Could Obama Repeat Bill Clinton's Mistakes?

Two veteran journalists are warning that President-Elect Barack Obama might be about to repeat mistakes made by our previous Democratic president, Bill Clinton, when he took office in 1993.

Robert Parry and Joseph L. Galloway write that Obama is sending signals that he has no intention of supporting investigations of the George W. Bush administration.

Both journalists say such a stance could jeopardize Obama's ability to govern effectively.

Parry, writing at Consortium News, says Obama's desire to promote bipartisanship could lead to a free pass for Bush officials who might have committed crimes.

Parry broke numerous Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s while working for Associated Press and Newsweek. He says Obama's position is reminiscent of the one Bill Clinton took in 1993. And Clinton's decision proved to cost him dearly:

Barack Obama seeks a new era of bipartisanship, but he should take heed of what happened to the last Democrat in the White House – Bill Clinton – in 1993 when he sought to appease Republicans by shelving pending investigations into Reagan-Bush-I-era wrongdoing and hoped for some reciprocity.

Instead the Republicans pocketed the Democratic concessions and pressed ahead with possibly the most partisan assault ever directed against a sitting President. The war on Clinton included attacks on his past life in Arkansas, on his wife Hillary, on personnel decisions at the White House, and on key members of his administration.

The Republicans also took the offensive against Clinton’s reformist agenda, denying him even one GOP vote for his first budget and then sabotaging Hillary Clinton’s plan for universal health insurance.

The desperately-seeking-bipartisanship Clinton allowed Republican loyalists to stay burrowed inside the government, and he bowed to the appointment of right-wing special prosecutors (appointed by a Republican-dominated judicial panel) to investigate him and his administration.

Parry had a front-row seat for Clinton's mistakes, and he came away with this lesson: Try to play nice with Republicans, and you are likely to get burned:

In November 1994, a resurgent Republican Party – energized by its hatred of the Clintons – wrested control of Congress from the Democrats. But rather than sating the Right’s anti-Clinton obsession, the success only fed a desire for more.

Behind a relentless investigation by right-wing special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the Republicans pressed ahead with what became a multi-year drive to impeach President Clinton, exploiting suspicions over Clinton’s old Whitewater real-estate investment as payback for Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal.

How were Clinton's efforts at bipartisanship rewarded? With an investigation of events that began before he even was governor of Arkansas.

Some observers are saying Obama should ignore the past and look only to the future. But did Republicans look to the past with Bill Clinton? You're darn right they did. And if Republicans take back control of Congress in 2010, will they come after Obama regarding William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright or the heartbreak of psoriasis? You're darn right they will:

Now, after eight years of Bush’s catastrophic presidency, another Democrat has been elected to the nation’s highest office and – like Clinton 16 years ago – Barack Obama is being advised by Washington insiders to reach out to the Republicans with an open hand of bipartisanship.

Most significantly, Obama is being urged to forget about holding Bush and other top officials accountable for torture, war crimes, violations of the Constitution and other serious offenses. Obama’s even getting advice that he should leave some senior Bush officials in place as a bipartisan gesture.

Ironically, some of this advice is coming from the same people who were part of Clinton’s decisions in early 1993 to set aside investigations into Reagan-Bush-I wrongdoing and thus to allow a false history of that era to become cemented as a faux reality.

When Clinton took office, four investigations were pending about wrongdoing in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations:

All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, would paint an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule: two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-conceived national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).

Had the full stories been told the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently than they do today.

But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect – by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media – or by actively closing the door on investigative leads.

In other words, a free pass given to Republicans in 1993 paved the way for the disastrous George W. Bush presidency:

It allowed an incomplete, even false history to be written about the Reagan-Bush-I era, glossing over many of the worst mistakes.

The bogus history denied the American people the knowledge needed to assess how relationships had evolved between the United States and Middle East leaders, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the Saudi royal family and the Iranian mullahs.

Though the Middle East crises had receded by the time Clinton took office in 1993, the troubles had not gone away and were sure to worsen again. When that time came, the American people would have a sanitized version of how the country got where it was.

Galloway, who writes about military affairs for McClatchy Newspapers, has similar concerns. He writes, in "Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice is No Virtue," that members of Obama's transition team are indicating that they do not intend to investigate anyone in the Bush administration for possible war crimes:

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, and its no way to begin an administration that was elected on promises of change. What it says is that if you're one of the elite and powerful, your violations of the law will be overlooked, no matter how much damage you did to our country’s standing in the world.

What message would this send to future Karl Rove's? It's not a good one, Galloway writes:

What signal does it send to Mr. Bush's gang of unindicted co-conspirators, who've unwrapped a Pandora’s boxful of other offenses — from perverting the administration of justice, to illegally eavesdropping on the phone conversations and e-mails of ordinary Americans, to salting the stream of intelligence with bogus material, to inviting their cronies to loot the Treasury with no-bid military contracts, to lying under oath to congressional oversight committees, to applying political litmus tests to the hiring of civil service employees to the wholesale destruction of White House e-mails and records? Etcetera. Etcetera.

This nation was founded on the principle of equal justice under the law. No one — no one — ought to be able to skate or hold a get-out-of-jail-free card by virtue of having been the most powerful felon in the land, or of working for him.

Galloway uses a classic analogy to drive home a critical point about the direction Obama needs to take:

Out in West Texas, crusty old ranchers plagued by coyotes killing their calves and baby sheep shoot the offending beasts and hang their carcasses on the nearest barbed wire fence as an object lesson to the rest of the pack.

Unless the newly empowered Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill hang a few coyotes on some fences in Washington, D.C., they're making a huge mistake that will come back to haunt them, and all the rest of us, too.

In Alabama, where the roots of Bush sleaze are planted, at least one editorial voice says an investigation of the Don Siegelman prosecution could rip the lid off the Bush Justice Department.

The Tuscaloosa News notes that oral arguments in the Siegelman case are December 9 in Atlanta, before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and says the case could spark interest in getting to the bottom of the Bush DOJ swamp:

And while there seems to be some let-bygones-be-bygones sentiment in Washington as Democrats take over the White House and expand their numbers in Congress, the Siegelman case, where two people actually went to jail after a trial that an appeal court has already said raised 'substantial questions,' the arguments at the Dec. 9 hearing in Atlanta could rekindle interest in getting to the bottom of things at the Departament of Justice.

The newspaper could have gone even further. In the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, the South's companion piece to the Siegelman fiasco, three people still are in federal prison on charges that would have to improve greatly to reach the level of bogus.

Here is a Schnauzer prediction: I recently posted a diary at Daily Kos about the Siegelman case, and it attracted far more attention than anything else I've written there. Kos is an influential and widely read labyrinth of progressive ideas, and my post was No. 3 that day on the site's list of high-impact diaries.

What does that tell us? I think it tells us that there is deep and passionate interest among progressives in seeing that justice is done regarding the Bush Justice Department. A large swath of Obama supporters are rightly angry about the trashing of our justice department in general--and the handling of the Siegelman case in particular.

If Obama obstructs a full and intense inquiry into the Bush DOJ, my guess is that he will alienate a major chunk of his base--and that will have profoundly negative consequences for his presidency and our country.

My prediction is this: If Obama leads an effort to paper over the gross wrongdoing of the Bush DOJ, there's a good chance he will be a one-term president. And if that's not the case, my guess is that Republicans will take back Congress at some point and promptly investigate Obama into oblivion, ruining his second term and leaving his presidency in tatters.

On Rove, Alabama, and the Scourge of Abramoff

Those of us who live in Alabama have seen our politics sullied by disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

We know that Abramoff funneled $13 million of Mississippi Choctaw gaming funds into Alabama to help Bob Riley claim the 2002 governor's race over Don Siegelman.

So here in Alabama, we have our antennae finely tuned for any new discoveries about the extent of Abramoff's sleaze.

The latest comes from Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, who reports that Abramoff was connected to the White House from the earliest days of the George W. Bush administration.

And who was Abramoff's conduit as Bushies were getting settled in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Why, none other than Karl Rove.

Hmmm.

Alexandrovna reports that an e-mail dated February 27, 2001, shows that Abramoff had an agreement with Rove's assistant Susan Ralston for access to the White House.

This was little more than a month after Bush had taken office. And long before the Riley-Siegelman battle in 2002.

So what does this information mean for those of us in Alabama? Well, for this Alabamian, it raises these questions:

* Did Rove, and perhaps Bush, know about Abramoff's plans to funnel money to Bob Riley's campaign?

* Did Rove, and perhaps Bush, know about possible plans to steal the 2002 election by having votes for Siegelman mysteriously disappear into the good night in Baldwin County, Alabama?

* Did Rove, and perhaps Bush, know about plans to work through Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama, to stage a bogus prosecution of Siegelman?

* Did Rove, and perhaps Bush, know about the central roles played by U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary in plans to subvert the justice system and turn Don Siegelman into a political prisoner?

* Did Rove, and perhaps Bush, know about similar plans in Mississippi, which turned attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitworth into political prisoners?

* Was this e-mail from February 2001 an early signal that all hell was about to break loose in the U.S. Justice Department, with Alabama and Mississippi serving as Ground Zero for massive criminal conduct?

Rove . . . Abramoff . . . Alabama . . . Mississippi.

They go together like bacon, lettuce, tomato, and mayonnaise.

Except these ingredients make for one foul-smelling sandwich.

All-Republican Panel Will Hear Siegelman Appeal

Three federal judges, all Republican appointees, have been chosen to hear the appeals of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and his codefendant, HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.

The three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will include Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Senior Judge James C. Hill, and Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat. Oral arguments are set for December 9 in Atlanta.

President Gerald Ford appointed Hill and Tjoflat to the federal bench. President Ronald Reagan appointed Edmondson.

All three judges have experience in handling politically charged cases. But some of them have been involved in controversial rulings that are likely to give many Siegelman supporters pause.

Siegelman is a Democrat who held four statewide offices in Alabama--secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor, and governor. A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman and Scrushy of federal-funds bribery, conspiracy, and honest-services mail fraud.

Tjoflat was one of four Republican appointees who dissented in an 8-4 decision that sided with Al Gore's request to continue with manual recounts in Florida as part of the Bush v. Gore case in December 2000. Edmondson was one of three Republican appointees who sided with the majority in that case.

Tjoflat was part of a three-judge panel that weighed in on the 1994 election contest for Alabama Supreme Court chief justice between Republican Perry Hooper Sr. and Democrat Sonny Hornsby. The panel upheld a lower-court ruling that threw out 1,700 unwitnessed absentee ballots, making Hooper the winner.

Karl Rove was intimately involved in the Hooper/Hornsby race, and his efforts to get Hooper elected under controversial circumstances signaled a sea change in Alabama courts, which once were all Democratic and now lean way to the right.

Hill was part of a 2000 panel that allowed student-led prayer at Alabama's public schools.

Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said he has no concerns about the makeup of the panel. But the story about the three-judge panel, and the circumstances surrounding the Siegelman case, raises some important questions:

* The central argument of the Siegelman/Scrushy appeal is that the prosecution was politically motivated, that Republicans in the Bush administration were out to get Alabama's most successful Democrat. Given that, isn't it curious that the three-judge panel consists of all Republican appointees? I'm not an expert on the procedures for picking appellate panels, but for the sake of appearances, wouldn't it have made sense to make sure the panel was politically balanced--at least a little bit, say with maybe one Democratic appointee?

* Isn't it curious that this story was released in the Thanksgiving Day issue of The Birmingham News and was buried on page 2B?

* I have more than 30 years of experience as a journalist, and I'm not sure I buy Kilborn's statement that he isn't concerned about the makeup of the panel. For public consumption, he has to say the panel looks stellar and fair. But I find it hard to believe that News reporters Kim Chandler and Mary Orndorff would, on their own, go to the trouble of looking up controversial decisions these judges have been involved in. It looks to me like someone fed them that information, and it probably was someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy team. Why would someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy side feed that information to the reporters? Because they think the makeup of this panel stinks to high heaven--but they feel they can't say that publicly.

* What was my reaction upon hearing about this panel of three Republicans? I immediately thought of William Pryor, former attorney general of Alabama who started investigating Siegelman before the Democrat's fanny had barely hit the governor's chair. Pryor now serves on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, as a George W. Bush appointee, and I couldn't help but wonder: "Why isn't Bill Pryor on this panel? His presence is about the only thing that could make this panel worse. Did Pryor have a round of golf scheduled for that day?"

* That reaction was from my rational side. What was my paranoid, irrational side thinking? That this is a last gasp by the corrupt Bush administration to subvert justice one more time before being shown the door. And once again, the target is Don Siegelman. What better way to protect Karl Rove from future inquiries than to have Siegelman's conviction upheld on appeal? And what better way to do that than to have an all-Republican panel hear it?

We all know that federal judges are, in theory, insulated from political considerations in their decisions. But anyone who has studied the machinations of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller in the Siegelman case, or those of U.S. Judge Henry Wingate in the Paul Minor case, knows that quaint theory no longer holds in Karl Rove's America.

