularly the Siegelman prosecution.
Have I been invited to be on any radio shows in Alabama--Birmingham, Mobile, Huntsville, Prattville, Boaz, Burnt Corn? Nope.
But let's consider the issue of Don Siegelman. He is one of the prime attractions at an event in Austin, Texas, an event that will be streamed live across the country on Air America. Apparently quite a few people around the country "get" his case and realize it raises disturbing questions about the Bush Justice Department.
Does the press in Alabama "get" the Siegelman case? Has it even made any attempt to "get" the Siegelman case?
Consider a recent editorial from our friends at The Birmingham News. The Newsies seem to revel in their ignorance about the Siegelman case. The editorial is filled with smug, condescending, uninformed claptrap. It's truly embarrassing that editorial writers from our state's largest paper make no effort to educate themselves before putting pen to paper.
Consider this from the Newsies:
Taxpayers should welcome the U.S. Department of Justice's internal investigation about alleged political motivations behind the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Not because there's such solid evidence Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. There isn't. But there's been enough political taint to some of the Justice Department's other conduct - and enough spin by Team Siegelman - to all but demand a response from the agency.
There isn't solid evidence that Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons? Where have these people been?
What we've seen so far certainly hasn't sold us on the notion Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. His administration dabbled so much in shady business that nobody should have been surprised when federal investigators started sniffing around, least of all an old pro like Siegelman. Plus, those making the allegations about political motives haven't exactly inspired confidence in the credibility department.
Shady business? What exactly is the News referring to, and who establishes the definition of "shady business?" Was Siegelman's "shady business" any different from the "shady business" of other Alabama governors--including Bob Riley? Or was the amount of scrutiny Siegelman received different? And since when is anyone sent to federal prison for alleged "shady business." Our criminal courts are about crimes, not shady business. Has any Alabama newspaper unearthed any facts, and presented any law, showing Siegelman committed a crime? Answer: No.
Indeed, the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory have nothing at all to do with his case. The Justice Department's dismissal of prosecutors who crossed the Republican Party, as well as its political screening of young hires in its intern and honors programs, lend more credence to Siegelman's claims of partisanship than any evidence he has turned up related to his bribery conviction.
Here is where the News really shows its ignorance. By far the best arguments for Siegelman's conspiracy theory can be found right in his case. In fact, all one has to do is examine the words of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who "oversaw" the case. In his memorandum opinion attempting to justify Siegelman's immediate imprisonment, Fuller clearly showed that he either was ignorant of federal bribery and mail-fraud law or he intentionally misstated the nature of the laws in his jury instructions. That, to a large degree, is why the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals released Siegelman pending appeal: The judge himself could not justify the outcome in the case.
The truth of what happened to Don Siegelman is right there in his case. But to get at the truth requires reading key portions of the transcript and researching the actual law. That's too much effort apparently for the folks at the News.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is UAB Playing Games With My Termination, Part III
Given the contents of the e-mail I sent UAB HR director Cheryl Locke on July 3 (see the end of previous post), you might think she would be expecting me to voice concerns about her proposal for my return to UAB.
But Locke was shocked, and I think more than a little peeved, that I found serious flaws with her plans for my future at UAB. The flaws in Locke's proposal would be apparent to most anyone with, say, three brain cells. But everywhere I've turned for seven-plus years, people connected to the dark side of my legal episode have talked to me as if I have nothing but empty space between my ears. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Locke would join the crowd.
(A note: Under normal circumstances, I think Locke and I could be buds. She's a graduate of Brown University and came to UAB from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, so obviously she's not a ding dong. She didn't go into specifics, but I get the feeling the two of us are on the same political wavelength. And she has a quirky way about her that I think I would find charming if her superiors at UAB weren't so busy trying to ruin my career.)
So what did I tell Locke? Here is a summary of my responses to her key points:
* Two written warnings--I said returning to UAB with two written warnings in my file was unacceptable, for a number of reasons. The most important is this: I sat through my entire grievance hearing; I heard every word that was said. I saw my supervisor, Pam Powell, asked repeatedly to provide documentation to support her assertions that my performance had declined, that she had warned me about Internet usage, that I had violated any departmental or university policy, etc. She provided no documentation, zip. That's because none of those assertions are based in fact. I told Locke that there was no evidence to support one written warning against me, much less two. In fact, there was no evidence to support discipline of any kind, and I refused to accept unwarranted disciplinary warnings in my personnel file.
(A note: I see no indication in UAB policy that a grievance committee has the authority to substitute one form of punishment for another. The hearing was about my termination [and the grievance I had filed against Pam Powell, which should have been heard earlier and should have precluded my termination], and university policy seems to indicate the committee should have issued only an up or down ruling on that. Clearly, their ruling was to overturn my termination. But Locke said they wanted to substitute the two written warnings. I can only take Locke's word on that. I was not given a copy of the committee's written report.)
Here, though, is a critical issue about the two written warnings: UAB policy is clear that an employee will be automatically fired if he receives three written warnings in an 18-month period of time. UAB's insistence that I have two written warnings if I return, in my view, can only be seen as a set-up. Clearly, the university wants me to sign away my legal rights regarding the current mess they've made and return to work, only to be fired all over again--probably before the November election.
I told Locke that I considered this proposal a set-up, and I told her I considered her proposal to be made in bad faith. She didn't make much of an effort to deny it.
Locke did say that she and the HR staff would make every effort to ensure that I was successful in my new (unspecified) position. She seemed to be saying, "Trust us." For some reason my reservoir of trust for higher-ups around UAB is running a bit low at the moment.
When I pointed out that I would be automatically gone with one more written warning--and that could come for most anything, wearing the wrong color of socks perhaps--Locke said, "Well that would be up to your supervisor."
Somehow, that statement didn't fill me with confidence.
* Placement in a job other than my old one--I told Locke that one of the fundamental ideas in our justice system is that a wronged party be, at a bare minimum, restored (as much as is possible) to the position he was in prior to the wrong. The grievance hearing clearly showed that I was the wronged party. By Locke's own admission, the committee found that I should not have been terminated. And the evidence showed that I should not have been disciplined at all.
While I noted that the grievance process was not the same as a court of law, I refused to accept an outcome where I was wrongfully deprived of a job that I had earned and performed well for 12 years. Locke noted that she thought I would be better off in a different atmosphere. I told her that if the atmosphere was poisoned in my old department, I wasn't the one who poisoned it--and the results of the grievance hearing showed that. I said I was willing to make the effort to return the atmosphere to where it used to be, and if Pam Powell was willing to make a similar effort, there shouldn't be a problem.
Then, just to show Locke that I'm not dense as a doorknob (an old Missouri expression there), I laid this on her: I said it is quite clear to me why UAB does not want me back in my old department. I'm sure that at least one person, and probably multiple people, know that my termination was an elaborate hoax. I suspect a number of people in my old work environment know I was fired, not because of any work deficiencies or policy violations, but because of external pressure stemming from my blog. And I suspect one or two people probably know exactly where that pressure came from, and the pathway that was used to get me fired. Having me around that department on a regular basis would mean that someone might eventually spill the beans to me about what really happened. Locke got this look on her face like, "Damn this guy's not as dumb as I thought."
"Cheryl," I said, "if you are worried about someone spilling the beans to me, you should take that off your mind. I already know what caused me to be fired, and I'm about 90 percent sure who did it and how it was done. So there should be no problem with me returning to my old department. And for good measure, I strongly suspect criminal activity was involved."
I think it's safe to say that statement didn't make her day.
So how did our little summit meeting end? I thought maybe there would be some back and forth, some give and take, maybe a moment or two of negotiation. But Locke made it clear that her proposal would be shoved down my throat, and I would enjoy it, or she was going to uphold my termination--the committee's recommendation, be damned.
(I was starting to realize what Scott Adams was thinking when he created the character "Catbert, evil HR director" for Dilbert.)
The bottom line? Cheryl Locke said she was going to ignore the recommendation of her own committee and uphold my termination. I would be receiving written notice in the mail shortly.
And I am left with these questions:
* Why would UAB insist that I have two unsupported written warnings in my file? What would UAB stand to gain from that? Answer: UAB would have nothing to gain from it. But someone external to UAB would, and they want to see me quietly lured me back to UAB under conditions that would allow me to be fired all over again--in a nice, clean way this time. (Warning: Schnauzers aren't known for going quietly.)
* Why would UAB insist that I return to something other than my old job? Again, what does UAB stand to gain from that? I've already answered that one: They don't want someone spilling the beans about who really is behind my termination. If I remember correctly, UAB has an animal-care facility about 30 or 40 miles from the main campus, in Childersburg or Sylacauga or some such location. They probably would send me to that facility and make me the chief s**t shoveler.
* Why would Cheryl Locke tell me verbally that I would not be allowed to blog anymore if I return to UAB? And make no mistake about it, that's what she said. I have it in my written notes that she was concerned about how a blog would affect my "representation" of UAB. She simply backed down when I asked her to make that statement in writing. If anyone can show how my current blog represents UAB in any way, please let me know. To repeat a question, what would UAB stand to gain from this proposal, given that my blog clearly has nothing to do with the university? Answer: UAB wouldn't gain anything, but someone external to the university would, and that someone still wants to see me out of the blogging business.
A final thought: Being unemployed, when you feel like you should be working, is no fun. Being unemployed when you were cheated out of your job is even less fun. But this firing, in a macabre kind of way, validates what we are doing here at Legal Schnauzer.
If I was some loon, who had his facts messed up and his law mangled, no one would care about it--and I would still have my job. But we are presenting the truth here, and these truths make some folks uncomfortable--so much so that they are willing to take extreme measures to see to it that I lost my job.
I never felt like this blog needed validation from anyone; I knew all along I was on target. But I take some satisfaction that the thugs behind my termination have proven just how on target I really am.
One other side benefit to being unemployed: It has given me more time to truly "research my blog"--on my own time, as I've done it all along. But thanks to UAB, I now have more time to call my own. And we schnauzers like to use our free time wisely.
I've used my free time to uncover some most interesting facts about UAB, some of the people who run it, some people who caused it to make serious missteps, and a justice system that has turned a blind eye to those missteps. I've also uncovered some interesting facts about the GOP power junkies who are riding high these days in Alabama and Mississippi.
Is it possible they won't be riding high for much longer? And does all of this somehow converge in some way that helps explain my termination from UAB?
I think it does. And we will be laying it out in the days ahead.
But Locke was shocked, and I think more than a little peeved, that I found serious flaws with her plans for my future at UAB. The flaws in Locke's proposal would be apparent to most anyone with, say, three brain cells. But everywhere I've turned for seven-plus years, people connected to the dark side of my legal episode have talked to me as if I have nothing but empty space between my ears. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Locke would join the crowd.
(A note: Under normal circumstances, I think Locke and I could be buds. She's a graduate of Brown University and came to UAB from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, so obviously she's not a ding dong. She didn't go into specifics, but I get the feeling the two of us are on the same political wavelength. And she has a quirky way about her that I think I would find charming if her superiors at UAB weren't so busy trying to ruin my career.)
So what did I tell Locke? Here is a summary of my responses to her key points:
* Two written warnings--I said returning to UAB with two written warnings in my file was unacceptable, for a number of reasons. The most important is this: I sat through my entire grievance hearing; I heard every word that was said. I saw my supervisor, Pam Powell, asked repeatedly to provide documentation to support her assertions that my performance had declined, that she had warned me about Internet usage, that I had violated any departmental or university policy, etc. She provided no documentation, zip. That's because none of those assertions are based in fact. I told Locke that there was no evidence to support one written warning against me, much less two. In fact, there was no evidence to support discipline of any kind, and I refused to accept unwarranted disciplinary warnings in my personnel file.
(A note: I see no indication in UAB policy that a grievance committee has the authority to substitute one form of punishment for another. The hearing was about my termination [and the grievance I had filed against Pam Powell, which should have been heard earlier and should have precluded my termination], and university policy seems to indicate the committee should have issued only an up or down ruling on that. Clearly, their ruling was to overturn my termination. But Locke said they wanted to substitute the two written warnings. I can only take Locke's word on that. I was not given a copy of the committee's written report.)
Here, though, is a critical issue about the two written warnings: UAB policy is clear that an employee will be automatically fired if he receives three written warnings in an 18-month period of time. UAB's insistence that I have two written warnings if I return, in my view, can only be seen as a set-up. Clearly, the university wants me to sign away my legal rights regarding the current mess they've made and return to work, only to be fired all over again--probably before the November election.
I told Locke that I considered this proposal a set-up, and I told her I considered her proposal to be made in bad faith. She didn't make much of an effort to deny it.
Locke did say that she and the HR staff would make every effort to ensure that I was successful in my new (unspecified) position. She seemed to be saying, "Trust us." For some reason my reservoir of trust for higher-ups around UAB is running a bit low at the moment.
When I pointed out that I would be automatically gone with one more written warning--and that could come for most anything, wearing the wrong color of socks perhaps--Locke said, "Well that would be up to your supervisor."
Somehow, that statement didn't fill me with confidence.
* Placement in a job other than my old one--I told Locke that one of the fundamental ideas in our justice system is that a wronged party be, at a bare minimum, restored (as much as is possible) to the position he was in prior to the wrong. The grievance hearing clearly showed that I was the wronged party. By Locke's own admission, the committee found that I should not have been terminated. And the evidence showed that I should not have been disciplined at all.
While I noted that the grievance process was not the same as a court of law, I refused to accept an outcome where I was wrongfully deprived of a job that I had earned and performed well for 12 years. Locke noted that she thought I would be better off in a different atmosphere. I told her that if the atmosphere was poisoned in my old department, I wasn't the one who poisoned it--and the results of the grievance hearing showed that. I said I was willing to make the effort to return the atmosphere to where it used to be, and if Pam Powell was willing to make a similar effort, there shouldn't be a problem.
Then, just to show Locke that I'm not dense as a doorknob (an old Missouri expression there), I laid this on her: I said it is quite clear to me why UAB does not want me back in my old department. I'm sure that at least one person, and probably multiple people, know that my termination was an elaborate hoax. I suspect a number of people in my old work environment know I was fired, not because of any work deficiencies or policy violations, but because of external pressure stemming from my blog. And I suspect one or two people probably know exactly where that pressure came from, and the pathway that was used to get me fired. Having me around that department on a regular basis would mean that someone might eventually spill the beans to me about what really happened. Locke got this look on her face like, "Damn this guy's not as dumb as I thought."
"Cheryl," I said, "if you are worried about someone spilling the beans to me, you should take that off your mind. I already know what caused me to be fired, and I'm about 90 percent sure who did it and how it was done. So there should be no problem with me returning to my old department. And for good measure, I strongly suspect criminal activity was involved."
I think it's safe to say that statement didn't make her day.
So how did our little summit meeting end? I thought maybe there would be some back and forth, some give and take, maybe a moment or two of negotiation. But Locke made it clear that her proposal would be shoved down my throat, and I would enjoy it, or she was going to uphold my termination--the committee's recommendation, be damned.
(I was starting to realize what Scott Adams was thinking when he created the character "Catbert, evil HR director" for Dilbert.)
The bottom line? Cheryl Locke said she was going to ignore the recommendation of her own committee and uphold my termination. I would be receiving written notice in the mail shortly.
And I am left with these questions:
* Why would UAB insist that I have two unsupported written warnings in my file? What would UAB stand to gain from that? Answer: UAB would have nothing to gain from it. But someone external to UAB would, and they want to see me quietly lured me back to UAB under conditions that would allow me to be fired all over again--in a nice, clean way this time. (Warning: Schnauzers aren't known for going quietly.)
* Why would UAB insist that I return to something other than my old job? Again, what does UAB stand to gain from that? I've already answered that one: They don't want someone spilling the beans about who really is behind my termination. If I remember correctly, UAB has an animal-care facility about 30 or 40 miles from the main campus, in Childersburg or Sylacauga or some such location. They probably would send me to that facility and make me the chief s**t shoveler.
* Why would Cheryl Locke tell me verbally that I would not be allowed to blog anymore if I return to UAB? And make no mistake about it, that's what she said. I have it in my written notes that she was concerned about how a blog would affect my "representation" of UAB. She simply backed down when I asked her to make that statement in writing. If anyone can show how my current blog represents UAB in any way, please let me know. To repeat a question, what would UAB stand to gain from this proposal, given that my blog clearly has nothing to do with the university? Answer: UAB wouldn't gain anything, but someone external to the university would, and that someone still wants to see me out of the blogging business.
A final thought: Being unemployed, when you feel like you should be working, is no fun. Being unemployed when you were cheated out of your job is even less fun. But this firing, in a macabre kind of way, validates what we are doing here at Legal Schnauzer.
If I was some loon, who had his facts messed up and his law mangled, no one would care about it--and I would still have my job. But we are presenting the truth here, and these truths make some folks uncomfortable--so much so that they are willing to take extreme measures to see to it that I lost my job.
I never felt like this blog needed validation from anyone; I knew all along I was on target. But I take some satisfaction that the thugs behind my termination have proven just how on target I really am.
One other side benefit to being unemployed: It has given me more time to truly "research my blog"--on my own time, as I've done it all along. But thanks to UAB, I now have more time to call my own. And we schnauzers like to use our free time wisely.
I've used my free time to uncover some most interesting facts about UAB, some of the people who run it, some people who caused it to make serious missteps, and a justice system that has turned a blind eye to those missteps. I've also uncovered some interesting facts about the GOP power junkies who are riding high these days in Alabama and Mississippi.
Is it possible they won't be riding high for much longer? And does all of this somehow converge in some way that helps explain my termination from UAB?
I think it does. And we will be laying it out in the days ahead.
Is UAB Playing Games With My Termination, Part II?
I expected the outcome of my grievance hearing to be straightforward.
Based on what Employee Relations representative Bobby Barnes said after the hearing, and based on what I read about the PRP procedure in the You & UAB Handbook, I thought the committee would either recommend that the termination be upheld or overturned. And I thought HR director Cheryl Locke would either accept or reject their written recommendation.
Sounds simple. But evidently, someone in the UAB chain of command did not want my case to be simple.
During the July 1 meeting, Locke quickly told me that the committee had recommended that my termination be overturned. Ah, good news.
But that was not all--not by a long shot.
Locke said that I would have to accept having two written warnings in my personnel file as a result of this episode. And I would not be able to return to my old job; I would have to accept an unspecified job, with an unspecified supervisor, with unspecified pay. For good measure, she also told me that I would not be able to blog, period, should I return to UAB. She said she was concerned about my "representation" of UAB.
Given my vague familiarity with this thing we call the First Amendment, this last proviso certainly gave me cause. In fact, the whole thing gave me pause, so I said I needed to think this over, and we rescheduled a second meeting for July 11.
I received nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I thought it would be wise to check back with Locke--to make sure I heard what she said correctly.
The following e-mail was transmitted her way on July 3:
Cheryl:
I needed to check with on a couple of issues regarding the July 1 meeting I had with you (and Anita Bonasera and Bobby Barnes) about my PRP hearing:
* I need to discuss issues from that meeting with a couple of people, and due to the July 4 holiday, those folks are out of pocket. I need to reschedule our followup meeting, which we had set for July 7, to no earlier than July 9 (Wednesday). Most any time that day, or on July 10 or 11, will work for me.
* I was given nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I want to make sure I understand the statements you made in that meeting. I understand the following:
(1) That the employee PRP committee recommended that my termination be overturned;
(2) If I return to UAB, it will be with two written warnings--one from April 2008 and one from June 2008--in my personnel file;
(3) I will not be reinstated to my old job in UAB Publications. If I return to UAB, it would be in an unspecified position, with an unspecified supervisor, at unspecified pay;
(4) No reason was given as to why I could not return to my old job, and I was not informed as to who made that determination;
(5) If I return to UAB, I would not be allowed to continue writing my blog, Legal Schnauzer. I gather I would not be allowed to write any blog at all.
Please confirm that these were the main points presented to me in our July 1 meeting. If you need to add to, or subtract from, any of these, please let me know.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
----------------------------------------------
Here is the reply I received from Ms. Locke on July 3:
Roger,
I understand you wanting to carefully weigh all factors. How about we reschedule the meeting for July 11th at 11:00am? Again I’ve asked Anita and Bobby to be present. Please allow me to provide clarification to your bullet statements:
1. The committee recommended that you be reinstated. The rationale behind their recommendation was simply that they believe that you should be given a written warning in lieu of termination for neglect of duty.
2. You will have two written warnings upon return to UAB.
3. You will be returned to UAB with the same former pay. Based on your two written warnings, my intent is to work with you to provide you with the best opportunity to succeed which is why I have solicited your input on this matter.
4. See #3 above.
5. I did not say that you would not be allowed to write on your personal blog during personal time.
I look forward to talking with you again on July 11th.
Cheryl E.H. Locke
---------------------------------------
This raised my Schnauzer hackles a tad. So I responded with this:
Cheryl:
Thanks for your reply. I've got the new meeting time on my schedule.