Rove and his acolytes have found receptive audiences in U.S. attorneys offices and federal courthouses around the Deep South. And don't think for a moment that appellate courts are any more honest than trial courts. This all-Republican panel is every bit as capable of acting corruptly as was Fuller, the trial judge.

As a progressive who is concerned about justice in the South, I am alarmed about the selection of this panel for the Siegelman appeal. And I think the Siegelman legal team is alarmed, too.

Siegelman Case Hits the Media Spotlight

Two media outlets in the past 24 hours have presented in-depth reports on the Don Siegelman case.

Greg Privett, investigative reporter at television station WHNT in Huntsville, prepared a story of more than eight minutes that ran last night. You can watch Privett's report by going to the WHNT Web site and clicking on "Siegelman's Second Chance" under Top News Videos.

Privett starts by noting that Siegelman's second chance will come when his appeal is heard in about two weeks by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

The report spotlights the broad implications of the Siegelman case. "If they can do this to me, as former governor of the state, they can do it to you," Siegelman says.

We can certainly identify with that sentiment here at Legal Schnauzer, considering that I was wrongfully terminated at UAB because I write a blog that deals with the Siegelman case, among other topics.

Privett notes that the U.S. Department of Justice will undergo major changes when President-Elect Barack Obama takes office in January. But Siegelman says citizens should continue to push for answers regarding his case and other possible wrongdoing by the outgoing Bush administration.

"If we don't hold people accountable, these new U.S. attorneys won't take this as seriously as they should," Siegelman says. "If they don't, it's likely to happen again."

On the Web, Huffington Post reporter David Fiderer presents "Scandals Surrounding Don Siegelman's Prosecution: A Quick and Easy Primer, Part I."

Fiderer expertly lays out the web of Republican relationships--Karl Rove, Bill Canary, Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, Bob Riley--that came together to produce the Siegelman prosecution.

It all started, Fiderer writes, with the Rove/Canary connection that solidified in the 1990s:

Rove was recruited for work in Alabama by a Republican operative named Bill Canary, a former chief of staff at the RNC. The two had bonded while working on the 1992 Bush-Quayle campaign, from which Rove had been fired for unauthorized leaking.

While both men were originally from out of state, they both established roots in Alabama, since both married politically active women who hailed from there. Rove's wife, Darby Tara Hickson, had worked in his political consulting firm, whereas Canary's wife, Leura, was an attorney in the state attorney general's office and later at the Justice Department. Rove bought a second home on the Alabama gulf coast. Both men maintained two bases of operations in and out of the state. Rove, of course, worked in Texas.

Through 2001, Canary continued working in Washington, where he was President and CEO of the American Trucking Association.

Canary recruited Rove to work on 1994 campaigns for Alabama Supreme Court justices. Rove's tactics were notable for their dishonesty and viciousness. He directed Republican candidates to call their opponents "ambulance chasers." He ran ads alleging that one Supreme Court Justice, Ernest Hornsby, made a practice of shaking down trial lawyers for campaign contributions. He started a whispering campaign against Mark Kennedy, a Democratic candidate and founder of the Children's Trust Fund of Alabama, by alleging that Kennedy was a pedophile.

Abramoff entered the picture shortly after George W. Bush became president in 2001:

Jack Abramoff's most important client was the Mississippi Choctaw Indian Tribe, which ran a casino across the state border near Philadelphia, Mississippi. Abramoff's job was to quash any competition, which included Don Siegelman's pet cause, a state lottery for Alabama. Lottery proceeds from the would have helped cover tuition at state colleges.

The Choctaw Tribe forwarded Abramoff about $16 million for various political influence schemes. Abramoff relied on other crooks - Ralph Reed, Michael Scanlon, Grover Norquist - to launder money within Alabama, where it was used to help defeat a 1999 voter referendum to establish a lottery. The 2006 Senate Report revealed corrupt activities among Abramoff, Reed, Scanlon, and Norquist. But it also had a notable omission. As first reported by HuffPost's Sam Stein, documentary evidence also implicated Governor-elect Bob Riley.

On December 10, 2002, Michael Scanlon, Riley's former press secretary and an Abramoff cohort, now a convicted felon, emailed Abramoff, alerting him that a Choctaw representative, "definitely wants Riley to shut down the Poarch Creek operation, including his announcing that anyone caught gambling there can't qualify for a state contract or something like that."

In other words, they wanted Riley to continue what he'd been doing for years.

Fiderer notes that Riley, so far, has avoided having his connections to Abramoff closely scrutinized:

Riley's ties to Abramoff were first publicized in late 2005 and figured to become a campaign issue in the 2006 governor's race. But the issue of Republican corruption was neutralized by the prosecution and conviction of Don Siegelman. The Senate Report was released on June 22, 2006 right after jurors in the Siegelman trial had begun deliberations.

Pitfalls and Politics in the Workplace

Having been cheated out of my job a few months ago, I've become keenly interested in the landmines that can lie just beneath the surface in many workplaces.

I was fired after 19 years of service at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) for a couple of reasons--one that is fairly obvious and one that UAB is trying to keep hidden away.

The obvious reason is that I had complained, both to my immediate supervisor and her superior, about age-based harassment and discrimination that I had experienced over a period of some five months or more.

I filed a formal grievance in UAB Human Resources, a process employees are supposed to use without fear of reprisal. But roughly two weeks after filing the grievance, I was placed on administrative leave. And 12 days after that, I was terminated.

Can we say retaliation?

The hidden reason I was fired has to do with Alabama politics and the fact I was producing citizen journalism on this blog that caused discomfort for certain folks affiliated with the Republican Party. And a number of GOP types exert both political and financial power over UAB.

I was exercising my First Amendment right to report on, and comment about, matters of public interest--primarily that Alabama state courts are a corrupt mess and the Bush administration has used the U.S. Justice Department as a political weapon.

Someone wanted to shut me up, and they apparently thought costing me my job would do the trick.

Can we say violation of constitutional rights?

When your antennae are tuned in the right direction, it's amazing how much news you will find about various shenanigans in the workplace.

Here in the Birmingham area we have a case in the suburb of Helena, where a female police officer named Jan McDuff has filed a discrimination lawsuit in federal court.

McDuff has been a police officer since July 2000 and applied for a position as a K-9 officer. Her lawsuit claims the job went to a lesser qualified male officer. In fact, the officer who got the job failed to make it through K-9 school, so the city gave the job to an even less qualified male officer.

When McDuff sent an e-mail to her superiors to express concern about the situation, noting that she is the only female among 21 full-time officers, she was disciplined with a written warning.

Hmmm, this sounds familiar.

Regular folks like Jan McDuff and I aren't the only ones to step on workplace landmines. Some cases gain national attention and some involve people of considerable fame:

* Elizabeth Reyes, an attorney in the Texas Secretary of State Office, filed a lawsuit last year claiming that Karl Rove had her fired after she had commented for a Washington Post story. We posted about the Reyes case
here. In checking the Web and various Texas newspaper sites, I did not find any stories updating the status of the Reyes lawsuit. But it is undisputed that Rove called her boss after the story appeared. And it is undisputed that Reyes lost her job soon after that conversation took place.

* Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather lost his job not long after reporting about George W. Bush's military records. CBS official initially said Rather's lawsuit would be summarily dismissed. But a recent New York Times article shows that discovery in the lawsuit indicates CBS indeed initiated an investigation of Rather partly to quell Republican criticism of the network.

I see no evidence that politics played a role in the Jan McDuff case. But it clearly played a role in the Reyes, Rather, and Legal Schnauzer cases.

Can we all hope for a brighter day, when people can do their jobs without worrying so much about stepping on landmines?

I think there is reason to have hope. But first, we must shine light on cases of injustice in the workplace. I applaud Dan Rather's efforts to get at the truth in his case.

And we are trying to follow his lead in our own Legal Schnauzer case. I've started the litigation process by filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That is a step that must be taken before a lawsuit is filed.

I've also unearthed quite a bit of evidence about what really caused me to be terminated at UAB. We will be presenting that information in detail in the coming weeks here at Legal Schnauzer.

The Siegelman Whistleblower: Did a Notorious Bushie Sweep Her Charges Under the Rug?

An examination of records in the Tamarah Grimes whistleblower case indicate that a controversial Bush appointee might have played a role in protecting Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.

Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), appears to have limited the scope of the investigation into Grimes' allegations of wrongdoing by prosecutors in the Don Siegelman case.

Federal agents raided Bloch's office in May as part of an investigation into political bias and obstruction of justice. Just one month ago, the Bush White House fired Bloch.

Before that happened, did Bloch take steps to protect Canary and her top assistants in the office that directed the Siegelman prosecution?

David Margolis, associate deputy attorney general, issued a report in which he found no violations had been committed by management officials in the Middle District of Alabama, led by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary.

But Columbia University law professor Scott Horton, writing at The Daily Beast, quoted a Congressional staffer as saying Margolis had not conducted much of an investigation at all, not even interviewing key players. Another source told Horton that Margolis was intent on "sweeping everything under the carpet."

Doesn't sound like Grimes got a fair hearing does it? And as we noted in a previous post, she was rewarded for her efforts by becoming the target of a criminal investigation.

What was Margolis determined to sweep under the carpet? And did he receive assistance from Scott J. Bloch?

Let's take a look at some of the key allegations Grimes' leveled at Leura Canary and her staff at the Middle District of Alabama (MDAL):

* Obstruction of an investigation--Assistant U.S. Attorney Randolph Neeley had been arrested for drunk driving while working on government business in California, and an error by Neeley resulted in the dismissal of a case. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted a review, but Grimes said Canary directed that the report be watered down in order to protect Neeley;

* Favoritism in the workplace--Canary routinely placed favored people in positions for which they did not meet the minimum educational or professional standards. Canary, however, refused to hire a qualified candidate for an assistant U.S. attorney position because the woman's husband had attempted suicide at the end of their marriage. Canary did not want someone "who would be married to a crazy person" in the office;

* A culture of gossip--Canary and other management types cultivated an office environment where vicious gossip was the norm. The sister-in-law of an assistant U.S. attorney had a case of vaginal warts, and that apparently was discussed openly in the office;

* Waste of government funds--During the Don Siegelman/Richard Scrushy case, known as the "Big Case" in the office, prosecutor Steve Feaga was allowed to keep a contract employee (Vallie Byrdsong) for more than three years, long after staff members could have performed his duties, according to Grimes. The government also paid all expenses for Byrdsong to attend the Siegelman/Scrushy sentencing, which included a "victory party" at the home of prosecutor Louis Franklin;

* Unethical Conduct--Justice Department employees removed documents from the Emelle landfill, even though landfill managers had said the documents could be copied but not removed from the premises. Grimes said DOJ employees loaded boxes into cars and removed them anyway.

* Abuse of Public Trust--Members of the prosecution team had improper contacts with jurors, and Canary remained involved in the case long after she had supposedly recused herself due to conflicts.

Was the Department of Justice serious about getting to the bottom of Grimes' allegations? Well, consider the following:

* Regarding obstruction of the Randolph Neeley investigation, OPR never interviewed Grimes. Patricia Watson, one of Canary's chief assistants, asked Grimes what she planned to tell OPR investigators. Grimes said she would answer any questions truthfully. When investigators arrived, they did not interview Grimes. When Watson was asked about this, she said that Grimes' name had been removed from the interview list.

* Regarding the removal of documents from the Emelle landfill, Margolis' report makes no mention of this at all.

* Regarding improper conduct between jurors and prosecution staff, investigators did not interview U.S. Marshals who allegedly were involved in passing notes back and forth.

* Regarding evidence that Canary remained involved in the case after she had supposedly recused herself, Margolis' report makes no mention of this.

Why would Margolis make no mention of the allegations regarding Canary's recusal and removal of documents from the Emelle landfill? Why were key parties not interviewed about certain events?

The Margolis report indicates that he received a request from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that only five issues be investigated. These issues apparently did not include Canary's recusal and the landfill documents.

Who is the head of OSC? It's the aforementioned Scott J. Bloch, a 2003 George W. Bush appointee. In May 2008, federal agents raided Bloch's office as part of a criminal investigation over allegations of improper political bias and obstruction of justice. The New York Times reported that agents were trying to determine if Bloch had hired an outside firm to "scrub" his computer files.

Let's consider the following timeline:

* Bloch's letter, identifying five areas for investigation in the Grimes case, was dated April 28, 2008;

* Bloch's office was raided on May 7, 2008.

Did Bloch have time, prior to the raid on his office, to tailor the Grimes investigation so as to protect Leura Canary? If Bloch is being investigated for improper political bias and obstruction of justice, is his handling of the Grimes allegations part of that probe? It it's not, should it be?

Is Bloch a political hot potato? It certainly looks like it. He was fired by the White House on October 23.

The Bob Riley Economy Goes in the Tank

Remember the 2002 Alabama gubernatorial election, when Republican challenger Bob Riley repeatedly knocked Democratic incumbent Don Siegelman on the issue of job losses?