Just one note regarding item No. 5. My writing on my blog has been totally on my personal time already. The IT representative who monitored my computer usage testified to that at the hearing. He was asked multiple times, "Did Roger write on his blog, using his UAB computer." Answer: No.
Just for the record, there is no evidence that I conducted research for my blog on UAB time or equipment either. I've not even seen a definition in UAB policy of what constitutes "research" on the Web.
Consider this: If an employee uses his work computer to check the Weather Channel site for the next day's forecast, sees that it's going to be cold, and then wears a coat the next day, is that "research" for his "personal use?" If an employee uses her work computer to check the Target site to see their prices on a possible birthday gift for her daughter, and then goes to the store to buy the gift, is that "research" for her "personal use?"
Should these employees be fired? What percentage of the UAB workforce would be fired under this scenario--80 to 90 percent?
One final thing: While I respect the committee's diligence during the hearing, I wholeheartedly disagree with their apparent finding regarding neglect of duty. In fact, it's not a matter of opinion. I sat through the whole hearing, and there was zero evidence to support a finding that I had neglected my duty. Pam Powell was asked several times to present documentation to support that claim, and I didn't see her provide any. And that's because there isn't any. I know the status of all of my projects, and the day I was placed on administrative leave, they all were on track to be printed on time.
Also, I've heard references to my supposed excessive NWR (non-work related) activity. First of all, how would anyone know whether it was excessive or not when you have a sample size of one? No one else in our group was checked, and those are the people who have similar job descriptions to mine. I wouldn't be surprised if my "NWR" was the lowest in the group. But nobody bothered to check that because I was singled out for investigation and dismissal. Two, the person who made the determination that something was NWR (a term I've never seen defined in any UAB policy) was the same person I had filed a grievance against. Does anyone seriously think she could make an objective determination in this situation?
One final point (I promise): Several references were made in our July 1 meeting to the contents of UAB policy. For example, you noted that the university has a policy that deals specifically with computer use. (I still haven't been able to find that, by the way.) But I think we all can agree on one thing: UAB policy says, in as clear a language as possible, that a UAB employee is to use the grievance process without fear of penalty or reprisal. It's undisputed that I filed a grievance against Pam Powell on April 23. (I think that's the correct date.) Subsequent to that, I suffered the worst penalty a UAB employee can suffer--I was fired. If we are to take the UAB employee as law within our workplace, then by law, I could not be disciplined or terminated once I had filed a grievance against Pam Powell. Therefore, all of the issues involved in my termination (neglect of duty, etc.) could not go before the PRP committee--by law.
The fact that those issues did go before the committee--and the fact I was fired even though I had filed a grievance against the very supervisor who fired me--is a gross abuse of UAB policy. Does UAB policy matter or not? Are UAB employees governed by policy and procedure or the whims of supervisors?
As you can tell, I get wound up on this subject. But I thought it was important for me to share these thoughts.
Roger
------------------------------------
With that on the table, we proceeded to the July 11 meeting
(To be continued)
Based on what Employee Relations representative Bobby Barnes said after the hearing, and based on what I read about the PRP procedure in the You & UAB Handbook, I thought the committee would either recommend that the termination be upheld or overturned. And I thought HR director Cheryl Locke would either accept or reject their written recommendation.
Sounds simple. But evidently, someone in the UAB chain of command did not want my case to be simple.
During the July 1 meeting, Locke quickly told me that the committee had recommended that my termination be overturned. Ah, good news.
But that was not all--not by a long shot.
Locke said that I would have to accept having two written warnings in my personnel file as a result of this episode. And I would not be able to return to my old job; I would have to accept an unspecified job, with an unspecified supervisor, with unspecified pay. For good measure, she also told me that I would not be able to blog, period, should I return to UAB. She said she was concerned about my "representation" of UAB.
Given my vague familiarity with this thing we call the First Amendment, this last proviso certainly gave me cause. In fact, the whole thing gave me pause, so I said I needed to think this over, and we rescheduled a second meeting for July 11.
I received nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I thought it would be wise to check back with Locke--to make sure I heard what she said correctly.
The following e-mail was transmitted her way on July 3:
Cheryl:
I needed to check with on a couple of issues regarding the July 1 meeting I had with you (and Anita Bonasera and Bobby Barnes) about my PRP hearing:
* I need to discuss issues from that meeting with a couple of people, and due to the July 4 holiday, those folks are out of pocket. I need to reschedule our followup meeting, which we had set for July 7, to no earlier than July 9 (Wednesday). Most any time that day, or on July 10 or 11, will work for me.
* I was given nothing in writing at the July 1 meeting, so I want to make sure I understand the statements you made in that meeting. I understand the following:
(1) That the employee PRP committee recommended that my termination be overturned;
(2) If I return to UAB, it will be with two written warnings--one from April 2008 and one from June 2008--in my personnel file;
(3) I will not be reinstated to my old job in UAB Publications. If I return to UAB, it would be in an unspecified position, with an unspecified supervisor, at unspecified pay;
(4) No reason was given as to why I could not return to my old job, and I was not informed as to who made that determination;
(5) If I return to UAB, I would not be allowed to continue writing my blog, Legal Schnauzer. I gather I would not be allowed to write any blog at all.
Please confirm that these were the main points presented to me in our July 1 meeting. If you need to add to, or subtract from, any of these, please let me know.
Thank you,
Roger Shuler
----------------------------------------------
Here is the reply I received from Ms. Locke on July 3:
Roger,
I understand you wanting to carefully weigh all factors. How about we reschedule the meeting for July 11th at 11:00am? Again I’ve asked Anita and Bobby to be present. Please allow me to provide clarification to your bullet statements:
1. The committee recommended that you be reinstated. The rationale behind their recommendation was simply that they believe that you should be given a written warning in lieu of termination for neglect of duty.
2. You will have two written warnings upon return to UAB.
3. You will be returned to UAB with the same former pay. Based on your two written warnings, my intent is to work with you to provide you with the best opportunity to succeed which is why I have solicited your input on this matter.
4. See #3 above.
5. I did not say that you would not be allowed to write on your personal blog during personal time.
I look forward to talking with you again on July 11th.
Cheryl E.H. Locke
---------------------------------------
This raised my Schnauzer hackles a tad. So I responded with this:
Cheryl:
Thanks for your reply. I've got the new meeting time on my schedule.
Just one note regarding item No. 5. My writing on my blog has been totally on my personal time already. The IT representative who monitored my computer usage testified to that at the hearing. He was asked multiple times, "Did Roger write on his blog, using his UAB computer." Answer: No.
Just for the record, there is no evidence that I conducted research for my blog on UAB time or equipment either. I've not even seen a definition in UAB policy of what constitutes "research" on the Web.
Consider this: If an employee uses his work computer to check the Weather Channel site for the next day's forecast, sees that it's going to be cold, and then wears a coat the next day, is that "research" for his "personal use?" If an employee uses her work computer to check the Target site to see their prices on a possible birthday gift for her daughter, and then goes to the store to buy the gift, is that "research" for her "personal use?"
Should these employees be fired? What percentage of the UAB workforce would be fired under this scenario--80 to 90 percent?
One final thing: While I respect the committee's diligence during the hearing, I wholeheartedly disagree with their apparent finding regarding neglect of duty. In fact, it's not a matter of opinion. I sat through the whole hearing, and there was zero evidence to support a finding that I had neglected my duty. Pam Powell was asked several times to present documentation to support that claim, and I didn't see her provide any. And that's because there isn't any. I know the status of all of my projects, and the day I was placed on administrative leave, they all were on track to be printed on time.
Also, I've heard references to my supposed excessive NWR (non-work related) activity. First of all, how would anyone know whether it was excessive or not when you have a sample size of one? No one else in our group was checked, and those are the people who have similar job descriptions to mine. I wouldn't be surprised if my "NWR" was the lowest in the group. But nobody bothered to check that because I was singled out for investigation and dismissal. Two, the person who made the determination that something was NWR (a term I've never seen defined in any UAB policy) was the same person I had filed a grievance against. Does anyone seriously think she could make an objective determination in this situation?
One final point (I promise): Several references were made in our July 1 meeting to the contents of UAB policy. For example, you noted that the university has a policy that deals specifically with computer use. (I still haven't been able to find that, by the way.) But I think we all can agree on one thing: UAB policy says, in as clear a language as possible, that a UAB employee is to use the grievance process without fear of penalty or reprisal. It's undisputed that I filed a grievance against Pam Powell on April 23. (I think that's the correct date.) Subsequent to that, I suffered the worst penalty a UAB employee can suffer--I was fired. If we are to take the UAB employee as law within our workplace, then by law, I could not be disciplined or terminated once I had filed a grievance against Pam Powell. Therefore, all of the issues involved in my termination (neglect of duty, etc.) could not go before the PRP committee--by law.
The fact that those issues did go before the committee--and the fact I was fired even though I had filed a grievance against the very supervisor who fired me--is a gross abuse of UAB policy. Does UAB policy matter or not? Are UAB employees governed by policy and procedure or the whims of supervisors?
As you can tell, I get wound up on this subject. But I thought it was important for me to share these thoughts.
Roger
------------------------------------
With that on the table, we proceeded to the July 11 meeting
(To be continued)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Peter B. Collins interview
I just discovered that my interview yesterday with Peter B. Collins is now available on the Web.
Peter's show is based at KKGN, Green 960 in San Francisco, and you can find his podcasts on the station's Web site. Scroll down to the third segment for Tuesday (7/15), which is Hour 1. Click on "listen," and my segment begins about halfway through that podcast.
I get the impression that Peter B. does not yet have the audience of some other progressive radio hosts. But I was very impressed with him. He's an excellent interviewer, and his show has a nice mix of the serious and the funny.
Really enjoyed my time with him, and I hope my little segment will help spread the word about his program.
And for those of us in Alabama, what can we do to get Peter B. on the actual radio here, with sponsors and the whole works?
Peter's show is based at KKGN, Green 960 in San Francisco, and you can find his podcasts on the station's Web site. Scroll down to the third segment for Tuesday (7/15), which is Hour 1. Click on "listen," and my segment begins about halfway through that podcast.
I get the impression that Peter B. does not yet have the audience of some other progressive radio hosts. But I was very impressed with him. He's an excellent interviewer, and his show has a nice mix of the serious and the funny.
Really enjoyed my time with him, and I hope my little segment will help spread the word about his program.
And for those of us in Alabama, what can we do to get Peter B. on the actual radio here, with sponsors and the whole works?
Is UAB Playing Games With My Termination?
A number of folks have asked about the outcome of the July 11 meeting Lindsey Beyerstein referenced near the end of her Raw Story article about my termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
The meeting was with Cheryl Locke, director of human resources at UAB, and it also included Anita Bonasera and Bobby Barnes, from UAB Employee Relations. I want to update readers on where my situation stands with UAB.
But first, a little background: UAB has what's called a Problem Resolution Procedure (PRP), which is administered by Employee Relations. A number of employment-related issues, such as a termination and a written warning, can be reviewed by a PRP committee.
My PRP hearing was held on June 25, and contrary to UAB policy, it included two grievances rolled into one. I filed my first grievance, on April 22, in response to a written warning I had received from my supervisor, Pam Powell. This complaint also included a number of instances of harassment I had experienced under Powell over about a five-month period, beginning in December 2007.
UAB policy clearly states that an employee is to use the PRP/grievance process without fear of penalty or reprisal. So by rule, my grievance hearing should have been held probably in early May, and I should not have been subject to any negative consequences from that point on--at least not regarding anything that happened in that five-month period.
Instead, UAB ignored its own policy and, while I had a pending grievance, placed me on administrative leave in early May and then fired me on May 19. Again ignoring its own policies, UAB folded my grievance regarding Powell's behavior into my grievance about my termination.
UAB's PRP procedure is not held in a court of law. But in legal terms, I was prejudiced in myriad ways by the university's refusal to follow its own policies. I clearly faced a penalty and reprisal (termination) subsequent to filing a grievance. And when it was time for my termination grievance to be heard, the waters were muddied by having another grievance included--one that should have been heard more than a month earlier.
Here's how the PRP procedure works: A panel of three fellow employees--I picked their names randomly by drawing pieces of paper out of an envelope--is chosen to hear the grievance. The grievant, the grievant's supervisor, and an Employee Relations representative are present throughout the hearing.
Pam Powell and I gave opening and closing statements, and we each faced some pretty intense questioning from the committee. The committee determines other witnesses that will be heard, and in my case, that included three people--Dale Turnbough, associate vice president over the Publiations Office and the person who signed my termination letter; Janice Ward, our departmental HR representative; and Sean Maher, a UAB information-technology specialist who had been asked to monitor my computer usage at work.
When the hearing was over, I was told that the committee would made a recommendation to Cheryl Locke, and she could either accept or reject it. If Locke ruled in my favor, the department would have no recourse. If Locke ruled against me, I could appeal to UAB president Carol Garrison, and her decision would be final.
I was told that I would receive written notice of Locke's decision in the mail, probably within about a week.
Instead, I received a phone call (I believe it was the day after the hearing) saying that Locke wanted to meet with me (with Bonasera and Barnes also present) on July 1.
That meeting proved to be a classic "good news-bad news" event. It also raised serious questions about UAB's motives in my case.
(To be continued)
The meeting was with Cheryl Locke, director of human resources at UAB, and it also included Anita Bonasera and Bobby Barnes, from UAB Employee Relations. I want to update readers on where my situation stands with UAB.
But first, a little background: UAB has what's called a Problem Resolution Procedure (PRP), which is administered by Employee Relations. A number of employment-related issues, such as a termination and a written warning, can be reviewed by a PRP committee.
My PRP hearing was held on June 25, and contrary to UAB policy, it included two grievances rolled into one. I filed my first grievance, on April 22, in response to a written warning I had received from my supervisor, Pam Powell. This complaint also included a number of instances of harassment I had experienced under Powell over about a five-month period, beginning in December 2007.
UAB policy clearly states that an employee is to use the PRP/grievance process without fear of penalty or reprisal. So by rule, my grievance hearing should have been held probably in early May, and I should not have been subject to any negative consequences from that point on--at least not regarding anything that happened in that five-month period.
Instead, UAB ignored its own policy and, while I had a pending grievance, placed me on administrative leave in early May and then fired me on May 19. Again ignoring its own policies, UAB folded my grievance regarding Powell's behavior into my grievance about my termination.
UAB's PRP procedure is not held in a court of law. But in legal terms, I was prejudiced in myriad ways by the university's refusal to follow its own policies. I clearly faced a penalty and reprisal (termination) subsequent to filing a grievance. And when it was time for my termination grievance to be heard, the waters were muddied by having another grievance included--one that should have been heard more than a month earlier.
Here's how the PRP procedure works: A panel of three fellow employees--I picked their names randomly by drawing pieces of paper out of an envelope--is chosen to hear the grievance. The grievant, the grievant's supervisor, and an Employee Relations representative are present throughout the hearing.
Pam Powell and I gave opening and closing statements, and we each faced some pretty intense questioning from the committee. The committee determines other witnesses that will be heard, and in my case, that included three people--Dale Turnbough, associate vice president over the Publiations Office and the person who signed my termination letter; Janice Ward, our departmental HR representative; and Sean Maher, a UAB information-technology specialist who had been asked to monitor my computer usage at work.
When the hearing was over, I was told that the committee would made a recommendation to Cheryl Locke, and she could either accept or reject it. If Locke ruled in my favor, the department would have no recourse. If Locke ruled against me, I could appeal to UAB president Carol Garrison, and her decision would be final.
I was told that I would receive written notice of Locke's decision in the mail, probably within about a week.
Instead, I received a phone call (I believe it was the day after the hearing) saying that Locke wanted to meet with me (with Bonasera and Barnes also present) on July 1.
That meeting proved to be a classic "good news-bad news" event. It also raised serious questions about UAB's motives in my case.
(To be continued)
Hey Alabama, Progressive Radio Exists!
You might have to go to Oregon or California to find its physical location, but progressive radio does speak loud and clear. And thanks to the wonders of the Web, even those of us who live in Karl Rove's Alabama can listen to insightful folks like Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins.
I was honored to be on both shows yesterday, and it was refreshing to drink deeply from the progressive cup.
After partaking in the Hartmann and Collins shows, and being interviewed in depth by the very sharp and talented Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story, I have renewed hope for our democracy. And I'm deeply appreciative for the many messages of support I've received from readers and listeners both near and far.
The Hartmann segment was about seven minutes, and since I was able to get word out about that pretty well in advance, I think a lot of people got to listen to it. For those who missed it, you can listen to a tape of the program's third hour here by going to 7/15/08 and clicking on "listen" for Hour 3. Author Naomi Klein (Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) starts off the hour, and I come in at about the 15-minute mark.
I didn't find out about the possibility of an appearance on the Peter B. Collins Show until late yesterday afternoon, so was not able to let many folks know about it. Collins is an excellent interviewer, and I was impressed how well read he was on all aspects of the Alabama/Siegelman/Bush Justice Department story. His segment with me lasted about 30 minutes, and I got a kick out of his "bumper music" for my slot--"Take This Job and Shove It" by Johnny Paycheck and "The South's Gonna Do It Again" by Charlie Daniels. Collins' show is a nice mix of the serious and the humorous, and I encourage Legal Schnauzer readers to check it out on a regular basis.
You can find information about the Peter B. Collins Show at his Web site. The site has an archives, and it looks like the July 15 segment will be available in three or four days. I will alert folks when the Schnauzer segment appears.
A few highlights that come to mind from the Collins interview:
* Collins asked if I thought the key to breaking the Justice Department scandal lies in Alabama--I said I thought that was possible. I noted the state's importance because of Karl Rove's activities here in the 1990s, turning our state appellate courts from Democratic control to Republican control. I also noted Rove's strong ties to Mississippi, where the Paul Minor case has been a highly questionable prosecution. I pointed out that it's probably not an accident that an Alabama native, Scott Horton of Harper's magazine, has played a critical role in bringing the scandal to public awareness. And I noted the importance of Raw Story, which has had more than one reporter spend considerable time in Alabama and Mississippi.
* Collins asked if I thought people should be hopeful that justice ultimately will be served--I admitted that I sometimes get blue about the thought that GOP rascals will get away with their crimes. But I told him that a contact of mine, a Birmingham-area attorney who has a strong understanding of how the Justice Department works, recently gave me hope. My contact said he thinks that come about August, career employees in the Justice Department will see that a new administration (hopefully Obama's) soon will be coming on board. At about that point, my contact says, career employees will see that it is in their best interest to point out wrongdoing rather than to help cover it up. So this fall could be a key time for the scandal to truly unfold. We might not know about it until well into 2009 or beyond, but my contact thinks August/September/October of 2008 will be a critical time.
I was honored to be on both shows yesterday, and it was refreshing to drink deeply from the progressive cup.
After partaking in the Hartmann and Collins shows, and being interviewed in depth by the very sharp and talented Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story, I have renewed hope for our democracy. And I'm deeply appreciative for the many messages of support I've received from readers and listeners both near and far.
The Hartmann segment was about seven minutes, and since I was able to get word out about that pretty well in advance, I think a lot of people got to listen to it. For those who missed it, you can listen to a tape of the program's third hour here by going to 7/15/08 and clicking on "listen" for Hour 3. Author Naomi Klein (Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism) starts off the hour, and I come in at about the 15-minute mark.
I didn't find out about the possibility of an appearance on the Peter B. Collins Show until late yesterday afternoon, so was not able to let many folks know about it. Collins is an excellent interviewer, and I was impressed how well read he was on all aspects of the Alabama/Siegelman/Bush Justice Department story. His segment with me lasted about 30 minutes, and I got a kick out of his "bumper music" for my slot--"Take This Job and Shove It" by Johnny Paycheck and "The South's Gonna Do It Again" by Charlie Daniels. Collins' show is a nice mix of the serious and the humorous, and I encourage Legal Schnauzer readers to check it out on a regular basis.
You can find information about the Peter B. Collins Show at his Web site. The site has an archives, and it looks like the July 15 segment will be available in three or four days. I will alert folks when the Schnauzer segment appears.
A few highlights that come to mind from the Collins interview:
* Collins asked if I thought the key to breaking the Justice Department scandal lies in Alabama--I said I thought that was possible. I noted the state's importance because of Karl Rove's activities here in the 1990s, turning our state appellate courts from Democratic control to Republican control. I also noted Rove's strong ties to Mississippi, where the Paul Minor case has been a highly questionable prosecution. I pointed out that it's probably not an accident that an Alabama native, Scott Horton of Harper's magazine, has played a critical role in bringing the scandal to public awareness. And I noted the importance of Raw Story, which has had more than one reporter spend considerable time in Alabama and Mississippi.
* Collins asked if I thought people should be hopeful that justice ultimately will be served--I admitted that I sometimes get blue about the thought that GOP rascals will get away with their crimes. But I told him that a contact of mine, a Birmingham-area attorney who has a strong understanding of how the Justice Department works, recently gave me hope. My contact said he thinks that come about August, career employees in the Justice Department will see that a new administration (hopefully Obama's) soon will be coming on board. At about that point, my contact says, career employees will see that it is in their best interest to point out wrongdoing rather than to help cover it up. So this fall could be a key time for the scandal to truly unfold. We might not know about it until well into 2009 or beyond, but my contact thinks August/September/October of 2008 will be a critical time.
Can Anything Kill This Radio Star?
Mrs. Schnauzer isn't sure she likes being married to a radio star.
Thanks to the power of Raw Story's article about my termination at UAB, I appeared on both the Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins shows yesterday. It's possible this "radio star" gig is going to my head.
"Don't you think you need to take out the trash?" Mrs. Schnauzer said, after I had hung up last evening with my new friend Peter B.
"Can't, babe," I said. "Got to check my bookings for tomorrow."
I think my wife's eyes are still rolling.
I probably used up more than my allotted 15 minutes of fame--all in one day!--so I'm due to head back to earth pretty soon.
But I must admit that I'm enjoying my time on the progressive radio circuit. For you guys out there, I'm learning one of the benefits of being a liberal/progressive: The radio shows tend to have female producers who sound great, seem smart, and I'm guessing they look pretty nice, too.
In fact, I regaled Mrs. Schnauzer last night with tales about my new best friends, Shawn Taylor (producer for Thom Hartmann) and Katrina Rill (producer for Peter B. Collins).
"I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what babes Shawn and Katrina are," Mrs. Schnauzer said.
"But if a woman is named Shawn or Katrina, and she lives on the West Coast, and works in progressive radio, don't you think she has to be a babe?" I said. "Isn't there a federal law about that?"
"Maybe I need to figure out a way to turn you into a conservative. Ann Coulter looks like a skeleton with a blonde wig. And Laura Ingraham always looks like she's got a bad case of indigestion. You wouldn't be calling them babes."
"You've got that right. Hey, maybe this is what Democrats need to do to appeal to all those middle-class white guys who automatically vote Republican. Come up with a slogan like 'Become a Progressive: That's where all the smart, hot babes are.' You know, something that appeals to a guy's core instincts."
"There's only one problem with your plan," my wife said. "Too many of these 'conservative' guys have core instincts that appeal to Troy King."
Thanks to the power of Raw Story's article about my termination at UAB, I appeared on both the Thom Hartmann and Peter B. Collins shows yesterday. It's possible this "radio star" gig is going to my head.
"Don't you think you need to take out the trash?" Mrs. Schnauzer said, after I had hung up last evening with my new friend Peter B.
"Can't, babe," I said. "Got to check my bookings for tomorrow."
I think my wife's eyes are still rolling.
I probably used up more than my allotted 15 minutes of fame--all in one day!--so I'm due to head back to earth pretty soon.
But I must admit that I'm enjoying my time on the progressive radio circuit. For you guys out there, I'm learning one of the benefits of being a liberal/progressive: The radio shows tend to have female producers who sound great, seem smart, and I'm guessing they look pretty nice, too.
In fact, I regaled Mrs. Schnauzer last night with tales about my new best friends, Shawn Taylor (producer for Thom Hartmann) and Katrina Rill (producer for Peter B. Collins).
"I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what babes Shawn and Katrina are," Mrs. Schnauzer said.
"But if a woman is named Shawn or Katrina, and she lives on the West Coast, and works in progressive radio, don't you think she has to be a babe?" I said. "Isn't there a federal law about that?"
"Maybe I need to figure out a way to turn you into a conservative. Ann Coulter looks like a skeleton with a blonde wig. And Laura Ingraham always looks like she's got a bad case of indigestion. You wouldn't be calling them babes."
"You've got that right. Hey, maybe this is what Democrats need to do to appeal to all those middle-class white guys who automatically vote Republican. Come up with a slogan like 'Become a Progressive: That's where all the smart, hot babes are.' You know, something that appeals to a guy's core instincts."
"There's only one problem with your plan," my wife said. "Too many of these 'conservative' guys have core instincts that appeal to Troy King."
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Talkin' 'Bout My Termination
I've finally discovered a benefit to being wrongfully fired. It can turn you into a media "star."
Well, not really a star. But by golly, when Raw Story writes about you, people pay attention.
I was honored to appear today on the Thom Hartmann Show. And I'm due to be on the Peter B. Collins Show this evening. As I write this, that interview should be at 5:30, Central time. Peter B. is based on the Left Coast.
I've become a regular contributor at OpEd News, and I posted a piece with the latest information about my termination from UAB. The link is here.
Copy for the OpEd News pieces follows:
Writing About Siegelman Case Costs Alabama Blogger his Job
Roger Shuler, who writes the blog Legal Schnauzer, has been fired from his job as an editor in the Publications Office at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
Shuler, who had worked at UAB for 19 years, apparently was terminated because he wrote critically about the Bush Justice Department, especially its handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Lindsay Beyerstein, a reporter for the Raw Story Web site, broke the story with a major investigative piece.
Shuler had recently posted a series of original investigative pieces about Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and a Bush appointee. Martin is the federal prosecutor who first went after Siegelman, in a case that was so weak a federal judge in Birmingham quickly kicked it out of court. Siegelman was eventually convicted in a case brought in Montgomery by Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.
Shuler's posts showed that while Martin evidently is eager to prosecute Siegelman and other Democrats, she drags her feet and even intentionally hides evidence when presented with possible wrongdoing by Republicans. In fact, Shuler's primary allegation against Republican judges in Alabama involved honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346), the offense that made up roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and about half of the charges in the Paul Minor case.
Siegelman's case has received heavy press coverage, including a piece by 60 Minutes, as a possible example of political prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. The Siegelman case, along with questionable prosecutions in Mississippi (Paul Minor), Pennsylvania (Cyril Wecht), and Wisconsin (Georgia Thompson), is the subject of an ongoing Congressional investigation.
Shuler's critical coverage of Alice Martin appears to be particularly significant in his termination at UAB. Alabama GOP political consultant Dax Swatek served as Martin's campaign manager when she ran (and lost) for statewide office in 2000. Dax Swatek's father is Pelham, Alabama, attorney William Swatek, who filed a baseless lawsuit against Shuler that led to rampant judicial corruption in Shelby County, Alabama and the state's GOP-dominated appellate courts.
Shuler started Legal Schnauzer primarily as an effort to expose the corruption he had witnessed in Alabama state courts. When the firings of nine U.S. attorneys became national news in the winter and spring of 2007, Shuler realized his personal experience had connections to larger justice issues. That prompted him to write critically about the Bush Justice Department, and that evidently has cost him his job.
People on the opposing side in Shuler's personal legal case have direct ties to the Bush White House. Dax Swatek has worked for Bill Canary, the Republican operative who was quoted by whistleblower Jill Simpson as saying "his girls" (Alice Martin and Leura Canary, Bill's wife) would "take care of" Don Siegelman. Bill Canary, in turn, has close ties to Karl Rove, and the two teamed in the 1990s to lead a Republican takeover of Alabama state courts.
Shuler recently uncovered evidence that Dax Swatek has close ties to a member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which oversees UAB along with campuses in Tuscaloosa and Huntsville. Shuler also has uncovered details about a massive research-fraud case at UAB, which was settled in 2005 and resulted in the university paying $3.39 million in civil damages.
That case involved two UAB whistleblowers who eventually led the government to open what is called a qui tam case. After a four-year investigation, the case was settled, but an agreement gives Martin and the U.S. attorney's office almost unlimited power to reopen the case at any time. Essentially, Martin and federal authorities hold ongoing power to investigate UAB for possible criminal, civil, and administrative wrongs connected to the whistleblower case.
In the coming days and weeks, Legal Schnauzer will present a series of reports about Dax Swatek, the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, the research-fraud whistleblower case, and their possible impact on Shuler's termination.
The primary charge against Shuler at UAB was that he allegedly had made improper use of his university computer. An internal UAB investigation, however, showed that Shuler never had written on his blog using university time or equipment. UAB officials maintain that Shuler "researched" his blog while on UAB time. But Shuler states that keeping up with current events and issues in Alabama, such as the Siegelman case, was part of his job description.
"We are responsible for keeping a file of story ideas for our some 20 UAB publications," Shuler says. "Over a period of roughly two years, the Siegelman case was the biggest story in Alabama. As a former governor, Siegelman was once ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And his codefendant, Richard Scrushy, is UAB's best known alumnus. I would have been shirking my duty by not keeping up with that case."
Shuler has appealed his termination, and an internal employee grievance committee has ruled that his firing should be overturned. Cheryl Locke, UAB's director of human resources, has told Shuler that he can only return to UAB with two written warnings in his file and to a job other than the one he held previously.
Those terms are unacceptable, Shuler says, particularly because UAB policy calls for automatic dismissal if an employee receives three written warnings in an 18-month period of time. "Ms. Locke's proposal to me was not made in good faith," Shuler says. "They are setting me up to be fired all over again.I'm sure they would want me to sign away all of the legal rights I currently have for a termination they admit was wrongful. That tells me that powerful political players, external to UAB, are behind this effort to cost me my job."
Evidence suggests a plan to cost Shuler his job has been going on for some time. In a post dated February 18, 2008, Shuler wrote in detail about connections between Alice Martin and Dax Swatek, including some questionable tactics they employed in Martin's 2000 campaign for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Shuler also wrote about Swatek's ties to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. An anonymous comment to the February 18 post states: "Nut case yours (sic) is comong (sic)."
Since that time, Shuler has received a steady stream of threatening anonymous comments on his blog. One indicated that the commenter knew the last four digits of Shuler's Social Security Number, hinting that he or she intended to use that information in unlawful ways. A comment to a post dated April 14, 2008 specifically threatened Shuler's job at UAB, even though Shuler had never identified himself as a UAB employee. The commenter claimed that Shuler had been blogging at work. In fact, on the day in question (a Monday), Shuler was on vacation.
Shuler says his experience is an example of what can happen to regular people when they stand up to the corrupt Bush Justice Department.
"Essentially, I was fired for doing my job," Shuler says, "and for violating policies involving so-called 'non-work related activity' that don't exist. UAB does have a policy against using university equipment for political activities. But that is defined as actions that involve a political candidate, campaign, or organization. Don Siegelman has been none of those things during the time I've written about him; he's mostly been a federal prisoner. And, as UAB's own investigation showed, I wrote about him on my own time, with my own resources.
"When Cheryl Locke first made her proposal to me about overturning my termination, she included a provision that I would no longer be able to blog should I return to UAB. When I asked her via e-mail to confirm that in writing, she backed down and said only that I would have to blog on my personal time.
"That's strange because UAB's own investigation showed that I already was blogging on my personal time. Such nonsensical statements from UAB officials tell me they are trying to cover up for someone who has pressured them to violate federal law."
Well, not really a star. But by golly, when Raw Story writes about you, people pay attention.
I was honored to appear today on the Thom Hartmann Show. And I'm due to be on the Peter B. Collins Show this evening. As I write this, that interview should be at 5:30, Central time. Peter B. is based on the Left Coast.
I've become a regular contributor at OpEd News, and I posted a piece with the latest information about my termination from UAB. The link is here.
Copy for the OpEd News pieces follows:
Writing About Siegelman Case Costs Alabama Blogger his Job
Roger Shuler, who writes the blog Legal Schnauzer, has been fired from his job as an editor in the Publications Office at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
Shuler, who had worked at UAB for 19 years, apparently was terminated because he wrote critically about the Bush Justice Department, especially its handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.
Lindsay Beyerstein, a reporter for the Raw Story Web site, broke the story with a major investigative piece.
Shuler had recently posted a series of original investigative pieces about Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and a Bush appointee. Martin is the federal prosecutor who first went after Siegelman, in a case that was so weak a federal judge in Birmingham quickly kicked it out of court. Siegelman was eventually convicted in a case brought in Montgomery by Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.
Shuler's posts showed that while Martin evidently is eager to prosecute Siegelman and other Democrats, she drags her feet and even intentionally hides evidence when presented with possible wrongdoing by Republicans. In fact, Shuler's primary allegation against Republican judges in Alabama involved honest-services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346), the offense that made up roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and about half of the charges in the Paul Minor case.
Siegelman's case has received heavy press coverage, including a piece by 60 Minutes, as a possible example of political prosecution by the Bush Justice Department. The Siegelman case, along with questionable prosecutions in Mississippi (Paul Minor), Pennsylvania (Cyril Wecht), and Wisconsin (Georgia Thompson), is the subject of an ongoing Congressional investigation.
Shuler's critical coverage of Alice Martin appears to be particularly significant in his termination at UAB. Alabama GOP political consultant Dax Swatek served as Martin's campaign manager when she ran (and lost) for statewide office in 2000. Dax Swatek's father is Pelham, Alabama, attorney William Swatek, who filed a baseless lawsuit against Shuler that led to rampant judicial corruption in Shelby County, Alabama and the state's GOP-dominated appellate courts.
Shuler started Legal Schnauzer primarily as an effort to expose the corruption he had witnessed in Alabama state courts. When the firings of nine U.S. attorneys became national news in the winter and spring of 2007, Shuler realized his personal experience had connections to larger justice issues. That prompted him to write critically about the Bush Justice Department, and that evidently has cost him his job.
People on the opposing side in Shuler's personal legal case have direct ties to the Bush White House. Dax Swatek has worked for Bill Canary, the Republican operative who was quoted by whistleblower Jill Simpson as saying "his girls" (Alice Martin and Leura Canary, Bill's wife) would "take care of" Don Siegelman. Bill Canary, in turn, has close ties to Karl Rove, and the two teamed in the 1990s to lead a Republican takeover of Alabama state courts.
Shuler recently uncovered evidence that Dax Swatek has close ties to a member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which oversees UAB along with campuses in Tuscaloosa and Huntsville. Shuler also has uncovered details about a massive research-fraud case at UAB, which was settled in 2005 and resulted in the university paying $3.39 million in civil damages.
That case involved two UAB whistleblowers who eventually led the government to open what is called a qui tam case. After a four-year investigation, the case was settled, but an agreement gives Martin and the U.S. attorney's office almost unlimited power to reopen the case at any time. Essentially, Martin and federal authorities hold ongoing power to investigate UAB for possible criminal, civil, and administrative wrongs connected to the whistleblower case.
In the coming days and weeks, Legal Schnauzer will present a series of reports about Dax Swatek, the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, the research-fraud whistleblower case, and their possible impact on Shuler's termination.
The primary charge against Shuler at UAB was that he allegedly had made improper use of his university computer. An internal UAB investigation, however, showed that Shuler never had written on his blog using university time or equipment. UAB officials maintain that Shuler "researched" his blog while on UAB time. But Shuler states that keeping up with current events and issues in Alabama, such as the Siegelman case, was part of his job description.
"We are responsible for keeping a file of story ideas for our some 20 UAB publications," Shuler says. "Over a period of roughly two years, the Siegelman case was the biggest story in Alabama. As a former governor, Siegelman was once ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And his codefendant, Richard Scrushy, is UAB's best known alumnus. I would have been shirking my duty by not keeping up with that case."
Shuler has appealed his termination, and an internal employee grievance committee has ruled that his firing should be overturned. Cheryl Locke, UAB's director of human resources, has told Shuler that he can only return to UAB with two written warnings in his file and to a job other than the one he held previously.
Those terms are unacceptable, Shuler says, particularly because UAB policy calls for automatic dismissal if an employee receives three written warnings in an 18-month period of time. "Ms. Locke's proposal to me was not made in good faith," Shuler says. "They are setting me up to be fired all over again.I'm sure they would want me to sign away all of the legal rights I currently have for a termination they admit was wrongful. That tells me that powerful political players, external to UAB, are behind this effort to cost me my job."
Evidence suggests a plan to cost Shuler his job has been going on for some time. In a post dated February 18, 2008, Shuler wrote in detail about connections between Alice Martin and Dax Swatek, including some questionable tactics they employed in Martin's 2000 campaign for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Shuler also wrote about Swatek's ties to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. An anonymous comment to the February 18 post states: "Nut case yours (sic) is comong (sic)."
Since that time, Shuler has received a steady stream of threatening anonymous comments on his blog. One indicated that the commenter knew the last four digits of Shuler's Social Security Number, hinting that he or she intended to use that information in unlawful ways. A comment to a post dated April 14, 2008 specifically threatened Shuler's job at UAB, even though Shuler had never identified himself as a UAB employee. The commenter claimed that Shuler had been blogging at work. In fact, on the day in question (a Monday), Shuler was on vacation.
Shuler says his experience is an example of what can happen to regular people when they stand up to the corrupt Bush Justice Department.
"Essentially, I was fired for doing my job," Shuler says, "and for violating policies involving so-called 'non-work related activity' that don't exist. UAB does have a policy against using university equipment for political activities. But that is defined as actions that involve a political candidate, campaign, or organization. Don Siegelman has been none of those things during the time I've written about him; he's mostly been a federal prisoner. And, as UAB's own investigation showed, I wrote about him on my own time, with my own resources.
"When Cheryl Locke first made her proposal to me about overturning my termination, she included a provision that I would no longer be able to blog should I return to UAB. When I asked her via e-mail to confirm that in writing, she backed down and said only that I would have to blog on my personal time.
"That's strange because UAB's own investigation showed that I already was blogging on my personal time. Such nonsensical statements from UAB officials tell me they are trying to cover up for someone who has pressured them to violate federal law."
Update on Hartmann Show
I just received word from Shawn Taylor, producer for the Thom Hartmann program, that I will be on at 1:15 p.m., Central time, today. Was originally set for 11 a.m. I will be part of the third hour, focusing on "Gestapo Government," a subject I am well acquainted with. I will be following an interview with author Naomi Klein ("Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism")
Monday, July 14, 2008
Schnauzer Will Be on Thom Hartmann Show
I will be on Thom Hartmann's nationally syndicated radio show at 11 a.m. on Tuesday (July 15) to discuss my recent termination at UAB.
You can watch the show live by going to the Thom Hartmann Web site and clicking on the ThomVision icon near the top of the page.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has been a guest on Hartmann's show several times in recent weeks.
Hartmann is a New York Times best-selling author and has won Project Censored Awards four times for his investigative reporting.
More people listen daily to the Hartmann program than any other progressive talk show in the nation.
Here is information about affiliates that carry the Hartmann program.
You can watch the show live by going to the Thom Hartmann Web site and clicking on the ThomVision icon near the top of the page.
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has been a guest on Hartmann's show several times in recent weeks.
Hartmann is a New York Times best-selling author and has won Project Censored Awards four times for his investigative reporting.
More people listen daily to the Hartmann program than any other progressive talk show in the nation.
Here is information about affiliates that carry the Hartmann program.
Chronicle of Higher Education Picks up on UAB Termination Story
In the world of higher education, there is no more important publication than the Chronicle of Higher Education.
It is to academia what Editor & Publisher is to journalism--except that, having worked in both industries, I would say the Chronicle is more revered than E&P. And that's saying something.
The news of my termination at UAB has made it to the premier publication in the field of higher ed.
The Chronicle, picking up on Raw Story's breaking article from last Friday, reports:
The editor, Roger Shuler, worked at the university for 19 years, including the last 12 as an editor in the publications office. He was fired in May after placing a written request for vacation time on his boss’s chair instead of handing it directly to her, he says. After the boss reprimanded him for that act, and Mr. Shuler complained about the reprimand, he says, the university investigated his use of his university computer and contended he was spending three hours a day on research for his blog. And for that, the university fired him.
But Mr. Shuler denies he was using university time to conduct research or to write material for his blog, Legal Schnauzer, and says that as an editor at the university he must keep up with news in the state. He believes the reprimand for his vacation request and the investigation of his computer use were attempts to punish him for using his blog to criticize the Republican U.S. attorneys in the state.
In particular, Mr. Shuler’s blog has defended Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor who has been prosecuted by one of the U.S. attorneys with close ties to the White House. On his blog, Mr. Shuler has questioned whether another Republican U.S. attorney in Alabama is “corrupt and racist.”
I found the comments to be most enlightening--and entertaining. I'm sure most, if not all, come from colleagues (former colleagues, I guess) in higher ed. A sampler:
Any time there was a firing over leaving a written request on a chair instead of handing it to someone, you KNOW there is a problem. That’s the kind of thing that only happens at a university when there’s bad blood and more to the story.
----------------------------------
Of course we see many times where universities are slack on all these things until they want to get rid of someone then all of a sudden it is a huge problem.
----------------------------------
If the facts as presented by the person who fired him are correct, then it showed that he read the news online during the day—which would mean 95% of academia would be fired. Considering that the appeals committee overturned his firing, it sounds like the facts were actually on his side.
----------------------------------
Uh-oh, am I going to get busted for checking the Chronicle during office hours? I had better go!