Siegelman, like all governors around the country, was having to deal with an economic downturn brought on by the burst dot-com bubble. And that shined light on one truth of modern politics: There is not much governors can do to prevent job losses when the nation's economy takes a downswing. In other words, governors get too much credit when economic times are good and too much blame when times turn sour.

But Riley didn't want to let the truth get in the way of a good campaign issue. So he attacked Siegelman and wound up "winning" an election that was decided when votes mysteriously disappeared in the middle of the night in Baldwin County.

Not long after Riley took office, the national economy turned around, and Riley was able to crow about creating jobs far better than his predecessor had.

Well, it seems Riley isn't crowing so much these days. A report came out over the weekend that layoffs and plant closings are mounting in every corner of Alabama. With a month left in the year, state officials have been notified of almost 11,000 jobs lost during 2008.

All of this was predictable when George W. Bush became president in January 2001 and took the usual conservative approach of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. The move prompted a "mini boom" in the economy, causing the modest job growth of which Riley was so proud.

But as more of the nation's wealth wound up in the hands of too few people, the economy began to bog down. The middle class, which drives demand, became strapped, saw its purchasing power diminished, and tightened its purse strings out of necessity. This contributed greatly to the economic malaise we now are experiencing.

This isn't anything new, but the American public keeps falling for the same conservative trick. And the results never change.

Several times in the late 1800s, conservative administrations pushed for supply-side tax cuts on the wealthy. The nation experienced the usual result: a "mini boom" followed by recession or depression.

It happened again in the 1920s with the conservative administration of Calvin Coolidge, who was Ronald Reagan's hero. With the help of a Republican Congress, Coolidge started an economic train wreck that led to the Great Depression.

The supply-side tax cuts of Reagan and George H.W. Bush led to a deep recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s, one that only a Democrat, Bill Clinton, could solve.

Now, some 15 years later, another Democrat, Barack Obama, is being asked to clean up after another supply-side mess.

Will we ever learn? Anyone who truly wants to understand this cycle should read Kevin Phillips' masterpiece, The Politics of Rich and Poor. I would argue that it's the most important public-affairs book of the past 50 years.

Reading Phillips, unfortunately, takes a little effort. And too many Americans are not willing to make that effort.

It's easier, I guess, to take your economic cues from the likes of Bob Riley.

Worst Person in the World: Karl Rove or Michael Vick?

For quite some time, I've figured that Karl Rove had no challenger when it came to the title of "Worst Person in the World." (Tip of the hat to Countdown and Keith Olbermann.)

But former NFL quarterback Michael Vick seems determined to give Rove a run for his money.

If I had the power, I would contact the management of Hell and ask them to reserve a large corner for Rove and his acolytes who have turned our justice system into a political plaything. But now, I think I also would ask the managers of Hell to reserve an especially warm corner for Vick and his buddies who ran "Bad Newz Kennels" in Virginia.

Vick is serving a 23-month sentence on convictions related to dog fighting and is scheduled for release from federal prison on July 20, 2009.

But now we learn that Vick didn't just stage fights of pit bulls against other pit bulls. A confidential witness says Vick put family pets in rings with pit bulls and thought it was funny to watch the trained killers injure or kill the helpless dogs.

A number of observers have tried to excuse Vick's involvement in dog fighting by saying the "sport" is part of the culture he grew up in. But I don't know of any civilized culture that endorses putting helpless animals in a pen with trained killers and laughing as they are torn apart.

What to do with a dirtbag like Vick? Well, we know that dogs are descendants of wolves. Perhaps we could put Vick in an enclosure with a pack of hungry wolves and see if he can fight his way out.

He might discover that being torn limb from limb isn't such fun after all.

Workplace Retaliation: A Classic Weapon in the Rove Arsenal

Bogus criminal prosecutions that target political opponents are perhaps the best known dirty trick of the Republican Party in the Age of Karl Rove.

But workplace retaliation is rapidly moving up the charts of favored nasty GOP tactics. And its latest target appears to be Tamarah T. Grimes, a legal aide in Montgomery, Alabama, who complained about sexual harassment and discrimination she experienced while working on the Don Siegelman prosecution.

As someone who lost his job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in apparent retaliation for writing truthfully about corruption in Alabama courts, I can identify with Grimes' experiences. And thanks to a Friday story by Adam Nossiter of The New York Times, we know much more about events that led Grimes to blow the whistle on alleged misconduct by prosecutors and jurors in the Siegelman case.

We will go into more detail about Grimes' experiences in future posts, but here is a summary of the retaliatory action she apparently faced as a result of speaking up about alleged wrongdoing:

* In July 2007, Grimes filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint against the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Middle District of Alabama (MDAL). That office, led by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, oversaw the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth;

* Grimes alleged that she had been subjected to demeaning remarks of a sexually offensive and discriminatory nature during her work on the Siegelman case;

* The parties engaged in a mediation in November 2007, with Canary and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia Watson attending from MDAL. Frederick Menner, representing the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, also participated. The mediator was Sharon Stokes, deputy chief of the civil division in the Northern District of Georgia;

* Stokes stated that, during the course of the mediation, Grimes said she tape recorded offensive remarks made by members of the Siegelman prosecution team.

* Upon hearing that audiotapes existed, Canary, Watson, and Menner asked to hear them, according to Stokes. Grimes allegedly said the tapes were in the possession of her attorney, J. Scott Boudreaux of Birmingham;

*When Stokes informed Canary, Watson, and Menner that Grimes would not turn over the tapes, they expressed concern that she might have tape recorded privileged or sensitive law-enforcement information in violation of federal law;

* Menner then contacted his supervisor, Andrew Niedrick, about a possible investigation of Grimes. Menner even sent Niedrick an e-mail with suggested language for referral to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Niedrick proceeded to send the information to OIG for a criminal investigation of Grimes.

In case you are trying to pick your jaw up off the floor, let me summarize in one sentence what happened to Tamarah T. Grimes:

She filed an EEO complaint, stating that she had been the victim of harassment and discrimination, and wound up becoming the target of a criminal investigation because of it.

You heard that right, folks: Blow the whistle on wrongdoing in the Bush Justice Department and get rewarded by becoming the target of a criminal investigation.

Life's great in Karl Rove's America, ain't it?

And get this: Grimes says she never told the mediator that she had tape recorded MDAL employees and did not have any such audiotapes. According to Grimes, she told the mediator that she had written recordings, not tape recordings, of what had transpired. And Boudreaux stated that he had never received any tape recordings from Grimes.

You can read the Justice Department report on Grimes allegations here (PDF).

So what really happened here? Did the mediator, Stokes, and Grimes have a genuine misunderstanding? Or did Stokes join forces with Canary & Co. to turn the tables in a classic case of "blaming the victim?"

Do Stokes and Menner have allegiances to "loyal Bushies" in the Justice Department? Were they more interested in silencing Grimes, and protecting Canary, than in seeking justice?

Speaking of Menner, what was his role in all of this? Was he supposed to be an objective observer? If so, he clearly was not. The report on the Grimes case shows that Menner sided with Canary and Watson in stating that they did not believe Grimes' allegations. Why would Menner say that if he was open-minded about the issue and had no firsthand knowledge of what took place?

If Menner participated mainly as a supporter for Canary and Watson, why was he allowed to refer Grimes for criminal investigation? Did Menner violate ethical guidelines in taking this step against a government whistleblower?

In fact, why was Menner even at the mediation if he was only going to be a "water boy" for Canary and Watson?

Grimes' story is familiar here at Legal Schnauzer--so much so that it's eery.

In fact, reading the Grimes documents is like reliving my last few months of working at UAB, when people with connections to the Bush Justice Department clearly were trying to get me fired--and succeeded on May 19, 2008.

On April 15, 2008, I complained to my supervisor, Pam Powell, that she had been harassing and discriminating against me based on age. She responded by claiming I had acted in a "threatening" and "belligerent" manner toward her and gave me a written warning.

Roughly a week later, I went to Powell's superior (Dale Turnbough) and complained about harassing and discriminatory treatment--and the unwarranted written warning. I also filed a formal grievance against Powell with UAB Human Resources.

Turnbough assured me that she would speak to Powell and take care of the matter. She also assured me, after I brought up the subject, that my blog was not a problem.

UAB policy states that an employee is to use the grievance process without fear of reprisal or retaliation.

But what really happened? On May 7, I was placed on administrative leave. And on May 19, I was fired.

So I complained to both my supervisor and her supervisor about discrimination and harassment--and wound up getting fired for it. My subsequent research indicates people with connections to the Bush Justice Department were behind my termination.

That's a story, I feel certain, that Tamarah Grimes can identify with.

UAB President Becomes Mute When Questioned About An Unlawful Termination

We asked the following question in a post recently: How would UAB President Carol Garrison respond to a few pointed, and obvious, questions about my termination?

The answer? She became mute.

Oh, Garrison has no problem sending out her PR flack, Gary Mans, to let readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education know that I was fired for reasons having to do with job performance. (See comment No. 15 at this link.) But answer questions about my termination? No way. Nope, Garrison pulls her best Sarah Palin at moments like that, which is appropriate considering that Palin is probably a hero to the Alabama GOP types who pressured UAB to fire me.

One of the great myths in American society is that higher education is a bastion of liberal thought. Many faculty members might have liberal mindsets, but faculty members don't have much power on college campuses. Administrators call the shots, but even they aren't the most powerful people on campus. No, the real BMOCs are donors, particularly ones who give major gifts. And their influence does not end with having their names stuck on buildings.

With that in mind, let's pose a few more questions for Dr. Garrison:

* What if you had a donor, who gave, say, $5 million to help build a new building on campus?

* What if this donor had given what is believed to be the largest individual gift in university history?

* What if this donor had strong connections to Alabama's GOP power structure, including Gov. Bob Riley, his son Rob Riley, Riley's campaign manager Dax Swatek, and others?

* What if this donor also had ties to the Las Vegas gambling industry and big oil?

* What if this donor is being sued by members of the estate of one of Alabama's best-known businessmen? What if these heirs are seeking a proper accounting of investments this businessman had with your donor, calling into question your donor's business practices?

* What if this donor was involved in a divorce that apparently was so ugly the court record was sealed?

* What if this donor recently was convicted in municipal court of driving while intoxicated after being clocked driving 112 mph in a 55 zone?

* What if this donor is appealing the conviction in circuit court, with trial set for Dec. 1?

* What if this donor has some 20 traffic violations on his record, many for driving greatly in excess of the speed limit?

* What if public records indicate this donor's driver's license has been suspended six times?

* Would you and UAB associate with this person, even though he clearly has total disregard for the law and the safety of others?

* What if this person threatened to withhold his $5 million gift if a certain UAB employee was not unlawfully fired from his job?

* Is this what you mean by your "Ethics Matters" campaign at UAB?

Artur Davis and the Future of Politics in the Deep South

More and more it looks like Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) could become a historic figure, both in Alabama and the Deep South.

Davis shows extraordinary promise for leading Alabama toward a brighter future, even though recent election results show huge chunks of our electorate cling doggedly to our unfortunate past.

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's victory in the presidential election, it's hard not to think of Davis and wonder what he could do for our troubled state. Davis was an early and ardent supporter of Obama's, and the two men have much in common.

That makes me ask: Could Artur Davis be the one to cause Alabama to change it's state motto from "Dear God, We Don't Want to Go There" to "Yes, We Can?"

I've been thinking about trying to put the Obama-Davis parallels into words for Legal Schnauzer. But someone beat me to it, and I don't think I could top the job this writer has done.

His name is Jeremy Sherer, and he is an attorney with the Birmingham firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas. Sherer was a district policy advisor for Davis in 2004-05, so at first, he might not appear to be the most objective commentator. But he has written an op-ed piece for the Mobile Press-Register, "Artur Davis: Is His Turn Coming?" that is thoughtful, balanced, and filled with historical insight.

More importantly, it offers signs of hope for Alabama's future, and I urge Legal Schnauzer readers to check it out.

From scanning his bio at the Whatley Drake & Kallas Web site, Sherer appears to be quite a young fellow. But he writes with uncommon perceptiveness, and he focuses on the possibility that Davis might run for governor in 2010:

Davis will face a question similar to one that was asked repeatedly about Barack Obama, and that is: Is Alabama capable of putting racial prejudice firmly in its past and electing a person of color to be the chief executive of our state? Keep in mind that only one black Alabamian has been elected to statewide office: Oscar Adams, who was appointed to the Alabama Supreme Court by Gov. Fob James and later elected twice.

If Davis were to run for governor and win, he would join the ranks of Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, elected in 2006, and David Paterson of New York, who was elevated to the post after Eliot Spitzer resigned. Virginia is the only Southern state to have elected a black governor — Douglas Wilder in 1990.

Sherer draws parallels between Obama and Davis:

Congressman Davis' and President-elect Obama's personal stories are very similar. Both were raised in single-parent families headed by their mothers, with close support from grandparents. Both men attended Harvard Law School, where they first met. And both men chose a life of public service over high-dollar careers in the corporate arena.

Though Davis arrived in Washington before Obama, and Obama exploded onto the national political scene as soon as he arrived in Washington, both men have been considered rising stars within the Democratic Party for several years.