----------------------------------
I am a graduate of UAB and am familiar with various complaints from employees about the unprofessional, dictatorial behavior of many managers at the school. The school has lost & will continue to lose many of the best & brightest because of this mentality. Perhaps the actions presented above do not differ significantly from other state Universities; however, the lawsuit brought here is one in many that I am familiar with at the University across several departments. That is what is disturbing.
Chronicle reporter Robin Wilson concludes:
The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.
It is to academia what Editor & Publisher is to journalism--except that, having worked in both industries, I would say the Chronicle is more revered than E&P. And that's saying something.
The news of my termination at UAB has made it to the premier publication in the field of higher ed.
The Chronicle, picking up on Raw Story's breaking article from last Friday, reports:
The editor, Roger Shuler, worked at the university for 19 years, including the last 12 as an editor in the publications office. He was fired in May after placing a written request for vacation time on his boss’s chair instead of handing it directly to her, he says. After the boss reprimanded him for that act, and Mr. Shuler complained about the reprimand, he says, the university investigated his use of his university computer and contended he was spending three hours a day on research for his blog. And for that, the university fired him.
But Mr. Shuler denies he was using university time to conduct research or to write material for his blog, Legal Schnauzer, and says that as an editor at the university he must keep up with news in the state. He believes the reprimand for his vacation request and the investigation of his computer use were attempts to punish him for using his blog to criticize the Republican U.S. attorneys in the state.
In particular, Mr. Shuler’s blog has defended Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor who has been prosecuted by one of the U.S. attorneys with close ties to the White House. On his blog, Mr. Shuler has questioned whether another Republican U.S. attorney in Alabama is “corrupt and racist.”
I found the comments to be most enlightening--and entertaining. I'm sure most, if not all, come from colleagues (former colleagues, I guess) in higher ed. A sampler:
Any time there was a firing over leaving a written request on a chair instead of handing it to someone, you KNOW there is a problem. That’s the kind of thing that only happens at a university when there’s bad blood and more to the story.
----------------------------------
Of course we see many times where universities are slack on all these things until they want to get rid of someone then all of a sudden it is a huge problem.
----------------------------------
If the facts as presented by the person who fired him are correct, then it showed that he read the news online during the day—which would mean 95% of academia would be fired. Considering that the appeals committee overturned his firing, it sounds like the facts were actually on his side.
----------------------------------
Uh-oh, am I going to get busted for checking the Chronicle during office hours? I had better go!
----------------------------------
I am a graduate of UAB and am familiar with various complaints from employees about the unprofessional, dictatorial behavior of many managers at the school. The school has lost & will continue to lose many of the best & brightest because of this mentality. Perhaps the actions presented above do not differ significantly from other state Universities; however, the lawsuit brought here is one in many that I am familiar with at the University across several departments. That is what is disturbing.
Chronicle reporter Robin Wilson concludes:
The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.
My Life as a Target of Corrupt Bushies
Perhaps you have read Raw Story's article about my recent termination from my job as an editor in the Publications Office at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
Lindsay Beyerstein, Larisa Alexandrovna, and the whole Raw Story crew did a world-class job on the story, and I'm continuing to see the profound impact of their work, based on a major spike in traffic to my blog.
The story, I suspect, resonates with people for several reasons. For one, I'm just a regular guy--not a public official or a major contributor to political causes. But people with direct connections to the Bush Justice Department came after me anyway. Why? Because I dared to tell the truth on a blog about their corrupt activities in Alabama. Also, most of us have to work for a living, and I suspect many people can identify with the myriad dangers in the modern workplace. For many workers, I suspect, the greatest fear is being essentially "set up" on the job and fired for something you didn't do--all because of political machinations outside the workplace, in my case. That's what the Raw Story piece is all about.
I had worked at UAB for 19 years and did not even have as much as an oral warning in my personnel file until some folks in the management food chain evidently got nervous about the content of my blog, Legal Schnauzer.
UAB never gave me clear written reasons for my termination. The main charge seems to be that I used university resources to write my blog. This is false, and in fact, I've never touched the first keystroke on my blog while at work. I know because I cannot access my blog without getting into a certain, password-protected e-mail account. And that e-mail account never had been opened on my work computer. In fact, a representative from UAB's IT department confirmed at my grievance hearing that his investigation showed I had never blogged at work.
UAB evidently claims I was "researching" my blog at work. But part of my job description is to keep up with current events, particularly those connected to Alabama. Over a period of two-plus years, the tale of the prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy was the biggest news story in Alabama. And it had direct connections to UAB. Siegelman, as a former governor, was once ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And Scrushy unquestionably is UAB's most famous alumnus, a man I've written about (or edited stories about) numerous times.
I was responsible for keeping a story file of ideas that might turn into articles for one or more of our 20-some publications. This research that UAB now calls "now-work related activity" actually was a central part of my work.
What about UAB policy on this kind of thing. Based on my research, UAB has no clear policy about computer usage. I've scoured the You & UAB Handbook from one end to the other, and I can see nothing regarding "researching a blog" or anything else regarding use of the Internet on a university computer. Obviously you don't check porn or gambling sites or anything else that is inappropriate in a work setting. (Although I don't see an actual UAB policy even on that.) But an employee getting fired for keeping up with news when part of his job involves keeping up with news? Sounds nuts to me.
Best I can tell, I was terminated for violating a policy that doesn't exist.
The university does have policies regarding "political activities of university employees" and "safeguarding UAB equipment." But neither of those is applicable to the allegations made against me, and I will explain why in a separate post.
But the facts are clear: I was fired, on the surface, for two "reasons:" (1) Doing part of my job (keeping up with current events connected to Alabama); and (2) "Violating" a policy that doesn't exist. That might sound bizarre to some readers, but we are talking about Karl Rove's Alabama here.
Actually, evidence will show, I was fired because of pressure from sources external to UAB. I am conducting research that gives me a real good idea of where the pressure came from and what was used to apply the pressure. I also have a strong indication that a certain member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees was involved. I feel certain the plan to get rid of me did not originate at the UAB campus in Birmingham.
That's not to say some strange things haven't happened at UAB and that people at UAB should not be held accountable. Certain folks at UAB have acted almost as if they operate in some sort of parallel universe, where up is down and left is right. How else does a 19-year employee, with nothing but positive job reviews and a history of good relations with people across campus, wind up getting fired.
I clearly was fired for political reasons, some perhaps having to do with internal UAB matters. But the main political reason appears to be the fact that my blog deals critically with the Bush Justice Department and its handling of a number of apparent political prosecutions--particularly the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
In fact, I have irrefutable evidence, in the form of an audiotaped conversation with a member of the UAB Human Resources staff, that my termination was politically motivated by the fact I write a blog having to do with the Siegelman case. I will be posting that audio in the coming days, and I will be going into many other details about my unlawful termination.
But first, I thought it would be appropriate to show you the human side of the Bush Justice Department scandal.
Most of the victims of the scandal have been public officials (Don Siegelman in Alabama, Cyril Wecht in Pennsylvania, etc.) or financial backers of the Democratic Party (Paul Minor in Mississippi). Mine is the first case I am aware of that involves a regular citizen, a case where someone was targeted merely for writing truthfully about his experiences with corrupt individuals who have ties to the Bush Administration.
So what's it like for a regular guy to be a target of a corrupt administration? What's it like to lose your job simply for speaking out about matters of public concern?
We invite you to come along for a peak at life inside the "Schnauzer den." First, here is an introduction:
Next is a clip about two important characters from the animal kingdom who add a lot to our household:
Next is a clip about some of my interests, mainly from the world of sports and music. As a child of the 1970s, I'm into music from artists like The Eagles, John Fogerty, Lindsey Buckingham, plus Birmingham's own Taylor Hicks:
Also, we have a clip about my wife's eclectic tastes, which range from Scottish history to music by everyone from Glenn Miller to Barbra Streisand to the Village People.
Finally, we have a clip about the kind of issues that matter most in SchnauzerWorld. And they have nothing to do with the law.
Lindsay Beyerstein, Larisa Alexandrovna, and the whole Raw Story crew did a world-class job on the story, and I'm continuing to see the profound impact of their work, based on a major spike in traffic to my blog.
The story, I suspect, resonates with people for several reasons. For one, I'm just a regular guy--not a public official or a major contributor to political causes. But people with direct connections to the Bush Justice Department came after me anyway. Why? Because I dared to tell the truth on a blog about their corrupt activities in Alabama. Also, most of us have to work for a living, and I suspect many people can identify with the myriad dangers in the modern workplace. For many workers, I suspect, the greatest fear is being essentially "set up" on the job and fired for something you didn't do--all because of political machinations outside the workplace, in my case. That's what the Raw Story piece is all about.
I had worked at UAB for 19 years and did not even have as much as an oral warning in my personnel file until some folks in the management food chain evidently got nervous about the content of my blog, Legal Schnauzer.
UAB never gave me clear written reasons for my termination. The main charge seems to be that I used university resources to write my blog. This is false, and in fact, I've never touched the first keystroke on my blog while at work. I know because I cannot access my blog without getting into a certain, password-protected e-mail account. And that e-mail account never had been opened on my work computer. In fact, a representative from UAB's IT department confirmed at my grievance hearing that his investigation showed I had never blogged at work.
UAB evidently claims I was "researching" my blog at work. But part of my job description is to keep up with current events, particularly those connected to Alabama. Over a period of two-plus years, the tale of the prosecution of Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy was the biggest news story in Alabama. And it had direct connections to UAB. Siegelman, as a former governor, was once ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And Scrushy unquestionably is UAB's most famous alumnus, a man I've written about (or edited stories about) numerous times.
I was responsible for keeping a story file of ideas that might turn into articles for one or more of our 20-some publications. This research that UAB now calls "now-work related activity" actually was a central part of my work.
What about UAB policy on this kind of thing. Based on my research, UAB has no clear policy about computer usage. I've scoured the You & UAB Handbook from one end to the other, and I can see nothing regarding "researching a blog" or anything else regarding use of the Internet on a university computer. Obviously you don't check porn or gambling sites or anything else that is inappropriate in a work setting. (Although I don't see an actual UAB policy even on that.) But an employee getting fired for keeping up with news when part of his job involves keeping up with news? Sounds nuts to me.
Best I can tell, I was terminated for violating a policy that doesn't exist.
The university does have policies regarding "political activities of university employees" and "safeguarding UAB equipment." But neither of those is applicable to the allegations made against me, and I will explain why in a separate post.
But the facts are clear: I was fired, on the surface, for two "reasons:" (1) Doing part of my job (keeping up with current events connected to Alabama); and (2) "Violating" a policy that doesn't exist. That might sound bizarre to some readers, but we are talking about Karl Rove's Alabama here.
Actually, evidence will show, I was fired because of pressure from sources external to UAB. I am conducting research that gives me a real good idea of where the pressure came from and what was used to apply the pressure. I also have a strong indication that a certain member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees was involved. I feel certain the plan to get rid of me did not originate at the UAB campus in Birmingham.
That's not to say some strange things haven't happened at UAB and that people at UAB should not be held accountable. Certain folks at UAB have acted almost as if they operate in some sort of parallel universe, where up is down and left is right. How else does a 19-year employee, with nothing but positive job reviews and a history of good relations with people across campus, wind up getting fired.
I clearly was fired for political reasons, some perhaps having to do with internal UAB matters. But the main political reason appears to be the fact that my blog deals critically with the Bush Justice Department and its handling of a number of apparent political prosecutions--particularly the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
In fact, I have irrefutable evidence, in the form of an audiotaped conversation with a member of the UAB Human Resources staff, that my termination was politically motivated by the fact I write a blog having to do with the Siegelman case. I will be posting that audio in the coming days, and I will be going into many other details about my unlawful termination.
But first, I thought it would be appropriate to show you the human side of the Bush Justice Department scandal.
Most of the victims of the scandal have been public officials (Don Siegelman in Alabama, Cyril Wecht in Pennsylvania, etc.) or financial backers of the Democratic Party (Paul Minor in Mississippi). Mine is the first case I am aware of that involves a regular citizen, a case where someone was targeted merely for writing truthfully about his experiences with corrupt individuals who have ties to the Bush Administration.
So what's it like for a regular guy to be a target of a corrupt administration? What's it like to lose your job simply for speaking out about matters of public concern?
We invite you to come along for a peak at life inside the "Schnauzer den." First, here is an introduction:
Next is a clip about two important characters from the animal kingdom who add a lot to our household:
Next is a clip about some of my interests, mainly from the world of sports and music. As a child of the 1970s, I'm into music from artists like The Eagles, John Fogerty, Lindsey Buckingham, plus Birmingham's own Taylor Hicks:
Also, we have a clip about my wife's eclectic tastes, which range from Scottish history to music by everyone from Glenn Miller to Barbra Streisand to the Village People.
Finally, we have a clip about the kind of issues that matter most in SchnauzerWorld. And they have nothing to do with the law.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Power of a Raw Story
If you ever hear anyone say something like, "I don't really think Web sites and other forms of 'new media' make much of a difference in journalism," please send them my way.
I will straighten them out.
Since Raw Story on Friday afternoon broke the story about my termination from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), traffic on Legal Schnauzer has more than tripled from what I would normally see on a Friday and Saturday. And that's on a weekend in the middle of summer vacation season.
Folks from near and far--as near as Mississippi, as far as Wisconsin and Washington--have contacted me. One correspondent is from Maple Valley, WA, which is about 30 miles southeast of Seattle. Maple Valley? Does that sound like a pleasant place to visit or what?
I've had people vow to contact their representatives in Congress. I've had a lawyer or two ask how they can help. An outraged commenter at one site even went to the UAB online phone directory and printed contact information of key folks to whom you can direct your complaints and concerns.
Not surprisingly, I thought that was a superb idea--so good that I want to help. Here are the key players in my termination at UAB, along with their contact information. I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you:
Carol Garrison, president of UAB--(205) 934-4636; cgarrison@uab.edu
Cheryl Locke, chief human resources officer-- (205) 934-5321; clocke@uab.edu
Dale Turnbough, associate vice president for public relations & marketing--(205) 934-9518; dalet@uab.edu
Pam Powell, director of UAB Publications & Periodicals--(205) 975-7739; ppowell@uab.edu
Powell was my immediate supervisor and the person who built the "case" for my termination. Turnbough is Powell's supervisor and the person who signed the termination letter. Locke oversaw the employee grievance process, which determined that my termination was wrongful, but she indicated to me in a meeting on Friday that she is going to uphold the termination anyway. (Yes, you heard that right.) And Garrison will receive my final appeal (which is due five days after receipt of Locke's written decision), and she ultimately will determine if my termination is upheld or overturned.
Does Raw Story make a difference? You can be the judge. The story already has made its way to numerous blogs and Web sites:
* Left in Alabama--One of my favorites, with a great picture of a schnauzer.
* News From Underground--Mark Crispin Miller is a highly respected, New York-based university professor and author. He has published several books and recently testified before Congress.
* After Downing Street--An influential, nonpartisan Web site devoted to shining light on the impeachable offenses of the Bush administration.
* A Tiny Revolution--A popular progressive blog produced by a couple of guys who have written for Mother Jones, The New York Times, Saturday Night Live, and more.
* AOL News--Jay Allbritton's Political Machine is a widely read blog.
* folo--A lawyer-written blog that does a splendid job of keeping up with all things legal in Mississippi, including cases involving Paul Minor and Dickie Scruggs.
* Daily Dixie--I know this blog is widely read because I get a ton of traffic through its links. The author is fairly middle of the road, and his readers seem to come from across the political spectrum. The author says he knows a lot of UAB employees, and he wonders how many people would work there if the standard applied to me were applied across the board.
* The Blogging Journalist--A site devoted to blogging by both professional and amateur journalists.
Stay tuned. Much more is coming about this story in the coming days and weeks. We are just getting warmed up.
I will straighten them out.
Since Raw Story on Friday afternoon broke the story about my termination from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), traffic on Legal Schnauzer has more than tripled from what I would normally see on a Friday and Saturday. And that's on a weekend in the middle of summer vacation season.
Folks from near and far--as near as Mississippi, as far as Wisconsin and Washington--have contacted me. One correspondent is from Maple Valley, WA, which is about 30 miles southeast of Seattle. Maple Valley? Does that sound like a pleasant place to visit or what?
I've had people vow to contact their representatives in Congress. I've had a lawyer or two ask how they can help. An outraged commenter at one site even went to the UAB online phone directory and printed contact information of key folks to whom you can direct your complaints and concerns.
Not surprisingly, I thought that was a superb idea--so good that I want to help. Here are the key players in my termination at UAB, along with their contact information. I'm sure they would be delighted to hear from you:
Carol Garrison, president of UAB--(205) 934-4636; cgarrison@uab.edu
Cheryl Locke, chief human resources officer-- (205) 934-5321; clocke@uab.edu
Dale Turnbough, associate vice president for public relations & marketing--(205) 934-9518; dalet@uab.edu
Pam Powell, director of UAB Publications & Periodicals--(205) 975-7739; ppowell@uab.edu
Powell was my immediate supervisor and the person who built the "case" for my termination. Turnbough is Powell's supervisor and the person who signed the termination letter. Locke oversaw the employee grievance process, which determined that my termination was wrongful, but she indicated to me in a meeting on Friday that she is going to uphold the termination anyway. (Yes, you heard that right.) And Garrison will receive my final appeal (which is due five days after receipt of Locke's written decision), and she ultimately will determine if my termination is upheld or overturned.
Does Raw Story make a difference? You can be the judge. The story already has made its way to numerous blogs and Web sites:
* Left in Alabama--One of my favorites, with a great picture of a schnauzer.
* News From Underground--Mark Crispin Miller is a highly respected, New York-based university professor and author. He has published several books and recently testified before Congress.
* After Downing Street--An influential, nonpartisan Web site devoted to shining light on the impeachable offenses of the Bush administration.
* A Tiny Revolution--A popular progressive blog produced by a couple of guys who have written for Mother Jones, The New York Times, Saturday Night Live, and more.
* AOL News--Jay Allbritton's Political Machine is a widely read blog.
* folo--A lawyer-written blog that does a splendid job of keeping up with all things legal in Mississippi, including cases involving Paul Minor and Dickie Scruggs.
* Daily Dixie--I know this blog is widely read because I get a ton of traffic through its links. The author is fairly middle of the road, and his readers seem to come from across the political spectrum. The author says he knows a lot of UAB employees, and he wonders how many people would work there if the standard applied to me were applied across the board.
* The Blogging Journalist--A site devoted to blogging by both professional and amateur journalists.
Stay tuned. Much more is coming about this story in the coming days and weeks. We are just getting warmed up.
Is Alice Martin Both Corrupt and Racist
In a post dated June 17 at Harper's.org, Columbia University law professor Scott Horton used the following language to describe Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama:
"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's about as strong a condemnation of a public official as I've ever seen, particularly when you consider this state also includes our ethically challenged governor, Bob Riley, and Martin's prosecutorial compadre, Leura Canary, in Montgomery. Most corrupt in Alabama? Lots of competition for that honor. And Horton says Martin wins, hands down.
Horton's regular readers know at least a couple of things about his work: (1) He doesn't make such pronouncements lightly and without significant evidence to back them up; (2) He has unusually powerful credentials in both the law and journalism; (3) He has outstanding sources.
Horton made the above comment in connection to Martin's handling of the Alex Latifi case in Huntsville. Latifi, a defense contractor of Iranian descent, saw his prosperous business ruined by a Martin-directed investigation and prosecution that proved to be filled with more holes than the Miami Dolphins' defense line.
Readers both in Alabama and around the country have seen powerful evidence recently that Horton is right on target about Alice Martin.
First, business reporter David J. Lynch presents a compelling account of the Latifi case in USA Today. Lynch's story, "Feds knock; a business is lost," is a splendid piece of journalism. It molds the legal, business, and personal aspects of a complicated story into a narrative that should be must reading, even for those who know little about the Bush Justice Department saga. Consider this from the USA Today piece:
The Latifi case now appears as a cautionary tale of what critics call an overzealous prosecution. It is also a reminder that the innocent can pay an enormous price while the gears of justice grind. "The government's case itself it seems to me was sloppily prepared. … Their prosecutorial zeal caused them to overlook some deficiencies in their case," says Clif Burns, an export law attorney at Powell Goldstein in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the case.
And consider this:
During a seven-day trial last fall, the government's case swiftly unraveled. The informant who tipped Army investigators to Latifi's alleged misdeeds turned out to be an Axion employee who was simultaneously embezzling company funds. Prosecutors also conceded that the government had failed to mark the sensitive technical drawing that Latifi, 60, was accused of illegally exporting with the warning language Defense Department regulations require.
In her Florence, Ala., courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Inge Johnson called the government's case "sloppy" before swiftly dismissing all charges. The judge also ordered the government to pay Latifi nearly $364,000 for his attorney's fees, a move the local U.S. attorney called "unprecedented."
The story ends on a hopeful note. The possibility remains that Alex Latifi will obtain justice, and Alice Martin will be further unmasked:
Today, Latifi is seeking additional legal fees and access to the government's files through a legal channel called the Hyde Amendment, which provides for compensating exonerated defendants if "the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith." Prosecutors are fighting back. This spring, while Johnson was visiting her native Denmark, Martin sought to have another judge overturn Johnson's order requiring prosecutors to appear in court with their files.
That further irritated Johnson. The "court can only surmise from the government's vigorous resistance to the possibility that it might have to disclose something about the prosecution of the defendants and its unusual actions while Judge Johnson was outside the country that 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark,' " she wrote.
On Friday, The Birmingham News reported that formal charges of misconduct against Martin have been filed with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Henry Froshin, an attorney for Latifi and Axion Corp., filed the complaint with OPR, the watchdog charged with investigating federal attorneys for wrongdoing:
"The thrust of our argument is these prosecutors told us they didn't care if Alex Latifi was found guilty or not, but that they wanted to put him out of business," Frohsin said. "They knew their case was weak, but they wanted him out of business anyway."
What about our earlier question about the racial component of Martin's handiwork? Given Latifi's roots in Iran, that case clearly raises race-based questions.
One also must wonder about the string of high-profile African-Americans who have been investigated and/or prosecuted by Martin's office. These include Jeff Germany, Chris McNair, Gregory Clarke, E.B. McClain, and Sam Pettagrue.
And recently we had a story indicating that Martin's handling of a possible case against Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford is anything but evenhanded. I'll be the first to say that I have qualms about Langford's questionable financial habits. But I have even more qualms about the way Martin handles her public duties.
Is Alice Martin corrupt? Scott Horton has answered that question with a resounding yes.
Does Alice Martin conduct her affairs with racial issues in mind? Evidence strongly suggests a very troubling answer to that question.
"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's about as strong a condemnation of a public official as I've ever seen, particularly when you consider this state also includes our ethically challenged governor, Bob Riley, and Martin's prosecutorial compadre, Leura Canary, in Montgomery. Most corrupt in Alabama? Lots of competition for that honor. And Horton says Martin wins, hands down.
Horton's regular readers know at least a couple of things about his work: (1) He doesn't make such pronouncements lightly and without significant evidence to back them up; (2) He has unusually powerful credentials in both the law and journalism; (3) He has outstanding sources.
Horton made the above comment in connection to Martin's handling of the Alex Latifi case in Huntsville. Latifi, a defense contractor of Iranian descent, saw his prosperous business ruined by a Martin-directed investigation and prosecution that proved to be filled with more holes than the Miami Dolphins' defense line.
Readers both in Alabama and around the country have seen powerful evidence recently that Horton is right on target about Alice Martin.
First, business reporter David J. Lynch presents a compelling account of the Latifi case in USA Today. Lynch's story, "Feds knock; a business is lost," is a splendid piece of journalism. It molds the legal, business, and personal aspects of a complicated story into a narrative that should be must reading, even for those who know little about the Bush Justice Department saga. Consider this from the USA Today piece:
The Latifi case now appears as a cautionary tale of what critics call an overzealous prosecution. It is also a reminder that the innocent can pay an enormous price while the gears of justice grind. "The government's case itself it seems to me was sloppily prepared. … Their prosecutorial zeal caused them to overlook some deficiencies in their case," says Clif Burns, an export law attorney at Powell Goldstein in Washington, D.C., who was not involved in the case.
And consider this:
During a seven-day trial last fall, the government's case swiftly unraveled. The informant who tipped Army investigators to Latifi's alleged misdeeds turned out to be an Axion employee who was simultaneously embezzling company funds. Prosecutors also conceded that the government had failed to mark the sensitive technical drawing that Latifi, 60, was accused of illegally exporting with the warning language Defense Department regulations require.
In her Florence, Ala., courtroom, U.S. District Court Judge Inge Johnson called the government's case "sloppy" before swiftly dismissing all charges. The judge also ordered the government to pay Latifi nearly $364,000 for his attorney's fees, a move the local U.S. attorney called "unprecedented."
The story ends on a hopeful note. The possibility remains that Alex Latifi will obtain justice, and Alice Martin will be further unmasked:
Today, Latifi is seeking additional legal fees and access to the government's files through a legal channel called the Hyde Amendment, which provides for compensating exonerated defendants if "the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith." Prosecutors are fighting back. This spring, while Johnson was visiting her native Denmark, Martin sought to have another judge overturn Johnson's order requiring prosecutors to appear in court with their files.
That further irritated Johnson. The "court can only surmise from the government's vigorous resistance to the possibility that it might have to disclose something about the prosecution of the defendants and its unusual actions while Judge Johnson was outside the country that 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark,' " she wrote.
On Friday, The Birmingham News reported that formal charges of misconduct against Martin have been filed with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Henry Froshin, an attorney for Latifi and Axion Corp., filed the complaint with OPR, the watchdog charged with investigating federal attorneys for wrongdoing:
"The thrust of our argument is these prosecutors told us they didn't care if Alex Latifi was found guilty or not, but that they wanted to put him out of business," Frohsin said. "They knew their case was weak, but they wanted him out of business anyway."
What about our earlier question about the racial component of Martin's handiwork? Given Latifi's roots in Iran, that case clearly raises race-based questions.
One also must wonder about the string of high-profile African-Americans who have been investigated and/or prosecuted by Martin's office. These include Jeff Germany, Chris McNair, Gregory Clarke, E.B. McClain, and Sam Pettagrue.
And recently we had a story indicating that Martin's handling of a possible case against Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford is anything but evenhanded. I'll be the first to say that I have qualms about Langford's questionable financial habits. But I have even more qualms about the way Martin handles her public duties.
Is Alice Martin corrupt? Scott Horton has answered that question with a resounding yes.
Does Alice Martin conduct her affairs with racial issues in mind? Evidence strongly suggests a very troubling answer to that question.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Blog About Siegelman, Lose Your Job
Getting elected and running for office as a Democrat in Alabama cost former Governor Don Siegelman his freedom. Writing about the Siegelman story has cost me my job.
The Raw Story Web site, in a major investigative piece by reporter Lindsay Beyerstein, breaks news today about my recent termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
I had worked at UAB for 19 years, the last 12 as an editor in the Publications Office, before being fired on May 19. At the time of my termination, I did not have so much as an oral warning in my personnel file about the issues UAB claims led to my firing.
In fact, before my Supervisor, Pam Powell, initiated an age- and gender-based harassment campaign against me in December 2007, I didn't have an oral warning about anything in my file. Only when I began to defend myself against this harassment did UAB initiate an "investigation" of my computer use at work. And when I defended myself against false charges of policy violations, I got a written warning, followed by forced administrative leave, and termination.
All of this is in clear violation of university policy and federal law. As Columbia University law professor Scott Horton states in the Raw Story piece, UAB's actions raise clear First Amendment issues.
As someone with 30 years of journalism experience, I'm not used to commenting on a story that involves me as a central figure. But let me give it a shot, with some thoughts just a few hours after the story has broken. I will be adding considerable new information and analysis in the days and weeks ahead.
* The evidence is overwhelming that my termination was a "political hit." Specifically, clear evidence shows that I was fired simply because I write a blog that has to do with Don Siegelman. I feel certain that my original reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi--and my own experiences with corrupt judges in Alabama--made certain folks in our state's Republican power structure unhappy. But I have irrefutable evidence that simply blogging about the Siegelman case was the driving factor behind my firing.
* Some might ask, "Schnauzer, sounds like you were blogging on UAB equipment and time. Isn't that why you were fired?" Nope. At a grievance hearing on my firing, the IT rep who conducted UAB's "investigation" stated that I had not written the first word on my blog using UAB resources. The university claims that I was "researching" my blog on UAB equipment. But part of my job description is to keep up with current events and issues that could become story ideas for university publications. The Siegelman case was the biggest story in Alabama for a two-year period, and Siegelman's codefendant (Richard Scrushy) is without question UAB's most famous alumnus. If I had ignored the Siegelman story, I would have been neglecting my duty. But in Karl Rove's Alabama, you can get fired at a public university for doing your job. I know because it happened to me.
* A word about my supervisor, Pam Powell: I've known Pam for almost the entire 19 years I've been at UAB. In my first seven years at the university, she sought me out to write for her publications, which I did (without compensation, I might add). In 1996, she hired me as an editor in her office. When I joined the group, we had four people (counting Pam) and five or six publications. When I was fired, we had 12 full-time people and about 20 publications. Doesn't sound like my performance was hurting the department does it? I'm 51 years old, and Pam has a clear pattern of preferring younger people in the positions that work closest with her. I've come to accept that and never thought it would have a major impact on my job status. But the fact is this: Pam has not been easy on folks who are in or near their 50s. During my time in the group, we've had three people who fit that description. Two of us were fired, and one almost had to be hospitalized when her blood pressure spiked due to job-related stress. In spite of that, I would describe my relationship with Pam as good--at least until her behavior took a turn toward the bizarre in December 2007. While I have serious concerns about my supervisor's behavior in this saga, evidence strongly suggests that her actions were not necessarily all of her own doing. In fact, evidence indicates that my termination was driven by political forces external to UAB. I have a real good idea about the path those forces followed, and who was driving them. Much more information will be coming about that.
* Obviously, this story matters to me. But why should it matter to other people? Two reasons come quickly to mind: (1) To my knowledge, this is the first story that shows how people connected to the corrupt Bush Justice Department do not target only public officials and major Democratic donors. They also go after regular people; (2) You don't have to live in Alabama to be impacted by this story. UAB is one of the leading biomedical research institutions in the country. The university receives more than $400 million a year in federal research funds. In the South, only the University of North Carolina and Duke University rank higher than UAB in receipt of federal research dollars. Those dollars flow into Birmingham, but they come from Americans in all 50 states. My understanding is that part of every research grant is a requirement that the institution will abide by federal law, that it will conduct business in a lawful and nondiscriminatory way. My termination shows that UAB has failed to live up to that commitment, and that should be of concern to all taxpayers--and to members of Congress (particularly the House Appropriations Committee) who oversee federal grants programs.
* One final thought for now: Obviously I'm not a disinterested, neutral party in this situation. But I have a bachelor's degree in journalism, and I've worked in the field for 30 years. I like to think I know a good story when I see one. I definitely know a challenging story when I see one. Lindsay Beyerstein and the Raw Story crew were presented with a challenging story here. As the story makes clear, people associated with UAB and the Justice Department did their best to stonewall. But I can attest to the fact that the Raw Story folks take their work seriously. I was terminated on May 19, and Beyerstein had been working on the story for quite some time at that point. In fact, Raw Story's initial query to me came in response to the unlawful auction of my house by Republican officials in Shelby County, Alabama. By the time my employment issues came up, Beyerstein already had the scent of an important story. (While I'm making canine allusions, let me add one more: Beyerstein and her Raw Story colleagues went after this story with the doggedness of a schnauzer. I can think of no higher compliment I can pay a journalist.) In the end, it was fascinating to watch a story unfold from the "other side," as a source. And it was interesting to watch another reporter, and her editors, "work" a story. And I do mean work. Beyerstein fired numerous informed, probing, and challenging questions in my direction. She checked and doubled checked facts. She took suggestions from editors, sent more questions my way, and incorporated that material into her story. At one point, I remember thinking to myself, "Gosh, no wonder people at UAB and the U.S. attorney's office are stonewalling her. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably stonewall, too." Of course, that's what good reporters do. They hold the powerful accountable. And they make the shifty uncomfortable. I know from firsthand knowledge, that Beyerstein and Raw Story have made a few people at UAB uncomfortable. And I say, Bravo! As Beyerstein's piece shows, a number of folks associated with UAB should be uncomfortable.
I've learned a lot in the past two months or so. But maybe my most important lesson was this: A reporter doesn't have to be from The New York Times, ABC News, or Time to produce world-class journalism. And a news organization doesn't have to have years of tradition behind it to produce journalism that makes a difference. From the outset, the story of the politicized Bush Justice Department has been driven by the "alternative" press. My understanding is that TPM Muckraker essentially broke the story about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. And it's impossible to overstate the importance of work by folks like Scott Horton at Harper's.org, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News, and Adam Lynch at Jackson Free Press. They have driven this story of profound corruption into the nation's consciousness.
Now Lindsay Beyerstein has added a new chapter, showing that governmental evil can reach down and engulf a regular guy (and his wife and two kitty kats) who happens to write a blog about a certain subject--with his own time and resources. In Karl Rove's Alabama, you can (to quote Bill Clinton) "work hard and play by the rules" and still wind up suffering mightily.
I strongly suspect that I'm not the only regular guy around the country who has been cheated under the Bush regime. Don Siegelman has repeatedly said that the story of his political prosecution is not just about him. I know today, more than ever, what the former governor means. Raw Story focused on me, but the story really is about all Americans--all of us who pay taxes to support a system of justice, but instead have been given a system that promotes injustice.
My prayer is that Beyerstein's story will help move us toward a day when quaint concepts like "due process" and "rule of law" truly apply to all.
The Raw Story Web site, in a major investigative piece by reporter Lindsay Beyerstein, breaks news today about my recent termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
I had worked at UAB for 19 years, the last 12 as an editor in the Publications Office, before being fired on May 19. At the time of my termination, I did not have so much as an oral warning in my personnel file about the issues UAB claims led to my firing.
In fact, before my Supervisor, Pam Powell, initiated an age- and gender-based harassment campaign against me in December 2007, I didn't have an oral warning about anything in my file. Only when I began to defend myself against this harassment did UAB initiate an "investigation" of my computer use at work. And when I defended myself against false charges of policy violations, I got a written warning, followed by forced administrative leave, and termination.
All of this is in clear violation of university policy and federal law. As Columbia University law professor Scott Horton states in the Raw Story piece, UAB's actions raise clear First Amendment issues.
As someone with 30 years of journalism experience, I'm not used to commenting on a story that involves me as a central figure. But let me give it a shot, with some thoughts just a few hours after the story has broken. I will be adding considerable new information and analysis in the days and weeks ahead.
* The evidence is overwhelming that my termination was a "political hit." Specifically, clear evidence shows that I was fired simply because I write a blog that has to do with Don Siegelman. I feel certain that my original reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi--and my own experiences with corrupt judges in Alabama--made certain folks in our state's Republican power structure unhappy. But I have irrefutable evidence that simply blogging about the Siegelman case was the driving factor behind my firing.
* Some might ask, "Schnauzer, sounds like you were blogging on UAB equipment and time. Isn't that why you were fired?" Nope. At a grievance hearing on my firing, the IT rep who conducted UAB's "investigation" stated that I had not written the first word on my blog using UAB resources. The university claims that I was "researching" my blog on UAB equipment. But part of my job description is to keep up with current events and issues that could become story ideas for university publications. The Siegelman case was the biggest story in Alabama for a two-year period, and Siegelman's codefendant (Richard Scrushy) is without question UAB's most famous alumnus. If I had ignored the Siegelman story, I would have been neglecting my duty. But in Karl Rove's Alabama, you can get fired at a public university for doing your job. I know because it happened to me.
* A word about my supervisor, Pam Powell: I've known Pam for almost the entire 19 years I've been at UAB. In my first seven years at the university, she sought me out to write for her publications, which I did (without compensation, I might add). In 1996, she hired me as an editor in her office. When I joined the group, we had four people (counting Pam) and five or six publications. When I was fired, we had 12 full-time people and about 20 publications. Doesn't sound like my performance was hurting the department does it? I'm 51 years old, and Pam has a clear pattern of preferring younger people in the positions that work closest with her. I've come to accept that and never thought it would have a major impact on my job status. But the fact is this: Pam has not been easy on folks who are in or near their 50s. During my time in the group, we've had three people who fit that description. Two of us were fired, and one almost had to be hospitalized when her blood pressure spiked due to job-related stress. In spite of that, I would describe my relationship with Pam as good--at least until her behavior took a turn toward the bizarre in December 2007. While I have serious concerns about my supervisor's behavior in this saga, evidence strongly suggests that her actions were not necessarily all of her own doing. In fact, evidence indicates that my termination was driven by political forces external to UAB. I have a real good idea about the path those forces followed, and who was driving them. Much more information will be coming about that.
* Obviously, this story matters to me. But why should it matter to other people? Two reasons come quickly to mind: (1) To my knowledge, this is the first story that shows how people connected to the corrupt Bush Justice Department do not target only public officials and major Democratic donors. They also go after regular people; (2) You don't have to live in Alabama to be impacted by this story. UAB is one of the leading biomedical research institutions in the country. The university receives more than $400 million a year in federal research funds. In the South, only the University of North Carolina and Duke University rank higher than UAB in receipt of federal research dollars. Those dollars flow into Birmingham, but they come from Americans in all 50 states. My understanding is that part of every research grant is a requirement that the institution will abide by federal law, that it will conduct business in a lawful and nondiscriminatory way. My termination shows that UAB has failed to live up to that commitment, and that should be of concern to all taxpayers--and to members of Congress (particularly the House Appropriations Committee) who oversee federal grants programs.
* One final thought for now: Obviously I'm not a disinterested, neutral party in this situation. But I have a bachelor's degree in journalism, and I've worked in the field for 30 years. I like to think I know a good story when I see one. I definitely know a challenging story when I see one. Lindsay Beyerstein and the Raw Story crew were presented with a challenging story here. As the story makes clear, people associated with UAB and the Justice Department did their best to stonewall. But I can attest to the fact that the Raw Story folks take their work seriously. I was terminated on May 19, and Beyerstein had been working on the story for quite some time at that point. In fact, Raw Story's initial query to me came in response to the unlawful auction of my house by Republican officials in Shelby County, Alabama. By the time my employment issues came up, Beyerstein already had the scent of an important story. (While I'm making canine allusions, let me add one more: Beyerstein and her Raw Story colleagues went after this story with the doggedness of a schnauzer. I can think of no higher compliment I can pay a journalist.) In the end, it was fascinating to watch a story unfold from the "other side," as a source. And it was interesting to watch another reporter, and her editors, "work" a story. And I do mean work. Beyerstein fired numerous informed, probing, and challenging questions in my direction. She checked and doubled checked facts. She took suggestions from editors, sent more questions my way, and incorporated that material into her story. At one point, I remember thinking to myself, "Gosh, no wonder people at UAB and the U.S. attorney's office are stonewalling her. If I were in their shoes, I'd probably stonewall, too." Of course, that's what good reporters do. They hold the powerful accountable. And they make the shifty uncomfortable. I know from firsthand knowledge, that Beyerstein and Raw Story have made a few people at UAB uncomfortable. And I say, Bravo! As Beyerstein's piece shows, a number of folks associated with UAB should be uncomfortable.
I've learned a lot in the past two months or so. But maybe my most important lesson was this: A reporter doesn't have to be from The New York Times, ABC News, or Time to produce world-class journalism. And a news organization doesn't have to have years of tradition behind it to produce journalism that makes a difference. From the outset, the story of the politicized Bush Justice Department has been driven by the "alternative" press. My understanding is that TPM Muckraker essentially broke the story about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. And it's impossible to overstate the importance of work by folks like Scott Horton at Harper's.org, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork News, and Adam Lynch at Jackson Free Press. They have driven this story of profound corruption into the nation's consciousness.
Now Lindsay Beyerstein has added a new chapter, showing that governmental evil can reach down and engulf a regular guy (and his wife and two kitty kats) who happens to write a blog about a certain subject--with his own time and resources. In Karl Rove's Alabama, you can (to quote Bill Clinton) "work hard and play by the rules" and still wind up suffering mightily.
I strongly suspect that I'm not the only regular guy around the country who has been cheated under the Bush regime. Don Siegelman has repeatedly said that the story of his political prosecution is not just about him. I know today, more than ever, what the former governor means. Raw Story focused on me, but the story really is about all Americans--all of us who pay taxes to support a system of justice, but instead have been given a system that promotes injustice.
My prayer is that Beyerstein's story will help move us toward a day when quaint concepts like "due process" and "rule of law" truly apply to all.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Taking a Broad View of Public Corruption
Alabama has been at the heart of recent debates about public corruption, largely because of the questionable prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
But Alan Greenblatt, writing at Governing Magazine, says questions about public-corruption cases go well beyond Alabama.
Greenblatt says that since 2002 the number of public-corruption cases and the number of FBI agents devoted to such cases has increased by more than 50 percent. And he discusses high-profile investigations in Tennessee, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Alaska.
Alabama is far from the only place where indicted public officials accuse prosecutors of targeting them for political purposes, either to destroy an opponent from the other party or simply to advance their own careers. But such accusations have taken on greater currency following the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys who were insufficiently loyal to an effort in Washington to politicize public corruption cases. That scandal led last August to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, along with most of the other top officials at the Justice Department. "It gives traction to the claims of partisan political motivation made by indicted officials," says former prosecutor Geoff Moulton, now a law professor at Widener University, "even in cases where there's absolutely no merit to those claims."