Should Davis decide to run for governor, he will face a daunting challenge-much like the one Obama decided to tackle:

The challenge facing Davis' possible campaign for Alabama's governorship could prove just as daunting as Obama's for the presidency. With the likely primary opposition of Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom Jr. and/or Agriculture Secretary Ron Sparks, a prospective gubernatorial campaign by Davis could be seen in the most-friendly terms as akin to Obama's Iowa caucus campaign against Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, or in the most-unfriendly terms as Obama's West Virginia primary campaign against Sen. Clinton — the former a solid win for Obama and the latter a resounding defeat.

If Artur Davis were to best those two Democratic giants in the primary, likely awaiting him in the general election would be a well- financed Republican — possibly Attorney General Troy King, two-year-college Chancellor Bradley Byrne or lobbyist Luther Strange.

How could Davis succeed in a tough environment? Sherer offers a prescription:

For Davis to brave this or a similar gauntlet on his way to becoming Alabama's first black governor, he must take a strategic path similar to that of Obama. During his campaign, President-elect Obama was respectful and cognizant of those in the civil rights movement generation and the sacrifices they made for individuals just like him.

Yet Obama sought to move the nation past its historic divisions and prejudices, and toward the challenges and opportunities of the future. Much the same, Davis cannot be seen as "the black candidate" who seeks to represent only certain margins of Alabama. He needs to be viewed as the candidate who is genuinely seeking to unite Alabama and move the state toward success in all socio-economic measurements. . . . "

Sherer notes that Obama won partly by going into places like rural Ohio, locations that Al Gore and John Kerry largely ignored:

Obama proved how successful Howard Dean's 50-state strategy could be. Davis would have to mount a well-financed 67-county strategy in order to be successful. . . .

Davis must prove to Alabamians that he is the person who can bring order, civility and a sense of purpose to Montgomery, just as many believe President-elect Obama can bring to Washington.

DUI Cases Intersect at Schnauzer Junction

When I set out to write a blog about justice-related issues, I never dreamed that drunk driving would become one of our topics.

But DUI is on our radar because three such Alabama cases have interesting connections to our Legal Schnauzer story.

We recently wrote about the DUI cases of two Alabama football heroes--former University of Alabama and Oakland Raiders quarterback Ken "Snake" Stabler and former Auburn University and San Diego Chargers running back Lionel "Little Train" James.

We also noted that the subject of DUIs is of particular interest here because William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, a "person of interest" in my unlawful termination at UAB, has an appeal of his drunk-driving conviction set for December 1.

The latest news is that Lionel James last week pled guilty to two DUI charges in Shelby County, Alabama, and was scheduled to enter an inpatient treatment program. James received a 12-month sentence and will return to the Shelby County Jail once he finishes treatment. With successful completion of the treatment, he will have to serve only 60 days, minus time previously spent in jail or treatment.

A number of intriguing parallels are present with the James and Hazelrig cases:

* James' lawyer, Tommy Spina, also is scheduled to represent Hazelrig in his appeal;

* Both Spina and Shelby County Chief Assistant District Attorney Bill Bostick praised James for admitting his guilt and accepting his punishment. Court records, however, show that Hazelrig has no intention of doing either of those things. He was convicted in Mountain Brook Municipal Court of DUI, speeding, and driving with an improper tag. He is appealing that conviction in Jefferson County Circuit Court.

The fact that Hazelrig is appealing his conviction indicates that he does not plan to follow Lionel James example of taking responsibility for his actions.

So how strong is the evidence against Hazelrig? I would say it is overwhelming, and one can only wonder what kind of defense strategy Spina will come up with. Hazelrig's actions, which already have drawn a conviction in one court, indicate an appalling lack of concern for the safety of others.

We will be getting to the evidence in the Hazelrig case shortly. But let's keep this in mind. Chip Hazelrig is no regular guy who had the bad luck of getting pulled over after drinking one too many. He has a long history of dreadful behavior behind the wheel, and his most recent actions are about as bad as any DUI case I've ever heard of.

Hazelrig is one wealthy dude, with serious political connections--all of which appear to be to the Republican Party. He gave $5 million to UAB for construction of a new radiation-oncology facility, and that is believed to be the largest individual gift in university history.

So money gives Chip Hazelrig clout with UAB. Would that clout help him get a UAB employee fired, particularly if said employee was writing a blog that caused discomfort for some of Hazelrig's GOP associates?

We will be examining that question. And we will ask this question: Should a public university accept donations--for health-care purposes, of all things--from an individual who has a driving record that indicates he is a public menace?

By accepting Chip Hazelrig's cold cash, is UAB essentially condoning unlawful behavior that puts citizens' lives at risk?

Is UAB really interested in the public's welfare, or does it merely want to kiss the rings of big donors who have some seriously dirty laundry?

Obama Set to Appoint the First Schnauzer

While the mainstream media has focused on Barack Obama's appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff, a far more important White House role is about to be settled.

Sources tell us that Obama is about to appoint his administration's "First Schnauzer." And trust us, we have good sources in the schnauzer community.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, made a deal with daughters Malia and Sasha that the family would get a dog when the presidential campaign was over. Now that Obama has won, it looks like the presidential puppy will arrive not long after the family is settled at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Recent news reports have noted that the Obamas are interested in a hypoallergenic dog because 7-year-old Malia has allergies. Scientists say there is no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog, but Malia seems to be partial to a goldendoodle, a cross between a golden retriever and a poodle.

The miniature schnauzer sheds very little and is one of several breeds known for being suitable for allergy sufferers. In fact, that's one of the factors we considered before getting our schnauzer, Murphy (1993-2004), because my wife has allergies. My wife never had any problems with Murphy around, and getting her proved to be the best decision we ever made. In fact, Mrs. Schnauzer has even done well with the two Tonkinese cats (Baxter and Chloe) that we have now.

Anyway, high government sources tell us that the Obamas might wind up with a schnauzer. What would be some of the advantages of getting a schnauzer?

* It would promote bipartisanship--When Bob Dole ran for president, he and wife Elizabeth had a schnauzer named "Leader." In fact, the Doles getting a schnauzer might have been the last intelligent decision Republicans have made in this country. Getting a schnauzer would help Obama "reach across the aisle."

* It would promote international unity--Schnauzers are the only member of the terrier group who are not from Great Britain; they are native to Germany, one of our most important allies. Would be a good diplomatic move for Obama.

* It would promote global initiatives--We hear more and more about the global economy. And that means Americans need to understand foreign cultures and languages. Did you know the schnauzer gets its name from the German word for "nose?" That's because the breed has a distinctive blunt muzzle. In fact, that lingo has crossed over into our country. Ever heard someone described has having a big "schnauz?" Well, that means the person has quite a honker. And its from the same German root that gives the schnauzer its name.

* It's important for presidents to do "cute"--Remember the pictures of "John John" Kennedy playing around in his father's office? An entire nation saw those photos and went, "Awwww." Well, Obama can do the same thing with his girls and their new puppy. Check out this photo of our Murphy when we first brought her home. Imagine the Obama girls playing with a dog like this:

Schnauzers do "cute" awfully well:

Finally, a schnauzer could help reduce the budget deficit. With a schnauzer on hand, Obama can save on White House security. Check out Murphy in one of her favorite poses, keeping an eye on our homestead. She was definitely our "director of homeland security."

A Lawyer Spills the Beans About Our Justice System

Before I had a firsthand experience with Alabama courts, I was probably like most of you--I assumed judges were honest. (Boy, was I wrong about that.)

Even after I had come to understand that trial-court judges can be grossly corrupt, I assumed appellate judges were honest, that they would fix anything that lower courts did wrong. (Boy, was I wrong about that one, too.)

This gets to perhaps the most scandalous truth about our judicial system. Most of us, I think, can comprehend that a trial judge, acting as a solo artist of sorts, could intentionally or unintentionally botch a case. But how can appellate courts, which include multiple justices, also get stuff wrong?

Well, it happens. And if you followed the Bush v. Gore case of 2000, which gave us eight years of President George W. Bush, you know that even the U.S. Supreme Court no longer can be trusted. (More coming soon on corruption in our nation's highest court.)

Why are appellate courts corrupt? I can point to two reasons: (1) Some judges are more interested in furthering a political agenda than in dispensing justice; (2) Some judges are more interested in protecting corrupt trial judges than in exposing them.

After I posted recently about William C. Thompson, the corrupt presiding judge of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, I received an interesting anonymous comment. I'm pretty sure it's from a member of the legal community. He uses the word "colorable," a term most regular folks aren't likely to use. (I'm assuming it's a guy; the language sounds guy-like to me.)

At first glance, my correspondent seems to be taking issue with me. But upon further review (as they say in the NFL), you see that he and I pretty much agree on the state of our courts--they stink.

This is a fascinating, and rare, inside account of what our justice system is really like. It's easy to see why my correspondent wishes to remain anonymous. Any lawyer who put his name to this would be blackballed for sure.

Here's what he had to say (with the original spelling, grammar, and punctuation in place):

Date: Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Subject: [Legal Schnauzer] New comment on Has Karl Rove's Terror Campaign Worked in the Deep....

Simply because an appellate judge rules against you does not mean he/she is corrupt. incompetent maybe, but not corrupt.

appellate judges get the law and facts wrong all the time. there are thousands of appeals, and very little court personnel to do an adequate job reviewing each appeal.

if your appeal was pro se, more than likely it was decided by a staff atorney, without judge thompson even reading it. the staff attorney probably just wrote a memo reccomending "affirmed no opinion" and the Court went along with it.

many times the Court does this (affirmed no opinion) to protect litigants. I have filed appeals before to cover my ass from a crazy client where i knew that i was beat on the law and facts. the court would affirm with no opinion, to spare me the beatdown that would follow.

the appellate courts in this state are bad, and they are generally bought off by either corporate or trial lawyer money. but i doubtjudge thompson specifically intended to committ fraud or any other crime in affirming the verdict against you.

maybe you are right. maybe the repubs in this state are out to take you down and have orchestrated all of this rigmarole to simply "get" you. But I would like to see some hard facts on this blog, rather than innuendo and accusations.

The proof is in the pudding. Post the depositions or the trial transcript. post the illicit conversations you recorded that implicate uab. post some hard evidence, rather than opinion.

also remember that if you do get a lawyer- a long shot given that it appears you have sued every lawyer you previously hired- to sue UAB for your wrongful termination (which by the way, may be a colorable claim), the defense will offer all of your web posting into evidence to portray you as a kook. be carefull what you post. post only what you can prove, or it can bite you in the ass in the future.

This guy is sort of taking shots at me, but I like him anyway. After eight years of hearing a constant stream of BS from lawyers, it is refreshing to hear one be this honest. He reveals all kinds of "inside baseball" about the justice system, but let's focus on just a few things:

* He disputes my contention that Thompson is corrupt, but he has no problem with the notion that Thompson is incompetent;

* He says appellate judges get the law and facts wrong all the time. In other words, my experience is not unusual;

* He says Alabama courts are badly understaffed, and "rulings" often are made by staff attorneys without the judge even looking at the case;

* He says Alabama appellate courts are "bad" and are generally "bought off" by corporate or trial-lawyer interests;

* If appellate courts are this bad, imagine how bad trial courts must be.

Well, there you have it folks, straight from one of the horses' mouths. Our courts are "bad," "incompetent," and "bought off."

That's a lawyer talking--not just a Legal Schnauzer.

Gosh, I would like this guy to do an occasional guest post at our humble blog. And he could do it anonymously. No telling what we all would learn.

The invitation is out there.

Obama's Election Prompts a Run on Guns

If you ever need a reminder of how dense people can be, feel free to check back on this post.

Why? Well, we have a report that gun sellers in the Birmingham area say sales have skyrocketed since the presidential election. It seems gun enthusiasts are stocking up because they fear President-Elect Barack Obama will tighten restrictions on gun ownership.

Never mind that Obama has said he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and would "protect the right of hunters and other law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

Even though no evidence suggests that Obama intends to dramatically alter the nation's policies on gun ownership, the owner of one Birmingham sporting-goods store says gun sales have increased about 30 percent since the election.

CNN reported that the FBI saw requests for background checks on gun purchases rise dramatically for the week of November 3-9, with an increase of almost 49 percent over the same period in 2007.

In Alabama, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office says applications for gun permits are running about double the normal number.

"He's going to take my guns," said one Alabama man. "Ain't a whole lot we can do about it, but we're stockpiling before he takes them away."

Why would people have such thoughts? The National Rifle Association ran ads and sent out fliers during the campaign saying that Obama would shut down 90 percent of gun shops and ban some ammunition. "This administration is coming after our freedom," NRA President Wayne LaPierre said this week.

Wonder if it's ever occurred to the panicky gun folks that the NRA is issuing these dire warnings in hopes of sparking a run on guns and NRA memberships. Think these people have figured out that the NRA is interested in their money, not Obama's policy plans?