In some cases, however, there clearly is merit to those claims, particularly when a prosecutor is a publicity hound:
Public corruption cases may not be the most certain way for a prosecutor to advance his career — they create plenty of enemies even when, or especially when, they're successful — but they do guarantee bigger headlines than conducting drug seizures or even sending a series of murderers to death row. That sort of motivation was starkly on display in 2004, when e-mails leaked from the office of Thomas DiBiagio, then the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He demanded that his staff bring no fewer than three "front-page" corruption indictments by Election Day. Given the current climate, it's become the first line of a vigorous defense for public officials to suggest they are the latest victims of politically-motivated investigations.
Greenblatt spends a significant amount of time on the Siegelman case, with mixed results. From my perspective, Greenblatt makes a weak effort with this paragraph:
Siegelman has yet to prove the existence of a wide-ranging Republican conspiracy against him. He admits he has no hard proof and, indeed, the whole story rests entirely on the testimony of a lawyer who has changed her story more than once. Much has been made of the fact that a Rove crony is married to a U.S. attorney in Alabama, but far less attention has been given to another fact — that one of the lead prosecutors in Siegelman's case was a Democrat who had successfully prosecuted Alabama's former Republican governor, Guy Hunt.
This paragraph presents several problems. The whole story does not rest entirely on the testimony of a lawyer (Jill Simpson). And Simpson has not changed her story more than once. She simply has added details based on the questions she is asked and the venue in which they are asked. Also, the contention that a lead prosecutor was a Democrat who went after former Republican Governor Guy Hunt is irrelevant. The prosecutor (Steve Feaga?) still was answering to Leura Canary, a highly partisan figure, by any definition.
Greenblatt is more on target with the following paragraph:
But even absent proof of nationwide collusion, it does appear that the Siegelman prosecution, which dragged on for more than five years, took on a highly personal quality. The former governor was convicted of doing something that would sound to many people like part of his job description — he gave a seat on a state board to a campaign contributor. Siegelman's allies claim that the prosecution went so far as to criminalize normal political activity. Whatever the reality may be, Siegelman's conspiracy claims have taken on broad currency because they speak to the worst fears about centralized power and prosecutors using courts and pliant juries as political weapons.
The Governing piece addresses a key issue in any public-corruption case--the expansive nature of federal statutes:
Many of the federal laws used to convict state and local officials are so vague as to allow prosecutors enormous leeway. To secure a federal mail fraud conviction, the prosecutor merely has to convince a jury that the defendant deprived the public of its right to "honest services." No specific state or local crime needs to be alleged, and no precise definition of "honest services" needs to be provided. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was illegally broad. The following year, however, Congress restored it. Despite the Supreme Court's recent general sensitivity to federalism issues, the justices have shown no inclination in the past decade to curb federal prosecutors from hounding officials at lower levels of government. In a 2004 ruling, for example, the court unanimously upheld a statute that makes any bribery a federal crime within jurisdictions that receive federal money, even when no federal money or programs are involved. "Congress does not have to accept the risk of getting poor performance for its money, owing to local and state administrators' improbity," Justice David Souter wrote.
A key question Greenblatt does not address: In the Siegelman case, a public official apparently was prosecuted for political reasons? What about the flip side of that, cases where a public official, one who clearly was involved in wrongdoing, is not prosecuted for political reasons?
We've presented exactly such a case here at Legal Schnauzer, where a Bush appointee (Alice Martin) has allowed corrupt Republican judges to run amok in her jurisdiction. Along the way, Martin has failed to disclose her clear conflict of interest in the case, sent the case to an investigative agency that has no jurisdiction in the matter, and lied to the citizen who filed the complaint.
Martin used the U.S. mails and wires in this fraudulent scheme, which clearly fits under the definition of honest-services mail fraud. We here at Legal Schnauzer are holding Martin's feet to the fire on this issue, and she already is reportedly being investigated by at least three governmental entities on a variety of questionable practices.
Perhaps this is a side of the story that needs attention from Mr. Greenblatt and Governing Magazine.
But Alan Greenblatt, writing at Governing Magazine, says questions about public-corruption cases go well beyond Alabama.
Greenblatt says that since 2002 the number of public-corruption cases and the number of FBI agents devoted to such cases has increased by more than 50 percent. And he discusses high-profile investigations in Tennessee, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Alaska.
Alabama is far from the only place where indicted public officials accuse prosecutors of targeting them for political purposes, either to destroy an opponent from the other party or simply to advance their own careers. But such accusations have taken on greater currency following the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys who were insufficiently loyal to an effort in Washington to politicize public corruption cases. That scandal led last August to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, along with most of the other top officials at the Justice Department. "It gives traction to the claims of partisan political motivation made by indicted officials," says former prosecutor Geoff Moulton, now a law professor at Widener University, "even in cases where there's absolutely no merit to those claims."
In some cases, however, there clearly is merit to those claims, particularly when a prosecutor is a publicity hound:
Public corruption cases may not be the most certain way for a prosecutor to advance his career — they create plenty of enemies even when, or especially when, they're successful — but they do guarantee bigger headlines than conducting drug seizures or even sending a series of murderers to death row. That sort of motivation was starkly on display in 2004, when e-mails leaked from the office of Thomas DiBiagio, then the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He demanded that his staff bring no fewer than three "front-page" corruption indictments by Election Day. Given the current climate, it's become the first line of a vigorous defense for public officials to suggest they are the latest victims of politically-motivated investigations.
Greenblatt spends a significant amount of time on the Siegelman case, with mixed results. From my perspective, Greenblatt makes a weak effort with this paragraph:
Siegelman has yet to prove the existence of a wide-ranging Republican conspiracy against him. He admits he has no hard proof and, indeed, the whole story rests entirely on the testimony of a lawyer who has changed her story more than once. Much has been made of the fact that a Rove crony is married to a U.S. attorney in Alabama, but far less attention has been given to another fact — that one of the lead prosecutors in Siegelman's case was a Democrat who had successfully prosecuted Alabama's former Republican governor, Guy Hunt.
This paragraph presents several problems. The whole story does not rest entirely on the testimony of a lawyer (Jill Simpson). And Simpson has not changed her story more than once. She simply has added details based on the questions she is asked and the venue in which they are asked. Also, the contention that a lead prosecutor was a Democrat who went after former Republican Governor Guy Hunt is irrelevant. The prosecutor (Steve Feaga?) still was answering to Leura Canary, a highly partisan figure, by any definition.
Greenblatt is more on target with the following paragraph:
But even absent proof of nationwide collusion, it does appear that the Siegelman prosecution, which dragged on for more than five years, took on a highly personal quality. The former governor was convicted of doing something that would sound to many people like part of his job description — he gave a seat on a state board to a campaign contributor. Siegelman's allies claim that the prosecution went so far as to criminalize normal political activity. Whatever the reality may be, Siegelman's conspiracy claims have taken on broad currency because they speak to the worst fears about centralized power and prosecutors using courts and pliant juries as political weapons.
The Governing piece addresses a key issue in any public-corruption case--the expansive nature of federal statutes:
Many of the federal laws used to convict state and local officials are so vague as to allow prosecutors enormous leeway. To secure a federal mail fraud conviction, the prosecutor merely has to convince a jury that the defendant deprived the public of its right to "honest services." No specific state or local crime needs to be alleged, and no precise definition of "honest services" needs to be provided. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was illegally broad. The following year, however, Congress restored it. Despite the Supreme Court's recent general sensitivity to federalism issues, the justices have shown no inclination in the past decade to curb federal prosecutors from hounding officials at lower levels of government. In a 2004 ruling, for example, the court unanimously upheld a statute that makes any bribery a federal crime within jurisdictions that receive federal money, even when no federal money or programs are involved. "Congress does not have to accept the risk of getting poor performance for its money, owing to local and state administrators' improbity," Justice David Souter wrote.
A key question Greenblatt does not address: In the Siegelman case, a public official apparently was prosecuted for political reasons? What about the flip side of that, cases where a public official, one who clearly was involved in wrongdoing, is not prosecuted for political reasons?
We've presented exactly such a case here at Legal Schnauzer, where a Bush appointee (Alice Martin) has allowed corrupt Republican judges to run amok in her jurisdiction. Along the way, Martin has failed to disclose her clear conflict of interest in the case, sent the case to an investigative agency that has no jurisdiction in the matter, and lied to the citizen who filed the complaint.
Martin used the U.S. mails and wires in this fraudulent scheme, which clearly fits under the definition of honest-services mail fraud. We here at Legal Schnauzer are holding Martin's feet to the fire on this issue, and she already is reportedly being investigated by at least three governmental entities on a variety of questionable practices.
Perhaps this is a side of the story that needs attention from Mr. Greenblatt and Governing Magazine.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
A Schnauzer Take on the Rove/Subpoena Issue
As I have read numerous reports about Karl Rove's extraordinary efforts to avoid testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, one question has repeatedly come to mind:
"Why didn't you immediately go before the committee, upon the first invitation, and lie your you-know-what off?"
Many words have been used to describe Rove, but "stupid" and "out of touch" are not among them. Of all people, Rove must know that the American justice system is built on a heaping, steaming compost pile of lies.
This is one of the primary lessons I've learned from my unpleasant experience with America's justice system. If I know it, Karl Rove has to know it.
Under normal circumstances, Rove would stand a far greater chance of snagging a date with Sheryl Crow than he would of getting nailed for perjury.
The fact that Rove is so reluctant to testify, apparently concerned about perjury, makes me think something is not normal about the circumstances in which he finds himself.
Hard experience has taught me that perjury is an American pastime, right up there with baseball, reality TV, and celebrity scandal. How many instances of perjury are there every working day in American legal proceedings? My guess is that the number is well into the millions. How many people are caught on a given day? You probably could fit them into your corner phone booth--certainly you could fit them into your neighbor's Volkswagen.
What does this mean to the everyday American? Consider my experience: The legal nightmare that led to this blog started because my wife and I were the victims of a crime--criminal trespass, third degree.
After multiple verbal warnings and a letter from a lawyer had failed to keep the trespasser off our property, we reluctantly decided we had to swear out a criminal complaint. How naive were we that day as we drove to the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama, to talk with representatives from both the DA's office and the county magistrate? It never crossed our minds that anyone in the process would not behave honestly. We assumed that the defendant would raise his right hand, take an oath, and tell the truth. And since we knew (and he knew) that he had repeatedly trespassed on our property, we figured, "Hey, what could go wrong?"
Ah, to be young and foolish. Little did we know that our defendant had been convicted of crimes on at least eight other occasions. He knew how the game was played. We didn't have a clue.
Heck, he probably knew there was a good chance the judge either would slap him on the wrist or twist the law beyond recognition in order to let him off. Numerous judges already had done that over the years, so why should this one be any different?
My wife and I, without even a speeding ticket between us, were like lambs to the slaughter. We had no idea the judge, the defendant, and the defense attorney would combine to fill the courtroom with verbal and procedural feces, while the prosecutor (our "representative") let it happen, never even asking, "Doesn't something smell funny in here?"
The end result? An acquittal for a defendant who, we learned later, had unwittingly confessed to the crime. And because of that, I got sued for a tort called malicious prosecution. And the fallout from fighting that bogus lawsuit continues to this day.
If most any ding dong can take an oath, break the oath by lying, and get away with it, why hasn't Karl Rove followed that route?
The only answer that comes to my mind is this: Rove must know there is evidence--somewhere, in some form--that will prove he is lying if he says he had nothing to do with the political prosecutions of Don Siegelman and other Democrats.
For all of the computer records that apparently have been wiped out, something pretty damning must still be out there. The existence of such hard, fast evidence is about the only way anyone in America--particularly someone of Rove's stature--could get nailed for perjury.
So the Schnauzer take is this: Rove knows damning evidence exists. And he must figure that someone else knows it exists, too. Would that someone point authorities in the right direction if Rove goes before Congress and lies? "Bush's Brain" must be convinced that the answer is "yes."
"Why didn't you immediately go before the committee, upon the first invitation, and lie your you-know-what off?"
Many words have been used to describe Rove, but "stupid" and "out of touch" are not among them. Of all people, Rove must know that the American justice system is built on a heaping, steaming compost pile of lies.
This is one of the primary lessons I've learned from my unpleasant experience with America's justice system. If I know it, Karl Rove has to know it.
Under normal circumstances, Rove would stand a far greater chance of snagging a date with Sheryl Crow than he would of getting nailed for perjury.
The fact that Rove is so reluctant to testify, apparently concerned about perjury, makes me think something is not normal about the circumstances in which he finds himself.
Hard experience has taught me that perjury is an American pastime, right up there with baseball, reality TV, and celebrity scandal. How many instances of perjury are there every working day in American legal proceedings? My guess is that the number is well into the millions. How many people are caught on a given day? You probably could fit them into your corner phone booth--certainly you could fit them into your neighbor's Volkswagen.
What does this mean to the everyday American? Consider my experience: The legal nightmare that led to this blog started because my wife and I were the victims of a crime--criminal trespass, third degree.
After multiple verbal warnings and a letter from a lawyer had failed to keep the trespasser off our property, we reluctantly decided we had to swear out a criminal complaint. How naive were we that day as we drove to the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama, to talk with representatives from both the DA's office and the county magistrate? It never crossed our minds that anyone in the process would not behave honestly. We assumed that the defendant would raise his right hand, take an oath, and tell the truth. And since we knew (and he knew) that he had repeatedly trespassed on our property, we figured, "Hey, what could go wrong?"
Ah, to be young and foolish. Little did we know that our defendant had been convicted of crimes on at least eight other occasions. He knew how the game was played. We didn't have a clue.
Heck, he probably knew there was a good chance the judge either would slap him on the wrist or twist the law beyond recognition in order to let him off. Numerous judges already had done that over the years, so why should this one be any different?
My wife and I, without even a speeding ticket between us, were like lambs to the slaughter. We had no idea the judge, the defendant, and the defense attorney would combine to fill the courtroom with verbal and procedural feces, while the prosecutor (our "representative") let it happen, never even asking, "Doesn't something smell funny in here?"
The end result? An acquittal for a defendant who, we learned later, had unwittingly confessed to the crime. And because of that, I got sued for a tort called malicious prosecution. And the fallout from fighting that bogus lawsuit continues to this day.
If most any ding dong can take an oath, break the oath by lying, and get away with it, why hasn't Karl Rove followed that route?
The only answer that comes to my mind is this: Rove must know there is evidence--somewhere, in some form--that will prove he is lying if he says he had nothing to do with the political prosecutions of Don Siegelman and other Democrats.
For all of the computer records that apparently have been wiped out, something pretty damning must still be out there. The existence of such hard, fast evidence is about the only way anyone in America--particularly someone of Rove's stature--could get nailed for perjury.
So the Schnauzer take is this: Rove knows damning evidence exists. And he must figure that someone else knows it exists, too. Would that someone point authorities in the right direction if Rove goes before Congress and lies? "Bush's Brain" must be convinced that the answer is "yes."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Is "Watchdog" Awakening on Siegelman Case?
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the U.S. Department of Justice is supposed to act as a watchdog, keeping a sharp eye on possible misconduct by federal prosecutors.
With evidence of prosecutorial misconduct mounting around the country, one must wonder if the OPR watchdog has overdosed on Ambien.
Particularly troubling is a report from Richard B. Schmitt, of The Los Angeles Times, noting OPR's penchant for shrouding its work in secrecy. Schmitt's report indicates the sleuths at OPR are more interested in covering up prosecutorial misconduct than in bringing it to light.
With that as a backdrop, Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News reports that OPR officials, at long last, have contacted the attorneys for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, the subject of the best-known case of possible political prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
A reasonable person might think that OPR would have contacted Siegelman's attorneys months ago. But the wheels of "justice" turn slowly, and very unreliably, in BushWorld. Stevenson says it is too early to know if the contact from OPR is anything more than a courtesy call.
With evidence of prosecutorial misconduct mounting around the country, one must wonder if the OPR watchdog has overdosed on Ambien.
Particularly troubling is a report from Richard B. Schmitt, of The Los Angeles Times, noting OPR's penchant for shrouding its work in secrecy. Schmitt's report indicates the sleuths at OPR are more interested in covering up prosecutorial misconduct than in bringing it to light.
With that as a backdrop, Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News reports that OPR officials, at long last, have contacted the attorneys for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, the subject of the best-known case of possible political prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
A reasonable person might think that OPR would have contacted Siegelman's attorneys months ago. But the wheels of "justice" turn slowly, and very unreliably, in BushWorld. Stevenson says it is too early to know if the contact from OPR is anything more than a courtesy call.
Animals Suffer, Too, in the Stagnant Bush Economy
Humans are not the only ones suffering in the withering economy the Bush Administration has wrought.
The Birmingham News reports that cash-strapped owners are increasingly having to give up their pets in order to help make ends meet.
One distraught Birmingham man surrendered his female blond cocker spaniel to a local animal shelter after he lost his home in foreclosure. In another case, a dog was dying of parvovirus, and the owner could not afford to take the animal to a veterinarian.
Animal-control workers in the Birmingham area are investigating a number of reports of horse neglect, where owners let the animals starve because they can't afford to feed them.
The Birmingham Humane Society took in more than 1,000 animals in May 2008, the first time it had reached that figure for one month since 2004.
As for the Bush economy, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has an interesting take on our current malaise. Blame should not be placed only on Bush and his abundant cluelessness, Krugman says. Fingers also should be pointed at Bush's fellow Republicans, particularly for their efforts to kill health-care reform in the 1990s.
The Birmingham News reports that cash-strapped owners are increasingly having to give up their pets in order to help make ends meet.
One distraught Birmingham man surrendered his female blond cocker spaniel to a local animal shelter after he lost his home in foreclosure. In another case, a dog was dying of parvovirus, and the owner could not afford to take the animal to a veterinarian.
Animal-control workers in the Birmingham area are investigating a number of reports of horse neglect, where owners let the animals starve because they can't afford to feed them.
The Birmingham Humane Society took in more than 1,000 animals in May 2008, the first time it had reached that figure for one month since 2004.
As for the Bush economy, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has an interesting take on our current malaise. Blame should not be placed only on Bush and his abundant cluelessness, Krugman says. Fingers also should be pointed at Bush's fellow Republicans, particularly for their efforts to kill health-care reform in the 1990s.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Judge in Minor Case Gets a Public Spanking
When my tale of legal woe began some seven years ago, I quickly noticed the effect judges have on many lawyers.
For example, upon receiving notice that my troublesome neighbor had filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I retained the services of a lawyer who is known in Birmingham legal circles for his knowledge of property issues.
I paid this lawyer and his associate between $150 and $200 an hour, a total of roughly $12,000 over about a year and a half. You would think that kind of dough would at least buy some loyalty--particularly when you consider that lawyers take an oath to fight vigorously for their clients' best interests.
But you would be wrong.
About 18 months into the case--a case that by law had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in six to eight months time--it became apparent that my lawyers were more interested in currying favor with the corrupt judge assigned to my case than they were representing my best interests. When I challenged my lawyers on their questionable handling of my case, they lied to me about what they were doing. When I demanded a refund of the fees I had paid, they refused.
This episode taught me one of the ugly secrets of the legal professions: Many lawyers, even ones with good reputations, are terrified of what a corrupt judge can do to their practices. These lawyers will happily sell a client down the proverbial river in order to stay in good graces with folks who wear robes.
Because of this, lawyers treat judges with extraordinary deference. While I'm sure some judges deserve the utmost respect, most of the ones I've encountered deserve prison sentences more than anything else.
So imagine my amazement when I read the appeal in the Paul Minor case and saw defense counsel Abbe Lowell give U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee, a public spanking like I've never seen before.
Lowell flat out says that Wingate made numerous "improper" and "illegal" rulings in the Minor case. Six pages of the appeal include a section titled "This court should assign a new judge on remand."
In other words, "This clown ain't fit to run a lemonade stand, much less a trial where several folks' freedom is at stake."
As the author of the following post, "Henry Wingate: Portrait of a Corrupt Judge," I was delighted to see Lowell tell it like it is regarding a true judicial fraud. And I was proud to be among the alternative journalists cited in the appeal for bringing the Minor case to the public's attention. I consider Scott Horton of Harper's.org, Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story, and Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press to be mighty fine company indeed.
The Minor appeal is a voluminous document, at 121 pages. But I hope readers will take the official Schnauzer "mini tour" of the appeal. The Minor case is a classic illustration of the sheer evil that has come to permeate the Bush Justice Department. And it raises a number of issues that also are present in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.
As for the "mini tour," try this: Click here and read "Statement of the Case," pages 5-7. That will give you an overview of the facts. Then read "Summary of the Argument," pages 33 to 35, which sums up the grounds upon which the conviction should be reversed. Then be sure to check out "This court should assign a new judge on remand," pages 114-119. That will let you know what it's like to see a federal judge receive a public spanking. It also will cause you to ask this question: How in the world do frauds like Henry Wingate get appointed to the federal bench?
For example, upon receiving notice that my troublesome neighbor had filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I retained the services of a lawyer who is known in Birmingham legal circles for his knowledge of property issues.
I paid this lawyer and his associate between $150 and $200 an hour, a total of roughly $12,000 over about a year and a half. You would think that kind of dough would at least buy some loyalty--particularly when you consider that lawyers take an oath to fight vigorously for their clients' best interests.
But you would be wrong.
About 18 months into the case--a case that by law had to be dismissed (summary judgment) in six to eight months time--it became apparent that my lawyers were more interested in currying favor with the corrupt judge assigned to my case than they were representing my best interests. When I challenged my lawyers on their questionable handling of my case, they lied to me about what they were doing. When I demanded a refund of the fees I had paid, they refused.
This episode taught me one of the ugly secrets of the legal professions: Many lawyers, even ones with good reputations, are terrified of what a corrupt judge can do to their practices. These lawyers will happily sell a client down the proverbial river in order to stay in good graces with folks who wear robes.
Because of this, lawyers treat judges with extraordinary deference. While I'm sure some judges deserve the utmost respect, most of the ones I've encountered deserve prison sentences more than anything else.
So imagine my amazement when I read the appeal in the Paul Minor case and saw defense counsel Abbe Lowell give U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee, a public spanking like I've never seen before.
Lowell flat out says that Wingate made numerous "improper" and "illegal" rulings in the Minor case. Six pages of the appeal include a section titled "This court should assign a new judge on remand."
In other words, "This clown ain't fit to run a lemonade stand, much less a trial where several folks' freedom is at stake."
As the author of the following post, "Henry Wingate: Portrait of a Corrupt Judge," I was delighted to see Lowell tell it like it is regarding a true judicial fraud. And I was proud to be among the alternative journalists cited in the appeal for bringing the Minor case to the public's attention. I consider Scott Horton of Harper's.org, Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story, and Adam Lynch of the Jackson Free Press to be mighty fine company indeed.
The Minor appeal is a voluminous document, at 121 pages. But I hope readers will take the official Schnauzer "mini tour" of the appeal. The Minor case is a classic illustration of the sheer evil that has come to permeate the Bush Justice Department. And it raises a number of issues that also are present in the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.
As for the "mini tour," try this: Click here and read "Statement of the Case," pages 5-7. That will give you an overview of the facts. Then read "Summary of the Argument," pages 33 to 35, which sums up the grounds upon which the conviction should be reversed. Then be sure to check out "This court should assign a new judge on remand," pages 114-119. That will let you know what it's like to see a federal judge receive a public spanking. It also will cause you to ask this question: How in the world do frauds like Henry Wingate get appointed to the federal bench?
Whistleblowers' Voices Go Unheard
One of the most familiar refrains that schoolchildren learn is, "Crime doesn't pay."
Unfortunately, as we become adults, many of us learn that crime does pay. And Lindsay Beyerstein provides proof at her Majikthise blog.
Beyerstein is a reporter for Larisa Alexandrovna's team at Raw Story, and she references a report showing that the Bush Justice Department has a backlog of 900 qui tam cases. The report originated in the Washington Post and also drew the attention of reporter Nick Schwellenbach at The Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
Qui tam is a term used for cases involving whistleblowers who report on companies or institutions who are defrauding the government. Such cases often involve criminal activity, but they become civil cases as an incentive for whistleblowers to come forward. The whistleblower can be rewarded with a sizable chunk of proceeds that are recovered by the government.
Considering that the Bush Justice Department has shown its ineptness on the criminal side, we probably should not be surprised that the department cannot handle civil cases effectively either. One also has to wonder if these cases are allowed to wither because they target businesses (drug companies, etc.) and institutions that are favored entities in BushWorld.
Never mind that the public is cheated, and millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted.
Remember this term qui tam. We had a major qui tam case in Birmingham that was settled three years ago. The case received scant attention in the local press, and I have a feeling it was "settled" for an amount that was way below the actual amount of fraud.
This case has some interesting connections to recent events in our Legal Schnauzer tale, and we will be casting a critical eye toward the individuals and entities who quietly pulled off quite a "deal," one that might not have been in the public's interest.
Speaking of Beyerstein, her blog is an excellent resource for progressive news and commentary. And it also features very nice photography, including shots of our animal friends. As the proud "father" of two Siamese (or Tonkinese, we're not sure which) cats, just had to share this photo and this photo from Majikthise.
Unfortunately, as we become adults, many of us learn that crime does pay. And Lindsay Beyerstein provides proof at her Majikthise blog.
Beyerstein is a reporter for Larisa Alexandrovna's team at Raw Story, and she references a report showing that the Bush Justice Department has a backlog of 900 qui tam cases. The report originated in the Washington Post and also drew the attention of reporter Nick Schwellenbach at The Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
Qui tam is a term used for cases involving whistleblowers who report on companies or institutions who are defrauding the government. Such cases often involve criminal activity, but they become civil cases as an incentive for whistleblowers to come forward. The whistleblower can be rewarded with a sizable chunk of proceeds that are recovered by the government.
Considering that the Bush Justice Department has shown its ineptness on the criminal side, we probably should not be surprised that the department cannot handle civil cases effectively either. One also has to wonder if these cases are allowed to wither because they target businesses (drug companies, etc.) and institutions that are favored entities in BushWorld.
Never mind that the public is cheated, and millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted.
Remember this term qui tam. We had a major qui tam case in Birmingham that was settled three years ago. The case received scant attention in the local press, and I have a feeling it was "settled" for an amount that was way below the actual amount of fraud.
This case has some interesting connections to recent events in our Legal Schnauzer tale, and we will be casting a critical eye toward the individuals and entities who quietly pulled off quite a "deal," one that might not have been in the public's interest.
Speaking of Beyerstein, her blog is an excellent resource for progressive news and commentary. And it also features very nice photography, including shots of our animal friends. As the proud "father" of two Siamese (or Tonkinese, we're not sure which) cats, just had to share this photo and this photo from Majikthise.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Paul Minor Case Moves Forward on Appeal
Our friends at folo have been providing excellent coverage on the appellate process in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. And I must say, right up front, that I am delighted our little blog plays a role in the appeal.
The Minor case presents many of the same issues on appeal as the Don Siegelman case, so this is a Mississippi case well worth following for folks in Alabama.
A report comes today that Minor has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for release pending appeal. The folks at folo report:
(Minor) now moves for release pending appeal, arguing that the circumstances of his bond revocation no longer pertain, that his wife is dying of cancer with only months to live, that the sentence Judge Wingate should have imposed he’d have already served, and that he has meritorious issues in his appeal brief, which we blogged about earlier in the week.
As I said at the time about the appeal brief, I was just describing what I saw and was going to say what I thought about it when I’d had a chance to read more about the case, particularly after reading the government’s reply brief. I do think that his basic issues– bribery instructions and quid pro quo– ought to be excellent issues.
Earlier in the week, folo posted about the Minor appellate brief and noted its similarities to the Siegelman appeal. The post even has a link to the brief itself, which is a whopper at 121 pages.
I haven't worked through all of the brief yet, but I've written 25-plus posts about the Minor case, and I can state without hestitation that this case is about as bad a miscarriage of justice as my imagination can handle. Three men--Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield--are modern-day political prisoners because of a slimy prosecutor named Dunn Lampton (currently under investigation by the Justice Department) and a disgraceful federal judge named Henry Wingate (who should have an impeachment hearing and a prison sentence with his name on them).
Here's a nice summary of the issues from folo:
The big theme of the brief is that Minor was given a first trial in which he was acquitted on some charges and the jury hung on others, that in the second trial the judge made very critical unexplained changes in rulings, and there was a conviction. Among the unexplained changes in rulings:
* a decision to refuse to instruct the jury that, to prove bribery, there had to be proof of a quid pro quo– some sort of exchange for the payment. This exact issue is a major one in the Siegelman case.
*a decision to refuse to allow proof that Minor had done these sorts of guarantees before in other contexts, proof that had been allowed in the first trial.
* a decision to refuse to allow proof (also allowed in the first trial) that the result in the two cases was a reasonable and proper result, and that the Minor firm had done hard work for the result and had major expertise in these areas.
Then, how about this? The brief includes a section about the role the alternative press has played in bringing the Minor case to public attention. We at Legal Schnauzer are proud as we can be to be included with the likes of Scott Horton from Harper's.org, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, and Adam Lynch at the Jackson Free Press. (Can someone please tell me why Jackson, Mississippi, has an alternative weekly with a spine, and Birmingham does not?)
The brief then goes on the attack the sentence and concludes by asking that on remand the case be reassigned to another judge. The last issue is a sustained attack on Judge Wingate based not on the record in this case but on media accounts, particularly from Scott Horton at Harper’s. There are even cites to the LegalSchnauzer blog, the Raw Story web page, and a Jackson Free Press article.
The Minor case presents many of the same issues on appeal as the Don Siegelman case, so this is a Mississippi case well worth following for folks in Alabama.
A report comes today that Minor has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for release pending appeal. The folks at folo report:
(Minor) now moves for release pending appeal, arguing that the circumstances of his bond revocation no longer pertain, that his wife is dying of cancer with only months to live, that the sentence Judge Wingate should have imposed he’d have already served, and that he has meritorious issues in his appeal brief, which we blogged about earlier in the week.
As I said at the time about the appeal brief, I was just describing what I saw and was going to say what I thought about it when I’d had a chance to read more about the case, particularly after reading the government’s reply brief. I do think that his basic issues– bribery instructions and quid pro quo– ought to be excellent issues.
Earlier in the week, folo posted about the Minor appellate brief and noted its similarities to the Siegelman appeal. The post even has a link to the brief itself, which is a whopper at 121 pages.
I haven't worked through all of the brief yet, but I've written 25-plus posts about the Minor case, and I can state without hestitation that this case is about as bad a miscarriage of justice as my imagination can handle. Three men--Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield--are modern-day political prisoners because of a slimy prosecutor named Dunn Lampton (currently under investigation by the Justice Department) and a disgraceful federal judge named Henry Wingate (who should have an impeachment hearing and a prison sentence with his name on them).
Here's a nice summary of the issues from folo:
The big theme of the brief is that Minor was given a first trial in which he was acquitted on some charges and the jury hung on others, that in the second trial the judge made very critical unexplained changes in rulings, and there was a conviction. Among the unexplained changes in rulings:
* a decision to refuse to instruct the jury that, to prove bribery, there had to be proof of a quid pro quo– some sort of exchange for the payment. This exact issue is a major one in the Siegelman case.
*a decision to refuse to allow proof that Minor had done these sorts of guarantees before in other contexts, proof that had been allowed in the first trial.
* a decision to refuse to allow proof (also allowed in the first trial) that the result in the two cases was a reasonable and proper result, and that the Minor firm had done hard work for the result and had major expertise in these areas.
Then, how about this? The brief includes a section about the role the alternative press has played in bringing the Minor case to public attention. We at Legal Schnauzer are proud as we can be to be included with the likes of Scott Horton from Harper's.org, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, and Adam Lynch at the Jackson Free Press. (Can someone please tell me why Jackson, Mississippi, has an alternative weekly with a spine, and Birmingham does not?)
The brief then goes on the attack the sentence and concludes by asking that on remand the case be reassigned to another judge. The last issue is a sustained attack on Judge Wingate based not on the record in this case but on media accounts, particularly from Scott Horton at Harper’s. There are even cites to the LegalSchnauzer blog, the Raw Story web page, and a Jackson Free Press article.
Paul Minor and his codefendants have some world-class lawyers, and this appeal is about as close to a no-brainer as the Fifth Circuit is likely to ever see. If these convictions aren't overturned, we might as well take all of our law schools and courthouses and blow them up (after all living things are removed) so we can start over from scratch. This appeal truly is a test case for determining whether our justice system even has an ounce of merit left.
Could an Arrest Be in Karl Rove's Future?
Karl Rove still is trying to avoid appearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. But Democrats John Conyers and Linda Sanchez are showing some backbone in their efforts to ensure that the former White House strategist testifies about his role in a number of apparent political prosecutions, including the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that Conyers and Sanchez said today that Rove is not immune from a Congressional subpoena.
In a letter to Rove attorney Robert Luskin, dated July 3, 2008, Conyers and Sanchez state that failure to appear on July 10 could subject Rove to a number of sanctions, including statutory contempt under federal law and inherent contempt under the authority of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The full content of the Conyers/Sanchez letter is available at the link to Wilson's post.
Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that Conyers and Sanchez said today that Rove is not immune from a Congressional subpoena.
In a letter to Rove attorney Robert Luskin, dated July 3, 2008, Conyers and Sanchez state that failure to appear on July 10 could subject Rove to a number of sanctions, including statutory contempt under federal law and inherent contempt under the authority of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The full content of the Conyers/Sanchez letter is available at the link to Wilson's post.
Unanswered Questions for Karl Rove
Speaking of Paul Alexander, all of the answers he wants from Karl Rove are not in Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove.
In fact, Alexander has a number of questions he would like to see put to Rove. Alexander is a contributor to the Nieman Watchdog program, and you can check out his Rove-centered questions at niemanwatchdog.org.
For those who live in Alabama, here is a question that particularly jumps out:
Q. Describe your association with Leura Canary, a United States attorney in Alabama and wife of your good friend and former business partner William “Bill” Canary. Did you in any way advise or help facilitate what is now being described as the wrongful prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, a prosecution headed up by Leura Canary?
Hmmm, wonder how "Bush's Brain" would answer that one.
In fact, Alexander has a number of questions he would like to see put to Rove. Alexander is a contributor to the Nieman Watchdog program, and you can check out his Rove-centered questions at niemanwatchdog.org.
For those who live in Alabama, here is a question that particularly jumps out:
Q. Describe your association with Leura Canary, a United States attorney in Alabama and wife of your good friend and former business partner William “Bill” Canary. Did you in any way advise or help facilitate what is now being described as the wrongful prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, a prosecution headed up by Leura Canary?
Hmmm, wonder how "Bush's Brain" would answer that one.
Alabama Lives Under Machiavelli's Shadow
Want to understand the nefarious role Karl Rove has played in bastardizing our justice system--both in Alabama and beyond?
Then Scott Horton's interview with author Paul Alexander is must reading.
Alexander is the author of the just-released Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove, and Horton interviews him at Harper's.org.
Some highlights from the interview:
* Alexander, on comparisons between the investigations of Jim Hightower in Texas and Don Siegelman in Alabama:
In the 1990 race for agriculture commissioner in Texas, Rove represented Rick Perry as he ran against incumbent Jim Hightower, a popular figure in the state. In the eighteen months leading up to the election, Hightower saw his office become the object of an ongoing investigation by Greg Rampton, an FBI agent based in Austin. During the campaign, no charges were filed against Hightower or anyone in his office, but there was a steady steam of negative news stories concerning the investigation. The Perry campaign—run by Rove—even used the fact that the FBI was investigating Hightower in its fundraising mail-outs. Was Rove involved in the investigation? “This summer,” Rove wrote in a 1989 federal questionnaire that would later surface, “I met with agent Greg Rampton of the Austin FBI office at his request regarding a probe of political corruption in the office of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower.” Perry—today Texas governor—won the race in a squeaker, by less than 15,000 votes.
Tellingly, there would be a similar investigation of Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama when he was running for re-election in 2002. In the run-up to that election, Siegelman was the subject of a combined federal-state investigation carried out by William Pryor, the state attorney general and a Rove client, and Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney and the wife of a former Rove business partner, William “Bill” Canary. Information from the investigation routinely ended up in the news, which was then used by one or more Republican candidates. The negative attacks—helped for sure by large sums of money spent to run ads against Siegelman—made the race close. In a disputed election (another story in itself), Siegelman was defeated by Republican Bob Riley by just 3,000 votes.The Rove forces didn’t let up. Ultimately, they would see to it that Siegelman was indicted. And how would that investigation lead to an indictment? “Don’t worry,” Bill Canary is reported to have said on a conference call concerning the matter, “I’ve already gotten it worked out with Karl. Karl has spoken with the Justice Department and they are already pursuing Siegelman.”
* Alexander, on the notion that, as White House strategist, Rove would be too elevated to worry about a gubernatorial race in Alabama involving Don Siegelman and Bob Riley:
When Rove headed with Bush to Washington after winning the presidency in 2000, Rove had one overriding goal, which he would state publicly over the coming years: to set up what Rove termed “a permanent Republican majority.”
“When Karl got to the White House,” Texas-based Republican strategists Mark Sanders told me, “he immediately started putting together a plan for what was essentially the Third Reich of Republican majority in this country. That was absolutely his plan, a Republican majority domination not just of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the presidency, but also state legislatures across the country. This was not just a pie-in-the-sky dream that Karl had. He wanted to see the Republican Party rule for the next 30 to 40 years.”
To do this, Rove needed the South to remain solidly Republican, and of looming concern was Don Siegelman—a popular, effective governor in Alabama, and a Democrat. It is not surprising, then, that Rove targeted Siegelman as someone who needed to be defeated and then driven from the political scene so he would not be able to reappear in the future to pose a threat.
“So all roads lead to Karl Rove, who wanted me out of the way,” Siegelman told me, “because I was a threat not only in Alabama but also on the national level. I was the first Democratic governor to endorse Al Gore. Heading toward 2004, I had spoken out at a Democratic Governors Association meeting against Bush’s policy in Iraq and his education and economic programs, and I was ready to take that message to key primary states.”
To achieve this, Rove participated in a political prosecution of Siegelman that culminated with Siegelman going to prison which ended Siegleman’s political career—or so it appeared at the time.
* Alexander, on what Rove has done to the Republican Party--and the country:
Rove’s legacy will be based on the fact that he helped get Bush elected Texas governor twice and president twice. There is no denying that political achievement. However, Rove must also own the fact that his president has now chalked up the longest sustained sub-par approval rating of any president in modern times. According to the latest national poll I saw, Bush has a 23 percent approval rating, roughly the number Richard Nixon had when he resigned from office.
Republican leaders have described the Bush brand as “toxic.” Party insiders view Rove harshly. “I think the legacy,” Ed Rollins told me for my book, “is that Karl Rove will be a name that’ll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it, as opposed to an example of how to do it….I think, at the end of this, the party will be weaker in numbers in the Congress, numbers of governors, numbers of state legislatures, and numbers of Republicans. He did little to attract young people to become Republicans. Anybody who’s a Republican today became a Republican during the Reagan era. Nobody who’s come of age during the Bush era will stand up and say, ‘I’m a Bush Republican. I’m going to spend the rest of my life being a Bush Republican.’”
Then Scott Horton's interview with author Paul Alexander is must reading.
Alexander is the author of the just-released Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove, and Horton interviews him at Harper's.org.
Some highlights from the interview:
* Alexander, on comparisons between the investigations of Jim Hightower in Texas and Don Siegelman in Alabama:
In the 1990 race for agriculture commissioner in Texas, Rove represented Rick Perry as he ran against incumbent Jim Hightower, a popular figure in the state. In the eighteen months leading up to the election, Hightower saw his office become the object of an ongoing investigation by Greg Rampton, an FBI agent based in Austin. During the campaign, no charges were filed against Hightower or anyone in his office, but there was a steady steam of negative news stories concerning the investigation. The Perry campaign—run by Rove—even used the fact that the FBI was investigating Hightower in its fundraising mail-outs. Was Rove involved in the investigation? “This summer,” Rove wrote in a 1989 federal questionnaire that would later surface, “I met with agent Greg Rampton of the Austin FBI office at his request regarding a probe of political corruption in the office of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower.” Perry—today Texas governor—won the race in a squeaker, by less than 15,000 votes.
Tellingly, there would be a similar investigation of Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama when he was running for re-election in 2002. In the run-up to that election, Siegelman was the subject of a combined federal-state investigation carried out by William Pryor, the state attorney general and a Rove client, and Leura Canary, the U.S. attorney and the wife of a former Rove business partner, William “Bill” Canary. Information from the investigation routinely ended up in the news, which was then used by one or more Republican candidates. The negative attacks—helped for sure by large sums of money spent to run ads against Siegelman—made the race close. In a disputed election (another story in itself), Siegelman was defeated by Republican Bob Riley by just 3,000 votes.The Rove forces didn’t let up. Ultimately, they would see to it that Siegelman was indicted. And how would that investigation lead to an indictment? “Don’t worry,” Bill Canary is reported to have said on a conference call concerning the matter, “I’ve already gotten it worked out with Karl. Karl has spoken with the Justice Department and they are already pursuing Siegelman.”
* Alexander, on the notion that, as White House strategist, Rove would be too elevated to worry about a gubernatorial race in Alabama involving Don Siegelman and Bob Riley:
When Rove headed with Bush to Washington after winning the presidency in 2000, Rove had one overriding goal, which he would state publicly over the coming years: to set up what Rove termed “a permanent Republican majority.”