The scary thing is that some of the whackos who are stockpiling guns probably also voted. That must explain how Republican Greg Shaw defeated Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court, even though Republicans on the court cheated Alabama out of a $3.6 billion jury verdict against oil giant ExxonMobil. Alabamians, apparently, like that kind of "jurisprudence."

Strange things happen when large chunks of the populace is not able, or willing, to put two and two together and get four.

All of which reminds me of the routine about voting by the late, great George Carlin. The common refrain is that we need more people to vote. But Carlin took the opposite approach. He said we have too many people voting, especially stupid people.

It's a process of "garbage in, garbage out," Carlin said.

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders."

I think he had a point:

Here is the Latest on the Siegelman Story

Friday normally is a relatively quiet day in the blogosphere. But this past Friday was anything but calm, with the breaking story by Time magazine's Adam Zagorin about shenanigans in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

The story reverberated around the Web throughout the weekend and has potential for a number of intriguing followups. Let's take a look at the latest turn in a story that shows just how far our Justice Department has sunk in the Era of Rove:

Peter B. and Me
Our Friday post about the Siegelman story probably attracted more attention than anything we've done on Legal Schnauzer. And I was invited to appear via telephone on the Peter B. Collins Show, a progressive radio program based in San Francisco.

This was my second visit to the Peter B. Show; the first was back in July after Raw Story's Lindsay Beyerstein had broken the story about my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) because I write this blog.

Brad Friedman of Brad's Blog was a guest on Friday, and he and Peter B. asked a number of insightful questions about the latest revelations in the Siegelman case.

I was in the last segment of the three-hour program. You can listen by going to the Peter B. archives here and clicking on "download this episode" for 11-14-08. You can click on the timekeeping device just above the play/pause button and drag it over to about the 2:42:36 mark--and that's where my segment begins.

We delved into a number of interesting subjects, including the similarities between the Siegelman case and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, along with some speculation about how an Obama administration might approach the DOJ scandal.

I got a bit of big head the last time I turned into a "radio star." Mrs. Schnauzer is trying her best to keep my feet on the ground this time.

The Scott Horton Perspective
No story about the Siegelman case would be complete without input from Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine and a law professor at Columbia University.

Horton has played a central role in bringing the Siegelman case to the nation's attention, and he posted "What the Justice Department is Hiding" at the Daily Beast, a new Web publication started by former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor Tina Brown.

Horton provides an excellent summary of the Siegelman case, along with insight on the latest revelations about wrongdoing by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary and improper communications between jurors and the prosecution team.

Documents provided by Canary staffer Tamarah T. Grimes show the entitlement at the heart of Canary's operation:

Grimes also charges that Canary ran the U.S. Attorney’s office like a personal fiefdom, enlisting federal employees for babysitting, and appointing relatives to positions in violation of federal nepotism rules.

Justice Department sources reveal that after bringing these charges, Grimes was subjected to intense harassment by Canary, who at one point threatened she would prosecute Grimes for perjury unless Grimes withdrew her complaints.

The improper jury communications focus on a juror who was called "Flipper" because she liked to entertain her colleagues by performing backflips.

Grimes quoted the lead prosecutor describing direct interaction with a juror who was about to be questioned by the judge and who was “scared and afraid she is going to get into trouble.” This conduct violated rules guaranteeing the independence of jurors as well as an order issued by the judge in court against dealings between the jurors and the prosecution team.

Communications of this sort between litigants and a juror often lead to a mistrial and potential disciplinary action against lawyers involved. However, the Justice Department kept these jury interactions secret from the court and defense counsel in what may constitute a serious act of obstruction.

A Justice Department investigation into the charges was a sham, Horton shows:

“Look at the list of people these ‘investigators’ failed to question and at the questions they failed to ask. Frankly, this doesn’t much look like an investigation,” said one Congressional staffer.

The internal probe failed to question the marshals who were on jury duty. This omission suggests that the purpose of the report was not to get at the truth. Was this a fair investigation of the Grimes accusations, or was it a rushed effort to exonerate—through “inconclusive” findings—an errant U.S. attorney on the eve of a massive transfer of power in Washington?

Concern about the Siegelman matter, and other political prosecutions, appears to be very much on the DOJ radar:

A career Justice Department lawyer stated that apprehension about the matter was building within the department. “What happened in this case is a disgrace that threatens the reputation of the Department as a whole and federal prosecutors across the country,” he said. He identified David Margolis as having failed to take corrective measures. “He has essentially checked out and is intent on sweeping everything under the carpet. It will be one hell of a mess for the new tenants.”

"Flipper" Is Revealed
David Fiderer, of Huffington Post, has a fascinating read about the inner workings of the Siegelman jury. The piece is titled "Dirty Little Secrets About Juror Contacts in the Don Siegelman Case."

"Flipper," it turns out, is Katie Langer, a 26-year-old gymnastics coach who is one of two jurors to speak to the press about the case. The other is jury foreman Sam Hendrix.

Fiderer had previously done some outstanding reporting on the Siegelman jury, and we noted his work about Langer and Hendrix and their curious ties to Auburn University.

Insight on the Siegelman Appeal
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, has a detailed analysis of the key points in Siegelman's appeal, which will be heard by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on December 9.

Wilson has a fascinating nugget about possible interest in the case from the resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

There is an attorney in Montgomery who could shed considerable light on the extent to which George W. Bush was interested in keeping up with developments in the Siegelman case. We won’t name him for now, but we know from talking to other sources who have heard it from him that Bush was in the loop in this case. On top of all the other grounds for impeachment, this would certainly add to the list. Unfortunately, the hierarchy of the Democratic Party refused to pursue this for the past couple of years, and now it is too late.


The Alabama Press, As Usual, Is Pathetic
Isn't it interesting that a major Alabama story, one with national implications, was broken by Time magazine? And the mainstream press in Alabama doesn't seem to care.

The Montgomery Advertiser, based in the capital city where the Siegelman trial took place, ran a wire story about the latest revelations in its Saturday editions.

The Birmingham News did have a staff reporter prepare a piece for the front page on Saturday. But it had the News' usual right-wing slanted tone, and there was no followup in the Sunday edition. The headline, "Siegelman Case E-Mails Heralded as Red Flag," treats this as a story about public relations rather than possible federal crimes committed by prosecutors. And the story makes no mention of the most serious charges against Canary.

Schnauzer Beats Keith O in the ratings
Well, not really. But hey, this is my blog, and if I can't crow here once in a while, where can I crow?

As I noted earlier, my Friday piece on the Siegelman case received more attention than anything I've written in the blogosphere. And get this: I cross posted it at Daily Kos, and it wound up No. 3 on the list of high-impact diaries for November 14, 2008. And where was Keith Olbermann's diary that day, which was about the possibility that Hillary Clinton might be offered a job as secretary of state in a Barack Obama administration? Why, it was No. 4!

So, in a way, we did beat Keith O in the ratings. Mrs. Schnauzer says I'm taking so much glee in that little accomplishment that you would think I was Bill O'Reilly.

I'm a huge Keith O fan, and I look forward to helping him trounce Bill O in the ratings. But I must admit that, for one shining moment, I was pretty thrilled that my little blog post "ranked" one notch higher than Keith's did. What a country!

On a serious note, I should say that the lesson about the DK ranking probably is this: The Don Siegelman story resonates with people. Citizens are concerned about corruption in the Bush Justice Department, and they want key people held accountable.

The notion that someone could be targeted for criminal prosecution simply because of his political affiliation is profoundly disturbing to people. It runs counter to the foundational beliefs that make us Americans.

And Siegelman is not alone in suffering at the hands of people connected to the Bush DOJ. A number of Rovian types who are connected to the Siegelman case are almost certainly responsible for my unlawful termination at UAB.

Thankfully, I haven't lost my freedom, but imprisonment is not the only dirty card these scoundrels will play. I lost my job, Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi lost his business, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deirdra Brown Fleming saw her career threatened, and whistleblower Jill Simpson has seen her law practice badly damaged. Simpson also has seen a mysterious fire at her home and had someone apparently try to run her off the road. These are just Alabama cases we know about. Who knows what has gone on in other states?

While Americans are rightly concerned about the economy, two wars, and numerous other issues, they care deeply about justice. They are appalled that certain people could use our Justice Department as a political weapon. And they don't want those people to slip away into the good night.

Catholic Bishops Are A Scary Bunch

One of the most disturbing post-election articles I've read is about Catholic bishops in the United States and their warning to Barack Obama about possible policy shifts on abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research, and other "life" issues.

Daniel Burke, of Religion News Service, reports that Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said an Obama administration will not achieve the unity it seeks if it pursues "aggressively pro-abortion policies."

Such policies, George states, would be seen by millions of Americans as "an attack on the free exercise of their religion."

This last quote is one of the most inane statements I've ever seen from a supposedly intelligent public person. How would an Obama policy regarding abortion rights, or any other issue, be an attack on Catholics' right to practice their religion? It wouldn't, and this statement indicates George is more interested in firing up financial support from social conservatives than he is in helping the country move forward.

The fact that George's statement was unanimously approved by some 300 bishops indicates American Catholic leadership is deceitful, selfish, and arrogant.

These are the same folks who have worked for years to hide and protect the pedophiles who soil the priesthood. And yet, Obama is supposed to take their "moral" positions seriously?

If my understanding of American history is correct, the American bishops deserve "credit" for starting our nation's culture wars. Now, as our incoming president faces two wars, a colossal financial crisis, and other perils, they seem hell-bent on rekindling those wars.

Pretty darn un-American, if you ask me.

My understanding is that abortion began to come to the forefront in the early 1970s when the bishops went through Pat Buchanan to pressure the Nixon administration on the issue. Protestants did not join the fray until Jerry Falwell and other Southern racists became concerned over Jimmy Carter's efforts to remove the tax-exempt status of religious schools that discriminated based on race.

That led to formation of the Moral Majority, and it soon joined the Catholic bishops in picking up the cross for "life" issues. But Falwell and his followers mainly were concerned that Carter would stand in the way of state-sponsored segregation.

In other words, America's "pro life" movement grew in the soil of racism, and that Catholic bishops would confront our first black president over this issue is shameful. It also shows an ignorance of modern American history.

George and his bishop friends seem to be particularly exorcised that Obama might support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which they say would "coerce" Americans into subsidizing abortion with their tax dollars. I'm guessing it also would cause massive outbreaks of halitosis and ring around the collar.

Here is the irony in all of this: Obama actually takes a conservative approach to abortion rights. His stance is to keep the government out of health-care decisions facing women and their doctors. What could be more conservative than that? He also favors efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies, which is the root cause of most abortions anyway.

Want more irony? The U.S. abortion rate went down under our last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and the decline stalled during the George W. Bush years.

The bishops, however, appear to prefer a president like Bush who claims to be "pro life" but creates an environment where progress on the issue is stalled. This tells me the bishops aren't really interested in abortion. They are interested in filling the collection plates, and abortion is a hot-button issue that fires up the social-conservative base.

Even more alarming than the bishops' stance on abortion rights is their opposition to embryonic stem-cell research. How anyone can be opposed to research on embryos that are going to be discarded anyway is beyond me. And thanks to George W. Bush, we've already lost eight years of potential progress on this "pro life" issue.

As someone who has lost two close relatives to Parkinson's disease, this hits pretty close to home for your humble blogger.

I'm a Presbyterian, one of God's "frozen chosen," so it's certainly not my place to tell Catholics how to handle their religious lives. But if I were Catholic, and a supporter of Barack Obama (or our country in general), I would find this statement from the bishops highly offensive.

I also would be tempted to start a movement within the church to withhold financial support if the leadership continues to issue statements that are wrongheaded, divisive, and harmful to our nation.

The bishops were happy with George W. Bush, who ran one of the most incompetent, corrupt, and "pro death" administrations in history?

Catholic leaders appear to have their collective heads stuffed in a certain deep, dark crevice. I would say it's time for them to pull their heads out into the light--or shut the hell up.

Schnauzer Hits the Radio . . . And More

Adam Zagorin's article in Time magazine about revelations from a new whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case has been reverberating around the country today.

My voice will be added to the mix when I discuss the story on the Peter B. Collins Show at 7:30 CST tonight. You can check out the broadcast by going here and clicking on "Listen Live."

I was fortunate to be on Peter B's show back in July, not long after my unlawful termination from UAB, which came largely because I blogged about the Siegelman case. Peter is a sharp guy and an excellent interviewer, so I look forward to a return visit tonight.

More news on the Siegelman front:

* The Time article now includes links to the e-mail documents in question. You can check out those documents here. The link to the full story is here.

* I cross posted my piece today at Daily Kos, and it easily attracted more attention than anything else I've put up at DK. It became one of today's recommended diaries and drew more than 200 comments. I think that's an indication of the public's interest in justice issues in general--and the Siegelman case, in particular. I hope members of Congress, and the Obama administration-to-be, are paying attention. You can check out the Kos post, along with all of the comments, here.

* Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely calls today's story "the final nail" in the Bush Administration's coffin. Just to make sure, let's hope more nails are coming.

* TPM Muckraker has reaction on today's developments from Siegelman himself. It sounds like the former governor struggled to keep his composure while talking about the blatant unlawfulness revealed in the Tamarah Grimes documents. Siegelman says this amounts to "outrageous criminal conduct" and is "more frightening than anything that has come before." Compelling stuff.

New Whistleblower Emerges in Siegelman Case

A whistleblower from inside the Justice Department has provided documents that raise questions about the behavior of prosecutors during the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Tamarah T. Grimes, a legal aide who worked in the office that prosecuted Siegelman, provided the documents, according to a major investigative story by Adam Zagorin of Time magazine.

Grimes worked for Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the middle district of Alabama in Montgomery, and provided the documents to Department of Justice watchdogs in 2007. She now is involved in an employment dispute that could result in her termination.

The documents include e-mails from Canary, written long after her recusal in the case, offering legal advice to her subordinates. Canary supposedly had recused herself because her husband, William Canary, is a close associate of Governor Bob Riley (Siegelman's one-time opponent) and White House strategist Karl Rove. Bill Canary had received tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees from political opponents of Siegelman, Zagorin reports.

Grimes' documents show that Leura Canary was giving legal advice to prosecutors in her office, long after she was supposed to be off the case:

In one of Canary's e-mails, dated September 19, 2005, she forwards senior prosecutors on the Siegelman case a three-page political commentary by Siegelman. Canary highlighted a single passage which, she told her subordinates, "Ya'll need to read, because he refers to a 'survey' which allegedly shows that 67% of Alabamans believe the investigation of him to be politically motivated." Canary then suggests: "Perhaps [this is]grounds not to let [Siegelman] discuss court activities in the media!"

Prosecutors in the case seem to have followed Canary's advice. A few months later they petitioned the court to prevent Siegelman from arguing that politics had any bearing on the case against him. After trial, they persuaded the judge to use Siegelman's public statements about political bias — like the one Canary had flagged in her e-mail — as grounds for increasing his prison sentence. The judge's action is now one target of next month's appeal.

That is not the only damaging information Grimes provided about Canary:

Beyond providing the e-mails, Grimes has given a written statement to the Department of Justice noting that U.S. Attorney Canary had "kept up with every detail of the [Siegelman] case".

Grimes also provided e-mails that show previously undisclosed contacts between prosecutors and the Siegelman jury.

A key prosecution e-mail describes how jurors repeatedly contacted the government's legal team during the trial to express, among other things, one juror's romantic interest in a member of the prosecution team. "The jurors kept sending out messages" via U.S. marshals, the e-mail says, identifying a particular juror as "very interested" in a person who had sat at the prosecution table in court. The same juror was later described reaching out to members of the prosecution team for personal advice about her career and educational plans.

And that was not the only hanky panky between jurors and the prosecution:

Further undisclosed evidence of prosecution team members speaking with jurors following the verdict emerges in Grimes' written statement to the DoJ. In it, she says a member of the team prosecuting Siegelman had spoken with a juror suspected of improper conduct — apparently at the time the judge was due to question the juror about that conduct. Grimes quotes the lead prosecutor in the case as saying someone had "talked to her. She is just scared and afraid she is going to get in trouble."

Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, provides important perspective on this breaking story. Wilson includes insights from Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, on a number of topics, including:

* A possible approach from an Obama Justice Department regarding the Siegelman case and other matters related to corruption in the Bush administration.

* Possible connections between President George W. Bush and the Siegelman case.

Horton says the White House is concerned about the U.S. Attorney’s probe.

“As the Inspector General noted, the White House’s refusal to cooperate and turn over documents blocked the conclusion of the Justice Department’s internal probe,” he said.

“But of greater interest,” he said, “is the suggestion now openly aired that the White House is particularly concerned about documents and evidence linking it to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman. I am told that this involves former White House counsel Harriet Miers, former senior political advisor Karl Rove, and President Bush, himself.”

He asks: “What you may wonder was the President of the United States doing meddling in the prosecution of a Southern governor? That is a very good question. Some significant news on this front will break shortly. Stay tuned.”

Big Donors Can Cause a Heap of Trouble for Universities

We recently discussed the problems that can ensue when institutions of higher learning essentially sell their souls to folks with big money.

This reminded me of a story I heard some 20 years ago, back in my sportswriting days.

It seems a prominent college basketball coach had become friendly with an industrial magnate who had given major gifts to several universities, including the one that employed the coach.

The coach knew that his program could benefit if the businessman were to make a donation of several million dollars. But the coach also knew that the businessman held views on racial issues that were not exactly progressive.

In short, the businessman was a racist. "If I take money from him, I know he's going to want to limit the number of black players we have on the team. In fact, he'll probably want to make sure we have at least one or two white guys playing all the time. That's how he thinks."

The coach decided to pass on any donation from Mr. Big Bucks. Showing that kind of good sense probably helps explain why the coach now is in several sports halls of fame.

The people who now "lead" UAB could stand to learn from this coaching great. They have evidently allowed a major donor with a right-wing world view to dictate that I be fired for writing a blog--on my own time--that he happens to disagree with.

Actually, it's not a matter of disagreeing with my blog. This donor and his buddies, I feel certain, don't care about the opinions expressed on my blog. But when I get into citizen journalism and report uncomfortable truths that they don't want in the public domain, that's when their whities get tightie.

All of which reminds me of T. Boone Pickens, the oil tycoon whose hedge fund has dried up in the "booming" Bush economy. That caused a huge donation Pickens made to Oklahoma State University to disappear into the good night.

To his credit, Ole Boone doesn't give up easily. He has given another $63 million to Oklahoma State to help finish renovations to the school's football facility--conveniently known as T. Boone Pickens Stadium. Other projects that had been planned are on hold until the economy improves--and T. Boone's wallet recovers.

Interestingly, T. Boone had managed the hedge fund in which his original donation went "poof." OSU suddenly has decided that maybe it would be a good idea if someone other than T. Boone managed the school's athletics money. Hmmm.

Here's something else that is interesting: The UAB donor I suspect of getting me dismissed also has major investments in the oil business. And that makes me wonder if his financial picture has taken a turn for the worse. On top of that, Mr. Big Bucks at UAB recently went through a nasty divorce, and that certainly can put a crimp in the old bottom line.

All of this brings us to an interesting truth about the world of big donations to colleges and universities. Most such gifts come in the form of pledges. When you hear that T. Boone Pickens has "given" $165 million to Oklahoma State's athletics program, that doesn't mean ole T. Boone has actually written a check for that amount. It doesn't mean T. Boone has written a check at all. It means T. Boone plans to give that amount at some point in the future.

Mr. Big Bucks almost certainly has such an arrangement at UAB. The university already is building a facility that is to bear Mr. Big Bucks' family name. But that doesn't mean he's given all the money--or even any of it.

Those kinds of conditions increase the leverage a big donor has over a university.

Here's something else to consider: A big donor might appear to be giving out of the kindness of his heart. But it actually might simply be a shrewd business decision.

Consider a donor who gives to build a health-care facility. What if the donor has a stake in a company that produces equipment for health-care facilities? What if the donor's company just happens to receive a contract for equipping the new building? Double hmmm.

Our good-hearted donor could wind up making more money than he gave. Wouldn't that be a shockeroo, particularly if the donor had Republican leanings?

Judge Remains Silent on Corruption Questions

You probably will not be surprised to learn that William C. Thompson, presiding judge of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, has not responded to my e-mail asking him to explain unlawful findings he made on my appeal.

You also will not be surprised to learn that Thompson won his third six-year term on the all-Republican court last week, even though he is demonstrably corrupt.

The good news is that Democratic challenger Kimberly Drake made a pretty strong showing, considering that she had limited financial resources. Drake's showing makes me think Thompson and his GOP cronies on the appeals court are beatable if Democrats can mount a strong fund-raising effort.

But back to my e-mail. Why would Thompson not respond? Well, interested readers might want to ask him. His e-mail address is wthompson@appellate.state.al.us.

Here's a sample of what you could write. (Feel free to cut and paste this. Just trying to be helpful.):

Judge Thompson:
I am a citizen concerned about justice issues and would like to ask you about your handling of the Legal Schnauzer case--Roger Shuler v. Mike McGarity (Appeal from Shelby County Circuit Court, 00-1248), appellate docket number 2040161.

Your no-opinion affirmance in the case raises two simple questions:

* How do you affirm a trial court's decision to allow an amendment to complaint that was filed 65 days late, without seeking leave of court as required by law?

* How do you affirm a trial court's decisions to deny three properly executed and supported motions for summary judgment (MSJ) where the nonmoving party did not respond as required by law--and in the final two instances, the nonmoving party did respond at all?

As a taxpayer, I would like for you to explain these decisions. I'm sure you would agree it's important that citizens have confidence that courts are making lawful rulings.

I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Your Name

We'll see if you have more luck than I did in getting a response.

Meanwhile, my posts about Judge Thompson drew an anonymous comment from a reader who appears to be a member of the legal community. The comment reveals an awful lot about the sorry state of our judicial system, particularly the appellate courts.

I would like to share the comment with you and take a close look at its contents. That will be coming up soon.

(To be continued)

Former Football Stars Wage a DUI Derby in Alabama

We posted recently about former University of Alabama and Oakland Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler and the curious acquittal he received from a municipal judge in south Alabama on a drunk driving charge.

Now we learn that a former standout at Alabama's other football factory, Auburn University, is trying his darnedest to keep up with Stabler--if not pass him--in the DUI derby.

Lionel James, who starred at Auburn in the early 1980s and played professionally with the San Diego Chargers, has been charged with his third DUI since July--that's July of 2008.

The most recent charge against James came on Sunday night in Shelby County. He also was charged with drunk driving on October 23 and July 24. Both of those also were in Shelby County.

Several thoughts come to mind as we ponder this DUI derby between two Alabama sports icons:

* We already know that Stabler was acquitted under circumstances that even a number of lawyers said where suspicious. Turns out the judge in that case, James Sweet, is a Robertsdale, Alabama, attorney who was serving in an acting capacity because the regular municipal judge had a conflict. The Robertsdale City Council appointed Sweet to handle the case, and guess where Sweet went to law school--why, the University of Alabama. Now, UA has one of two university-based law schools in the state. (The other is Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham.) Naturally, the state's legal circles are heavily populated with UA graduates. But the good folks in Robertsdale, for a case involving a former UA football star and current color analyst, could not find someone who was not a UA graduate? Hmmm. Wonder how many Roll Tide fans are on the Robertsdale City Council. Double Hmmm.

* How will Lionel James fare in court? Well, let's consider a few factors: (1) He went to Auburn, which has no law school and thus does not have the pull in the legal community that the University of Alabama has; (2) James is black, while Stabler is white; (3) James is being held without bond and Bill Bostick, chief assistant district attorney in Shelby County, said he will review the file to see if it is appropriate for felony prosecution.

* Something tells me that black Lionel "Little Train" James won't get the same friendly treatment in conservative Shelby County that Kenny "The Snake" Stabler received in Robertsdale.

* The James case is being handled so far by Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson, the same "jurist" who found my neighbor--the criminally inclined Mike McGarity--not guilty of trespassing even though McGarity unwittingly confessed to the crime. I'm not making this up, folks. Jackson is so corrupt it's a wonder his eyes don't pop out of their sockets. And he's not even the most corrupt judge in Shelby County. That honor would have to go to the dueling Bozos--J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves.

If Lionel James has been driving drunk--and it appears that he has--he will get no sympathy from me. But it will be interesting to see how the treatment of a black former Auburn player compares to the treatment of a white former Alabama player.

(By the way, Stabler also has had multiple run-ins with the law over drinking and driving, although not all in a four-month period of time. The Snake likes to spread his DUIs out over several years.)

It also will be interesting to see how James' treatment compares with that of William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, the UAB donor who is a "person of interest" in my unlawful termination. Hazelrig gave UAB $5 million to help build a new radiation oncology facility, and that gift is believed to be the largest from an individual in school history.

While Hazelrig seems interested in helping people beat cancer, he also seems to be doing his darnedest to put innocent people into UAB's trauma unit--at least that's what his lengthy record of driving mayhem would indicate.

Hey, maybe that's the key to Hazelrig's financial relationship with UAB. He not only gives them millions of dollars, he also helps them make money by causing car crashes that provide UAB with plenty of trauma patients.

Sweet!

Hazelrig has already been convicted of drunk driving in Mountain Brook Municipal Court, but he is appealing to Jefferson County Circuit Court, with trial set for December 1.

Wait till you hear about the details of his DUI arrest. It's a shocker. And we will be covering his case every step of the way.

Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex

Are Southerners Hell Bent on Marginalizing Themselves?

The answer to our title question appears to be a resounding yes, based on an article by Adam Nossiter of The New York Times. The piece is datelined Vernon, Alabama, and it is a compelling and disturbing read about the mindset of white Southerners.

Nossiter reports that almost 90 percent of white voters went for McCain in Alabama. A similar figure has been reported for Mississippi. Let's consider that figure again: McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in history and was trying to replace a member of his own party who already is seen as one of the worst . . . presidents . . . ever. And yet 90 percent of white Southerners voted for McCain? That can only be explained by a form of mass brain death. You've heard of McCain's robo calls. Evidently he had robo voters in Alabama.