“When Karl got to the White House,” Texas-based Republican strategists Mark Sanders told me, “he immediately started putting together a plan for what was essentially the Third Reich of Republican majority in this country. That was absolutely his plan, a Republican majority domination not just of the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the presidency, but also state legislatures across the country. This was not just a pie-in-the-sky dream that Karl had. He wanted to see the Republican Party rule for the next 30 to 40 years.”
To do this, Rove needed the South to remain solidly Republican, and of looming concern was Don Siegelman—a popular, effective governor in Alabama, and a Democrat. It is not surprising, then, that Rove targeted Siegelman as someone who needed to be defeated and then driven from the political scene so he would not be able to reappear in the future to pose a threat.
“So all roads lead to Karl Rove, who wanted me out of the way,” Siegelman told me, “because I was a threat not only in Alabama but also on the national level. I was the first Democratic governor to endorse Al Gore. Heading toward 2004, I had spoken out at a Democratic Governors Association meeting against Bush’s policy in Iraq and his education and economic programs, and I was ready to take that message to key primary states.”
To achieve this, Rove participated in a political prosecution of Siegelman that culminated with Siegelman going to prison which ended Siegleman’s political career—or so it appeared at the time.
* Alexander, on what Rove has done to the Republican Party--and the country:
Rove’s legacy will be based on the fact that he helped get Bush elected Texas governor twice and president twice. There is no denying that political achievement. However, Rove must also own the fact that his president has now chalked up the longest sustained sub-par approval rating of any president in modern times. According to the latest national poll I saw, Bush has a 23 percent approval rating, roughly the number Richard Nixon had when he resigned from office.
Republican leaders have described the Bush brand as “toxic.” Party insiders view Rove harshly. “I think the legacy,” Ed Rollins told me for my book, “is that Karl Rove will be a name that’ll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it, as opposed to an example of how to do it….I think, at the end of this, the party will be weaker in numbers in the Congress, numbers of governors, numbers of state legislatures, and numbers of Republicans. He did little to attract young people to become Republicans. Anybody who’s a Republican today became a Republican during the Reagan era. Nobody who’s come of age during the Bush era will stand up and say, ‘I’m a Bush Republican. I’m going to spend the rest of my life being a Bush Republican.’”
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
ExxonMobil: Tightening Its Grip on Alabama Justice
Let's revisit our post from a couple of days ago about the notorious ExxonMobil ruling and its possible impact on a 2008 race for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court.
An article by Bob Lowry of The Huntsville Times raises issues that deserve close attention:
* What influence does cold, hard cash have on Alabama's appellate-court races? Well, more than $54 million has been spent on Alabama Supreme Court races since 1993, which places us a solid No. 1 in the nation. Texas is a distant No. 2 at $30 million.
* Lowry states that the justices who ruled in Exxon Mobil's favor have received millions from business-oriented PACs since 2000. And he adds that two of the pro-business PAC operators are registered lobbyists for Exxon Mobil, according to the Alabama Ethics Commission.
But then he adds this curious information:
But Bob Geddie of the Montgomery lobbying firm of Fine Geddie & Associates, a registered lobbyist for Exxon Mobil, said he doesn't believe the company contributes to PACs in Supreme Court races.
"I know that allegation was made in last year's (2006) campaign, but as far as I know, Exxon Mobil does not make any contributions to candidates running for the Supreme Court in Alabama," he said.
This doesn't square with an article by Legal-Affairs Contributor Scott Horton, at Harper's.org. Horton reported that justices on the court received $5.5 million from ExxonMobil lobbyists, lawyers, and groups allied with the company.
Lowry does go on to state that seven PACs controlled by Fine Geddie made $293,000 in direct campaign contributions to the justices.
* Issues involving ExxonMobil and the Alabama Supreme Court are not going away. Lowry reports:
The Supreme Court is likely to hear another Exxon Mobil case.
Alabama could be forced to refund more than $83 million in oil and gas severance taxes if a judge's ruling survives an appeal in Mobile County Circuit Court. The state had denied requests from Exxon Mobil for about $41 million in refunds, plus interest, based on additional costs.
An administrative law judge earlier ruled in the company's favor in a case that centered on where and how natural gas should be taxed, but the state Revenue Department is appealing.
An article by Bob Lowry of The Huntsville Times raises issues that deserve close attention:
* What influence does cold, hard cash have on Alabama's appellate-court races? Well, more than $54 million has been spent on Alabama Supreme Court races since 1993, which places us a solid No. 1 in the nation. Texas is a distant No. 2 at $30 million.
* Lowry states that the justices who ruled in Exxon Mobil's favor have received millions from business-oriented PACs since 2000. And he adds that two of the pro-business PAC operators are registered lobbyists for Exxon Mobil, according to the Alabama Ethics Commission.
But then he adds this curious information:
But Bob Geddie of the Montgomery lobbying firm of Fine Geddie & Associates, a registered lobbyist for Exxon Mobil, said he doesn't believe the company contributes to PACs in Supreme Court races.
"I know that allegation was made in last year's (2006) campaign, but as far as I know, Exxon Mobil does not make any contributions to candidates running for the Supreme Court in Alabama," he said.
This doesn't square with an article by Legal-Affairs Contributor Scott Horton, at Harper's.org. Horton reported that justices on the court received $5.5 million from ExxonMobil lobbyists, lawyers, and groups allied with the company.
Lowry does go on to state that seven PACs controlled by Fine Geddie made $293,000 in direct campaign contributions to the justices.
* Issues involving ExxonMobil and the Alabama Supreme Court are not going away. Lowry reports:
The Supreme Court is likely to hear another Exxon Mobil case.
Alabama could be forced to refund more than $83 million in oil and gas severance taxes if a judge's ruling survives an appeal in Mobile County Circuit Court. The state had denied requests from Exxon Mobil for about $41 million in refunds, plus interest, based on additional costs.
An administrative law judge earlier ruled in the company's favor in a case that centered on where and how natural gas should be taxed, but the state Revenue Department is appealing.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Alice Martin Suffers Another Embarrassment
What's left of Alice Martin's reputation takes another thrashing today with the release of a piece by Scott Horton in American Lawyer magazine.
Those of us who live in the Northern District of Alabama, and pay attention to the news, know that Martin is a pox on the very idea of justice. But thanks to Horton, readers of one of the nation's foremost legal-affairs magazines now know about Martin's disgraceful performance.
Horton notes that Martin is under investigation from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility for her handling of the first Don Siegelman case and other matters. The article focuses heavily on the racially tinged case of Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, whose business was ruined by a Martin prosecution that would have to improve to reach the level of "weak."
In fact, Horton shows that "fraudulent" would be a better term to apply to the Latifi case, and it looks like Martin's misconduct is going to cost taxpayers a healthy chunk of change.
Following is Horton's American Lawyer piece in its entirety. If you live in Alabama and care about justice, try not to read it and weep. This is a classic description of what Karl Rove and Bill Canary have wrought in our state.
It all hits particularly close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because Alice Martin's former campaign manager was Dax Swatek, whose father Bill Swatek filed the bogus lawsuit that started my legal nightmare. And it's well established that Dax Swatek has been a close associate to Bill Canary, who has close ties to Rove.
And we have shown, in an extensive series of posts, that Alice Martin took intentional and corrupt steps to protect Bill Swatek and his Shelby County cronies when I filed allegations with her office of clear criminal wrongdoing by the Swatek crowd.
Regular readers of this blog know about my house being unlawfully auctioned in Shelby County, at the direction of Bill Swatek and Sheriff Chris Curry. My wife and I have been caused to suffer in other ways, in ways that I have not even begun to blog about.
But I'm gathering information about the forces behind the latest attacks on my family and me. And you will read about them in due time. Suffice to say, you haven't heard the last of sleaze connected to Alice Martin.
Here is the Horton piece. Please note the two paragraphs in bold. If those don't make your jaw drop, well, it must be wired shut:
BAR TALK:
The Crusader
Has U.S. Attorney Alice Martin run amok? The government is investigating. The victims of her failed prosecutions believe they already know the answer.
The American Lawyer
By Scott Horton
July 01, 2008
In March 2007 the U.S. government charged Axion Corp., a small business in Huntsville, Alabama, with illegally giving technical drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to manufacturers in China.
The prosecutors seized Axion's assets and took away its government contract business. The company won an acquittal at trial a year later, but by that time, it was out of business.
Axion is the latest in a string of aggressive prosecutions brought by Birmingham U.S. attorney Alice Martin. Those prosecutions are marked by convictions overturned and innocent men wronged. Two judges have openly questioned whether she knowingly prosecuted innocent people. The American Lawyer has learned that the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an investigation into allegations of misconduct that were made by Axion against Martin.
A Mississippi native, Martin was a federal prosecutor in Memphis and an Alabama state court judge. She has strong ties to the Republican establishment--her mentor is William Canary, a powerful Republican campaign consultant in Alabama who has close ties to former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.
Her first step into the national spotlight came with the prosecution of a group of HealthSouth Corporation executives on fraud charges starting in 2003. Seventeen corporate officers were convicted, but CEO Richard Scrushy, on whom all eyes had been focused, walked out of court a free man.
Next, she drew notice for her wide-ranging investigation of corruption into Alabama's two-year college system. In connection with the investigation, she dispatched U.S. marshals to Montgomery to serve subpoenas on Democratic lawmakers on the floor of the legislature--a move that was stopped when the legislators pointed out that it might be a crime.
But she is best known for her crusade against former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Martin tried to prosecute Siegelman on corruption charges, but dropped the case the day after the trial began. She then passed the baton to her colleagues in Montgomery, who brought a second, successful case against Siegelman on the basis of allegedly improper campaign donations by Richard Scrushy. An appeal is pending.
The Siegelman prosecution has been widely criticized as a frame-up by Martin, and the prosecution is now the subject of a probe by the House Judiciary Committee, which is trying to determine if it was brought for political reasons.
She most recently gained notoriety for the failed prosecution of Axion, a company started by Alexander Nooredin Latifi, an intense and amiable entrepreneur who emigrated from Iran as a young man in the 1970s. He learned engineering, and slowly built the company. At its peak, the business had 60 employees and was estimated by a federal court to be worth $50 million.
In March 2007 the government charged the company and its owner with violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) by sending technical drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to a Chinese manufacturer. The prosecutors in Birmingham, led by Martin, sought forfeiture of Latifi's assets and obtained an order that wrought havoc with the company's government contract business.
After the government secured the asset freeze, no charges were brought against Latifi or the company until March 2007. Then Axion's defense counsel--Henry Frohsin and James Barger, Jr., of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz's Birmingham's office--made a tactical call to waive Axion's right to a jury trial. Frohsin and Barger were concerned that Latifi's connections to Iran would be played against him. "At the time of the indictment, the White House was beating the drums for possible conflict with Iran. Since the case would be tried in northern Alabama, where the defense industry and Army are colocated, we felt that we should avoid the possibility of xenophobia," says Frohsin.
After the trial started in October, the government's case collapsed quickly. What Axion had attempted to have made in China was nothing more than a tungsten blank, from which Axion intended to mill the actual part. The government was forced to acknowledge that the drawings furnished to Axion by its contractor had not been labeled "restricted," but instead were given a legend of "noncritical" and "uncontrolled," meaning that Axion had no way of knowing that their use was restricted. Moreover, the drawings had long been accessible on the Internet.
As the case progressed, the government's own witnesses were forced to concede that Blackhawk helicopters, equipped with the part in question, had actually been sold to China with U.S. government approval, demolishing the government's claim of a breach of secrecy. Not only that, but the prosecution was aware of these sales before the case was ever brought. Still, the prosecution would not withdraw the case.
It was ultimately dismissed by Judge Inge Johnson of the federal district court in Birmingham, who wrote, "Evidence was received . . . that at least raises the possibility in the eyes of the district court that the government continued to investigate and prosecute the defendants even after uncovering evidence demonstrating that the defendants were not guilty."
Another failed case, another investigation. A Justice spokesman says that the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates allegations of misconduct by Justice attorneys, is investigating Martin for "allegations of political prosecution involving both the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, arising out of the prosecution of former Governor Siegelman and other matters."
Knowing what she did, why did the Martin bring the case? She declined to comment for this article. But for a prosecutor, the appeal of a national security case involving arms sales to China is obvious. Or it could be, as Henry Frohsin believes, that "the fact that Alex Latifi was Iranian American was more than tempting for the Department of Justice to try to create a poster child for their arms export control activism."
Once the case was battered, why did the government persist? The answer, say defense counsel, is that the prosecutors were convinced they could convert an asset freeze and the threat of substantial prison time into a plea bargain. And the Justice Department has made a great show of prosecuting AECA cases. Having won the case, Baker, Donelson then put the government on the defensive. The firm filed a motion, arguing that the case was not brought in good faith and that the government should compensate Axion and Latifi for legal costs. Judge Johnson agreed. She wrote that the AECA "framework allows the government to effectively shut down an accused business regardless of whether the business is later acquitted at criminal trial. This result is unfair to potential defendants and, in this case as a practical matter, ruined Axion's business." She awarded $363,000 in costs, attorneys fees, and interest to Axion.
Alice Martin has not directly addressed the outcome in the Axion case. She issued a press release on May 30, indicating that the government will have to reconsider the way it approaches asset forfeiture cases, or at least be prepared to pay the target's attorneys fees if it loses. Martin is also fighting the award of attorneys' fees on procedural grounds, claiming that the freeze orders against Axion and the decertification of the company as a government contractor had in no way harmed the business.
Her crusade continues.
Those of us who live in the Northern District of Alabama, and pay attention to the news, know that Martin is a pox on the very idea of justice. But thanks to Horton, readers of one of the nation's foremost legal-affairs magazines now know about Martin's disgraceful performance.
Horton notes that Martin is under investigation from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility for her handling of the first Don Siegelman case and other matters. The article focuses heavily on the racially tinged case of Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, whose business was ruined by a Martin prosecution that would have to improve to reach the level of "weak."
In fact, Horton shows that "fraudulent" would be a better term to apply to the Latifi case, and it looks like Martin's misconduct is going to cost taxpayers a healthy chunk of change.
Following is Horton's American Lawyer piece in its entirety. If you live in Alabama and care about justice, try not to read it and weep. This is a classic description of what Karl Rove and Bill Canary have wrought in our state.
It all hits particularly close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because Alice Martin's former campaign manager was Dax Swatek, whose father Bill Swatek filed the bogus lawsuit that started my legal nightmare. And it's well established that Dax Swatek has been a close associate to Bill Canary, who has close ties to Rove.
And we have shown, in an extensive series of posts, that Alice Martin took intentional and corrupt steps to protect Bill Swatek and his Shelby County cronies when I filed allegations with her office of clear criminal wrongdoing by the Swatek crowd.
Regular readers of this blog know about my house being unlawfully auctioned in Shelby County, at the direction of Bill Swatek and Sheriff Chris Curry. My wife and I have been caused to suffer in other ways, in ways that I have not even begun to blog about.
But I'm gathering information about the forces behind the latest attacks on my family and me. And you will read about them in due time. Suffice to say, you haven't heard the last of sleaze connected to Alice Martin.
Here is the Horton piece. Please note the two paragraphs in bold. If those don't make your jaw drop, well, it must be wired shut:
BAR TALK:
The Crusader
Has U.S. Attorney Alice Martin run amok? The government is investigating. The victims of her failed prosecutions believe they already know the answer.
The American Lawyer
By Scott Horton
July 01, 2008
In March 2007 the U.S. government charged Axion Corp., a small business in Huntsville, Alabama, with illegally giving technical drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to manufacturers in China.
The prosecutors seized Axion's assets and took away its government contract business. The company won an acquittal at trial a year later, but by that time, it was out of business.
Axion is the latest in a string of aggressive prosecutions brought by Birmingham U.S. attorney Alice Martin. Those prosecutions are marked by convictions overturned and innocent men wronged. Two judges have openly questioned whether she knowingly prosecuted innocent people. The American Lawyer has learned that the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an investigation into allegations of misconduct that were made by Axion against Martin.
A Mississippi native, Martin was a federal prosecutor in Memphis and an Alabama state court judge. She has strong ties to the Republican establishment--her mentor is William Canary, a powerful Republican campaign consultant in Alabama who has close ties to former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.
Her first step into the national spotlight came with the prosecution of a group of HealthSouth Corporation executives on fraud charges starting in 2003. Seventeen corporate officers were convicted, but CEO Richard Scrushy, on whom all eyes had been focused, walked out of court a free man.
Next, she drew notice for her wide-ranging investigation of corruption into Alabama's two-year college system. In connection with the investigation, she dispatched U.S. marshals to Montgomery to serve subpoenas on Democratic lawmakers on the floor of the legislature--a move that was stopped when the legislators pointed out that it might be a crime.
But she is best known for her crusade against former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat. Martin tried to prosecute Siegelman on corruption charges, but dropped the case the day after the trial began. She then passed the baton to her colleagues in Montgomery, who brought a second, successful case against Siegelman on the basis of allegedly improper campaign donations by Richard Scrushy. An appeal is pending.
The Siegelman prosecution has been widely criticized as a frame-up by Martin, and the prosecution is now the subject of a probe by the House Judiciary Committee, which is trying to determine if it was brought for political reasons.
She most recently gained notoriety for the failed prosecution of Axion, a company started by Alexander Nooredin Latifi, an intense and amiable entrepreneur who emigrated from Iran as a young man in the 1970s. He learned engineering, and slowly built the company. At its peak, the business had 60 employees and was estimated by a federal court to be worth $50 million.
In March 2007 the government charged the company and its owner with violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) by sending technical drawings for a Blackhawk helicopter part to a Chinese manufacturer. The prosecutors in Birmingham, led by Martin, sought forfeiture of Latifi's assets and obtained an order that wrought havoc with the company's government contract business.
After the government secured the asset freeze, no charges were brought against Latifi or the company until March 2007. Then Axion's defense counsel--Henry Frohsin and James Barger, Jr., of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz's Birmingham's office--made a tactical call to waive Axion's right to a jury trial. Frohsin and Barger were concerned that Latifi's connections to Iran would be played against him. "At the time of the indictment, the White House was beating the drums for possible conflict with Iran. Since the case would be tried in northern Alabama, where the defense industry and Army are colocated, we felt that we should avoid the possibility of xenophobia," says Frohsin.
After the trial started in October, the government's case collapsed quickly. What Axion had attempted to have made in China was nothing more than a tungsten blank, from which Axion intended to mill the actual part. The government was forced to acknowledge that the drawings furnished to Axion by its contractor had not been labeled "restricted," but instead were given a legend of "noncritical" and "uncontrolled," meaning that Axion had no way of knowing that their use was restricted. Moreover, the drawings had long been accessible on the Internet.
As the case progressed, the government's own witnesses were forced to concede that Blackhawk helicopters, equipped with the part in question, had actually been sold to China with U.S. government approval, demolishing the government's claim of a breach of secrecy. Not only that, but the prosecution was aware of these sales before the case was ever brought. Still, the prosecution would not withdraw the case.
It was ultimately dismissed by Judge Inge Johnson of the federal district court in Birmingham, who wrote, "Evidence was received . . . that at least raises the possibility in the eyes of the district court that the government continued to investigate and prosecute the defendants even after uncovering evidence demonstrating that the defendants were not guilty."
Another failed case, another investigation. A Justice spokesman says that the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates allegations of misconduct by Justice attorneys, is investigating Martin for "allegations of political prosecution involving both the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama, arising out of the prosecution of former Governor Siegelman and other matters."
Knowing what she did, why did the Martin bring the case? She declined to comment for this article. But for a prosecutor, the appeal of a national security case involving arms sales to China is obvious. Or it could be, as Henry Frohsin believes, that "the fact that Alex Latifi was Iranian American was more than tempting for the Department of Justice to try to create a poster child for their arms export control activism."
Once the case was battered, why did the government persist? The answer, say defense counsel, is that the prosecutors were convinced they could convert an asset freeze and the threat of substantial prison time into a plea bargain. And the Justice Department has made a great show of prosecuting AECA cases. Having won the case, Baker, Donelson then put the government on the defensive. The firm filed a motion, arguing that the case was not brought in good faith and that the government should compensate Axion and Latifi for legal costs. Judge Johnson agreed. She wrote that the AECA "framework allows the government to effectively shut down an accused business regardless of whether the business is later acquitted at criminal trial. This result is unfair to potential defendants and, in this case as a practical matter, ruined Axion's business." She awarded $363,000 in costs, attorneys fees, and interest to Axion.
Alice Martin has not directly addressed the outcome in the Axion case. She issued a press release on May 30, indicating that the government will have to reconsider the way it approaches asset forfeiture cases, or at least be prepared to pay the target's attorneys fees if it loses. Martin is also fighting the award of attorneys' fees on procedural grounds, claiming that the freeze orders against Axion and the decertification of the company as a government contractor had in no way harmed the business.
Her crusade continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)