"Alabama, unfortunately, continues to remain shackled to the bonds of yesterday," said Glenn Feldman, a labor historian and a faculty member in the School of Business at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer.

Feldman is a very sharp guy, and at the risk of self promotion, I'm going to call attention to an article I wrote about him in UAB Magazine a few years back. The article focused on the history of labor unions in the Deep South, and I discovered that Feldman has an important progressive voice in a region that badly needs such voices.

What's the Matter With Oklahoma?

One of the most interesting post-election articles I've read is a little number called "What's the Matter With Oklahoma?" which was posted at Daily Kos.

I find the article fascinating for a number of reasons. For one, I grew up in Missouri, about 80 miles from the Oklahoma border, so I've known a few Okies in my day. In fact, Okie blood evidently runs through my veins. My mother long has told me that the height in our family comes from the Owenses, the clan from which my paternal grandmother came. "All of those Owenses in Oklahoma are tall," my mother said.

Evidently they are also pretty darned weird. You see, the other reason I like this article is that Oklahomans actually make Alabamians look good in terms of progressive thinking.

Turns out Oklahoma is the reddest state in the country, and it gave John McCain its largest margin of victory. And get this: Not a single county in Oklahoma went blue in the presidential election. Heck, we had a bunch of counties go blue in Alabama, including Jefferson County (home to Birmingham) and the Black Belt counties that run roughly from Selma to the area south of Montgomery.

What are the top five reddest states? It's Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, and Wyoming. (We're No. 4! We're No. 4!)

You have no idea how much better I feel knowing that I don't live in the most whacky nutjob state in the country. Whew!

But here's what I don't get. You can explain wingerism in Idaho and Wyoming because they have that frontier, militia, leave-me-the-hell-alone thing going on. Utah has the Mormon thing. And Alabama has the tortured-racial-history thing.

But Oklahoma? I know the state is ugly, dusty, and windy, but other than that, what's the problem? Are Democrats to blame for that?

I might have Okie blood in me, but I have no clue what's wrong with the Sooner state.

Bar President: Alabama Courts Are Obscene

That headline is intentionally deceiving. Thomas Wells Jr., president of the American Bar Association, actually said the amount of money spent on Alabama's Supreme Court race between Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur and Republican Greg Shaw was "obscene."

But Wells, a Birmingham lawyer, could have uttered the line from our title and been just as accurate.

Wells says expensive races threaten the public's confidence in the judicial system.

I've got news for Wells: No one who knows about our judicial system, and is honest with themselves, has confidence in it.

I recently received an anonymous comment from someone who pretty clearly is an Alabama lawyer. This person admits that our courts are "incompetent" and "bought off." Much more on this unusually honest appraisal is coming up.

An Intriguing Blogging Voice in Alabama

I recently discovered a new Alabama blog--or at least it's new to me--and it's definitely worth checking out.

It's called Beitelblog, and it's written by T.J. Beitelman, who teaches writing at the Alabama School of Fine Arts and is founding editor of Red Mountain Review.

Beitelblog recently featured an open letter to Alabama Congressman Artur Davis, focusing on the pros and cons of Davis choosing to run for governor in 2010 over a possible spot as attorney general in a Barack Obama administration.

Good stuff.

What on Earth is Newt Talking About?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro were in Birmingham the other day at the Business Council of Alabama's (BCA) Chairman's Dinner.

The BCA's president, by the way, is Bill Canary, Karl Rove's crony who is at the heart of whistleblower Jill Simpson's allegations that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was a political hit.

The Gingrich/Ferraro pairing was billed as "Debate '08," as if the BCA is seriously interested in debate on issues. Not surprisingly, coverage in The Birmingham News focused on Gingrich. And reading about the Newtster left me scratching my head.

According to the News, Newt had two pieces of advice for president-elect Barack Obama:

* Postpone efforts to get rid of secret ballots for union organizing; and

* Postpone efforts to "censor talk radio."

Censor talk radio? What on earth is the Newtster talking about? The News reporter makes no effort to enlighten us. So I can only guess that Newt is talking about plans floated by Democrats to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which vanished under Ronald Reagan.

A return to the Fairness Doctrine would be censoring talk radio? The GOP truly is losing its collective mind.

By the way, is Newt playing "small ball" or what? We're immersed in two wars and a tanking economy, and he's worried about unions and talk radio? Talk about a party that has run out of ideas!

Finally, a memo to Newt: You had a chance to "revolutionize" the government, and you blew it. The public rejected you and your ideas soundly. What makes you think Barack Obama is interested in your advice?

Enjoy the next eight years in the wilderness with your Republican buddies.

Extra, Extra! Alabama Newspaper Equates "Bush" with "Justice!"

The Birmingham News is aflutter over the prospects of a Barack Obama-led Justice Department.

And what is the newspaper's concern? That an Obama Justice Department might not administer justice the way the Bush administration has.

I'm not making this up, folks. Alabama's largest newspaper actually thinks the Bush administration has been running an honest justice operation for the past eight years, despite all of the evidence to the contrary--much of it coming from right here in the News' home state.

How do we know the News is aflutter about an Obama Justice Department? Obama has not been president-elect for even a full week, and the newspaper already has written two pieces expressing concern that the new DOJ might short-circuit investigation's initiated by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

First, came a column from John Archibald, stressing that Martin's handiwork on the two-year colleges and Jefferson County Commission cases must continue. Archibald particularly wants to make sure that Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, who is at the heart of the County Commission probe, remains under scrutiny.

Then, comes an editorial yesterday, stating again that Martin's investigations must not be dropped.

Now, it seems apparent that the Alabama two-year colleges had problems, and quite a bit already has been done to clean that up. And if probable cause exists for bringing a federal case against Langford, that should be pursued.

But the News ignores the mountain of questions that have been raised about Martin's honesty and objectivity regarding the cases she brings. Consider for a moment:

* Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, has called Martin perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country;

* Martin clearly lied under oath in an employment case involving former assistant U.S. attorney Deirdra Brown-Fleming;

* Martin brought a bogus case against Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi with the goal of ruining his business;

* She brought a case against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that was so weak a federal judge kicked it before it could even get started;

* She is being investigated by multiple federal agencies.

A wrapup of Alice Martin's many questionable activities is available here.

Numerous journalists have written about Martin's cozy relationship with The Birmingham News. Evidently it's so cozy that the News insists on being her water boy, even though the Obama administration will boot her out the door in a matter of weeks.

In yesterday's editorial, the News actually writes: "So far, we've seen nothing that makes us believe any Alabama politician has been wrongly prosecuted."

Are these people delusional? Do they remember the first Siegelman case, which U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon booted? Do they remember the second Siegelman case and the memorandum opinion in which U.S. Judge Mark Fuller could neither justify Siegelman's conviction nor his imprisonment? And the Alex Latifi case? It did not involve a politician, but it did involve one of the most blatant examples of prosecutorial abuse ever.

Perhaps the News is trying to erect a smokescreen to hide the fact that Alice Martin herself should be the subject of a federal prosecution. And perhaps the News is concerned that is exactly what will happen when an Obama Justice Department gets settled in and starts looking at the stench that has been emanating from Alabama for the past eight years.

Stabler DUI Case Raises Questions About Celebrity and Justice

Did former University of Alabama and Oakland Raiders football star Ken Stabler receive an unlawful break when he was acquitted recently on drunk driving charges?

It looks that way.

Does Stabler's case raise issues that are about to become central to our Legal Schnauzer story? You're darn tootin'. (Good Lord, I sound like Sarah Palin; sorry about that.)

How could the Stabler and Schnauzer stories be connected? In a couple of ways. One, my legal nightmare started because of a corrupt decision by an Alabama district-court judge. (District court usually involves non-jury, bench trials.) A similar event appears to have happened in the Stabler case, although it was in municipal court.

Two, our story is about to focus on one of the largest donors in UAB history, and this fellow is embroiled in a DUI case that has many similarities to the Stabler case. In fact, the UAB donor's behavior behind the wheel appears to have been far worse than Stabler's.

For good measure, this UAB donor has all kinds of interesting political and business associations that make him a "person of interest" in my termination from UAB.

First, let's focus on the Stabler story. The Mobile Press-Register reports that legal experts are baffled by a decision made by the judge in the Stabler case--a decision that directly led to Stabler's acquittal.

Sports fans know all about Ken "The Snake" Stabler. The hard-living, left-handed quarterback was a star for Hall of Fame Alabama coach Paul "Bear" Bryant before becoming a professional standout with the NFL's Oakland Raiders. Stabler probably is the second most famous player in Alabama football history, behind only Joe Namath.

Stabler was stopped on June 8 while driving on Alabama 59 in Robertsdale, near Mobile Bay. Officer Tyler Kane was by the side of the road making another stop when Stabler's vehicle passed within a few feet of him. When Kane stopped Stabler, the former star quarterback's speech was slurred, he smelled strongly of alcohol, and he refused to take a breath test.

At Stabler's trial in October, Robertsdale Municipal Judge James Sweet barred evidence that Stabler had refused to take a breath test. Sweet ruled that Stabler's refusal was inadmissible because officers had failed to monitor him for 20 minutes after his arrest.

The so-called deprivation rule is designed to make sure the driver has no alcohol in his mouth that would contaminate the test.

The Press-Register interviewed several south Alabama lawyers and judges who said the deprivation rule does not apply when a driver refuses to take a breath test:

"That 20 minutes thing doesn't have a dadburned thing to do with that kind of testimony," said Bayless E. Biles, a Baldwin County lawyer who has served as a municipal judge in Bay Minette for nine years. "There is absolutely no application. It is totally irrelevant. . . ."

Haran Lowe, a staff attorney with the state Department of Public Safety who will represent the state in a civil dispute over Stabler's drivers license, said the purpose of the deprivation period is to ensure an accurate reading on the Dr ger breath test machine. If the driver never takes the test, Lowe said, "I don't think the 20-minute (rule) matters. . . ."

Spanish Fort Municipal Judge James V. Roberts Jr. said he didn't want to second-guess a judge in a case that he didn't hear first-hand, but added, "It would be hard for me to see the relevance" of the deprivation period argument.

Did a judge in a bench trial, without the buffer of a jury, make an unlawful ruling in order to acquit an Alabama sports icon? Sure as heck looks that way. And that's a subject that hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer.

My legal nightmare started when Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson "acquitted" Mike McGarity of criminal trespass, third degree in a bench trial. Jackson based his acquittal on the notion that it was unclear if I had given McGarity "written warning" to stay off our property prior to his trespass. Alabama law, however, does not require any warning, much less written warning, in a criminal trespass case. In fact, the court transcript shows that McGarity unwittingly confessed to the crime and still was acquitted. That allowed him to file the bogus lawsuit against me that led to this blog.

Here's the problem with bench trials in criminal cases: There is absolutely no one to hold the judge accountable and make sure he follows the law. Without a jury, the judge totally controls the case. And once he acquits the defendant, the victim of the crime--my wife and me in the McGarity case, the State of Alabama in the Stabler case--has no recourse. Because of the double-jeopardy rule, a criminal acquittal cannot be appealed.

Is Judge Sweet an Alabama football fan who just wanted to see one of Bear Bryant's star players get off the hook? Did an Alabama booster provide some financial incentive for the judge to make his curious decision?

Who knows? But it's another example of Alabama courts stinking to high heaven.

And what about the UAB booster? His name is William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, and he gave $5 million for the Hazelrig-Salter Radiation Oncology Building, currently under construction on the UAB campus. The Hazelrig gift is believed to be the largest individual donation in UAB history.

Ken Stabler has a lengthy history of legal problems connected to alcohol and driving. Chip Hazelrig's driving history appears to be even worse than Stabler's, and he is scheduled for trial on December 1 in Jefferson County Circuit Court on a DUI charge.

By the way, we're not talking about a guy with a "mild" DUI case or a fairly clean driving record. We're talking about an outrageous DUI case and a driving history that probably should qualify Chip Hazelrig as a public menace.

But UAB was more than happy to take his $5 million, and that alone gives him extraordinary clout with the university's brass. His clout becomes even more interesting when you consider his political and business ties, which we will be examining in detail here at Legal Schnauzer.

Hazelrig's political connections might very well explain why I no longer am employed at UAB.

We also will be keeping up with Hazelrig's DUI trial, which is just a few weeks away. And we will provide you all sorts of details about his truly frightening driving history.

When you consider all of the evidence, Chip Hazelrig makes Kenny Stabler look like an upstanding guy.

Does UAB care that it is taking money from someone who has repeatedly put innocent lives at risk? And does UAB cave in to political pressure from the likes of Chip Hazelrig?

Those might be interesting questions to put to UAB President Carol Garrison.

Love Thy Neighbor? You Must Be Kidding

The New Testament tells us that Jesus instructed his followers to "love thy neighbor." (Matthew 22: 36-40).

If Jesus walked among us today, and had to rub shoulders with the numerous thoughtless jerk-offs that populate our planet, I suspect he would revise that to, "Try not to strangle thy neighbor."

These thoughts come to mind after reading about Edna Jester, the 89-year-old woman in Blue Ash, Ohio, who was arrested recently after refusing to return a neighbor kid's football that had flown into her yard. Jester had repeatedly asked the kids and their parents to keep their stuff off her property. When those requests fell on deaf ears, she took matters, and the football, into her own hands.

Sanity finally prevailed, and law-enforcement officials dropped petty theft charges against Jester.

We noted in a previous post that Jester's experience is remarkably similar to what Mrs. Schnauzer and I have experienced with our troublesome neighbor. One difference? I see no evidence that the clueless parent in the Jester case has a criminal history, while our hero (Mike McGarity) has at least eight criminal convictions in his background.

(Question: How does a guy with a criminal record like McGarity's get a job at a reputable employer like Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, which supposedly does extensive background checks because it is a federal Medicare contractor? McGarity has worked at BC/BS of Alabama for 20-plus years, and you have to wonder, "How could that be?" Did he fill out the company's application truthfully where it asks about criminal history? Did BC/BS not bother to check his background? We will be examining these issues down the road.)

A little research reveals that Jester, Mrs. Schnauzer, and I are hardly alone in wrestling with crappy neighbors. The Web is filled with sites like rottenneighbor.com, mybadneighbors.com, neighborsfromhell.com, and theneighborsfromhell.com. Even CNNmoney.com has tackled the subject.

Having been on the front line of the neighbor wars, I have some hard-earned perspective on the problem. I've read that dogs, children, and fences are the three most common neighbor problems--and we've had all three with McGarity. But I would add thoughtless adults to the top of that list.

In my experience, dogs, children, and fences usually become problems only when a thoughtless adult is in the picture.

The Jester and Schnauzer stories both deal prominently with children and clueless parents, so let's focus on that issue. My theory is that most child-related problems in neighborhoods can be easily solved--if the parents involved are remotely well intentioned.

Jerk-off parents, I'm afraid, will always be with us. But for cases where the parents do have some comprehension that those who live around them do indeed have property rights, here are a few ideas for addressing these problems:

* Know the Law--I think most adults understand that we have this concept called "private property" in the United States. It's one of the ideas that separates us from Communist societies. For those who don't grasp the law, plenty of resources are available, including the book Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries, and Noise. The basic idea is this: The people who live around you have virtually an absolute right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. If you intentionally engage in an activity that causes an object to enter their property, including the air space above their property (for a reasonable distance) and the ground below it, you have committed a civil trespass and can be sued for it. If you physically enter someone's property without being licensed, privileged, or invited, you have committed a criminal trespass--and you can be arrested and prosecuted. The neighbor does not have to warn you to stay off his property. It is the would-be trespasser's duty to make sure he is licensed, privileged, or invited. Whether someone is invited onto property is fairly clear cut. But what about "license" and "privilege?" License generally refers to people who, because of their professional or public duties, have a right to enter property. A meter reader or law-enforcement officer are two examples. Privilege generally refers to situations involving accidents or emergencies. For example, if you are walking down the street, and the wind blows the hat off your head and onto my yard, you can lawfully retrieve it. (If you intentionally throw your hat and it winds up on my property, you cannot lawfully retrieve it without getting my permission. Of course, if you don't do this all the time, I'm probably not going to mind you coming to get your hat.) If you see a workman on my yard who suddenly appears to be having a heart attack or other health problem, you can lawfully enter my property in an effort to assist.

* Think Before You Buy--Here's a thought for you parents with sports-minded kids: If it's really important that your child have a large, clear, flat area to play in, look for that when you buy a house. The parents in the Jester case have five kids, but they apparently bought a house with a small yard, in a neighborhood where houses are close together. If they needed more space, they should have thought of that before buying the house. In our case, many of the houses in our neighborhood have wooded backyards, which real-estate agents seem to use as a selling point. But it makes the backyards bad for games that involve throwing or kicking balls. (The backyards are great for all sorts of other games.) I assume that's why McGarity insisted that he and various kids play in their front yard, even if it meant running into the street and possibly into the path of cars. Of course, they had every right to play in their front yard, but there was no way to keep stuff from coming onto our front yard. Under covenants and restrictions in our neighborhood, I couldn't fence the front yard to keep them out--and like a lot of folks, we didn't want a fence around our front yard anyway. Again, if the property didn't fit McGarity's needs, he should have bought another piece of property. His solution was to trample our property rights.

* Use Nearby Parks and Schoolyards--I was a kid once, and I loved to play ball, and I wholeheartedly endorse kids today playing games and being physically active. Before McGarity moved in, my wife and I allowed the kids who lived on the other side of us at the time to routinely come on our yard to retrieve balls. In fact, they probably spent more time in our yard than they did in their own. But their parents had asked for permission, and we said yes. Also, their parents had built a cordial relationship with us, something McGarity never did. Everything was fine with those neighbors until we came home one day and found one of the boys tormenting our dog, Murphy, while she was inside her own house. He intentionally kicked and threw a ball off the window, trying to harass her. The kids apologized for it, and we allowed them back on our yard. But they still seemed to resent having been caught causing trouble on our yard, and we eventually witnessed the older one again misbehaving on our property. When we confronted the parents about it, the child clearly had lied about what had taken place--the mother told me he much later admitted to what he had done. But at the time, the mother said she was "going to believe my son." So we made our yard off limits to those kids and vowed we never again would allow kids to come and go as they pleased on our property. That was our state of mind when McGarity moved in and caused all hell to break loose. But back to my experience as a kid. Until I was in the fifth grade, we lived in a two-bedroom house with a very small yard. If it was just me or maybe one friend, we could play in the backyard without intruding on the neighbors. But if it was a bunch of us playing a full-fledged game, we walked to the school yard that was about three blocks away. I feel certain the neighbors never considered me or my friends to be nuisances. We later moved to a house with about an acre lot, so I was fortunate to have plenty of room to play. But again, my parents knew they had four kids and thought of the need for room beforehand. If getting a larger lot isn't possible, most areas have schoolyards or parks nearby. In our situation, we have four public schools and two huge public parks within about three miles of our neighborhood. McGarity and other parents could have easily packed a bunch of kids into one or two SUVs, and taken them to areas with plenty of room to play. But that would have involved a little effort on their part. And I guess they found it easier to take over our yard.

* Volume Matters--As a matter of law, you don't have to put up with anybody or anything coming on your property uninvited--with the rare exceptions noted above. But as a practical matter, I don't think most people mind the occasional ball or whatever coming on their property, and a kid or parent coming to get it. But volume matters. A steady parade of people and stuff on your private property can get old in a hurry. And it also says someone isn't even making an effort to respect your property rights. I suspect that's why Edna Jester's patience wore thin. And I know that's what happened in our case.

* Financial Peril--Some folks might read about Edna Jester, or we Schnauzers, and label us crabby "Mr. Wilson" types. Well, folks who allow others to come and go as they please on their property are taking a major risk financially. Consider our situation: If one of the kids or parents who routinely came on our property had gotten hurt, we could have been sued and held responsible for their injuries. You might say, "Hey, your homeowner's insurance would cover it; no big deal." But you might think again. In our case, people were constantly running on and over our concrete driveway. Imagine a kid falling on our driveway and suffering a traumatic head injury. Our insurance premiums would skyrocket, and we might even be dropped as an insured.

I'll close this little discussion with some Schnauzer theology. After hearing about our situation, someone once told me, "Roger, you're supposed to love your neighbor."

Well, let's consider that for a moment. This person seemed to be saying that my wife and I should just let Mike McGarity abuse our property rights. This person, like a lot of folks, forgot the full extent of Jesus' instruction. The full quote is, "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

In other words, any meaningful or loving relationship starts with self love and self respect. And you don't show self love by allowing someone else to walk all over you.

I would submit that "love thy neighbor" joins "forgiveness" and "turn the other cheek" as three of the most misinterpreted ideas in the Bible. (We'll save those other two subjects for another sermon.)

The bottom line? Standing up for your property rights is the smart, lawful, and Christian thing to do. And I'm grateful to Edna Jester for helping to bring attention to that truth--even though I'm sure she would have rather not been put in that position.

Are Business Interests Still Buying Judgeships in the Deep South?

With a landslide win for Barack Obama in the presidential race and significant gains for Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate, progressives certainly had quite a bit to like about Tuesday's election.

But the news is not all cheery, particularly when it comes to judicial races in the Deep South.

If you wanted to select the most mind-boggling result from around the nation on Tuesday, I would nominate the Alabama Supreme Court race between Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur and Republican Greg Shaw.

Shaw appears to have won the race with a lead of about 12,000 out of two million cast. But some 10,000 provisional votes remain to be counted around the state, and they could trigger a recount under state law. Paseur has refused to concede, and the Alabama Secretary of State says the outcome might not be decided until state canvassing boards meet on November 25.

Why is this result mind-boggling? Consider the backdrop against which the race was run:

In November 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned most of a $3.6-billion fraud verdict against oil giant ExxonMobil and in favor of the state of Alabama. The ruling featured an 8-1 vote along party lines, with Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb (the court's only Democrat) casting the dissenting vote.

Not only was the ExxonMobil ruling contrary to facts and law in the case, we have suggested that the eight Republicans behind it committed federal crimes. Here is another post on that subject.

What impact has the ExxonMobil ruling had on Alabama, at a time when the Bush economy is going in the tank? We addressed that topic in this post.

Now consider Shaw's background:

* He has accepted campaign loans and contributions from his family business, Shaw Oil Company;

* He received substantial support from the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF), a conservative, pro-business outfit based in Virginia. CFIF reportedly has connections to the oil, tobacco, and gaming industries;

* A top consultant for Shaw has been Terry Benham, of the Livingston Group, a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm with strong ties to the oil and gas industries.

The bottom line? In Shaw, you have a Republican candidate supported by the kind of pro-business interests who have given heavily to other conservative judges on the Alabama Supreme Court--the same justices who issued the ExxonMobil that cost Alabama some $3 billion.

And yet more than a million Alabama voters went to the polls and cast ballots for Shaw. With these votes, Alabamians seemed to be saying, "We don't have a problem with judges who unlawfully overturn jury verdicts and cost our state billions of dollars. In fact, we like such judges, and we want to add one more to our Supreme Court."

How to explain such irrational thinking? My best guess is tribalism, American style.

Similar thinking also prevails next door in Mississippi. Larisa Alexandrovna of at-Largely reports that Oliver Diaz was defeated in his bid for re-election to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The title of Alexandrovna's report? "Chamber of Commerce Finishes Buying Up MS Supremes . . . "

Diaz is a moderate Republican in a state that has nonpartisan judicial elections. He evidently made the mistake of not being sufficiently pro-business to suit right wingers, so he was targeted twice for prosecution in connection with the Paul Minor case. Both times, Diaz was acquitted.

When federal prosecutions did not remove Diaz from the bench, the Chamber of Commerce types apparently backed his opponent at election time. As a result, a fellow named Bubba Price (I'm not making this name up, folks) replaces Diaz on the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Price defeated Diaz 58 to 42 percent and outspent him by roughly $150,000, according to the Jackson Clarion-Ledger. Do you think the Bush Justice Department had an impact on this race? Consider that one of Diaz' biggest supporters would have been attorney Paul Minor. But Minor is in federal prison for campaign-finance crimes he did not commit.

Not only was Diaz deprived of Minor's support, but a rational observer has to think that other would-be contributors saw what had happened to Minor and decided to pass on supporting the Diaz campaign.

As Scott Horton of Harper's.org has reported, the motive behind the Minor prosecution apparently was to dry up financial support so that pro-consumer and other progressive candidates could not compete against candidates supported by business interests.

Looks like it worked.

Is there a silver lining in all of this? Alexandrovna sees one:

I am not finished with my investigative series into the political corruption of the Chamber, the DOJ, and abuses in MS, Alabama, Ohio, and GA. I am not remotely finished and Justice Bubba is going to be under a microscope as is the rest of his court.

Oh, I did mention that soon there will be new US Attorneys, right? Imagine actual, honest, decent US Attorneys replacing the corrupt puppets like Dunnica Lampton (MS), Leura Canary (AL), and Alice Martin (AL). So now the law will finally take a gander at the evidence against the Chamber, these corrupt US Attorneys, and the corrupt politicians the Chamber has installed into office. Like I said Justice Bubba, I am watching.

Could Artur Davis Be Obama's Attorney General?

A source with connections to the U.S. Justice Department told me a couple of months ago that his contacts were saying Alabama Congressman Artur Davis has substantial support as attorney general in a potential Barack Obama administration.

I didn't think too much of it at the time because Davis has steadfastly said he does not plan to have a formal role in an Obama administration and is more interested in a possible run for governor of Alabama in 2010.

An Obama administration is about to become a reality, and it looks like my source was onto something.

The Associated Press is reporting that Davis is among four names being mentioned prominently for the AG post. Others on the list are Eric Holder, former deputy attorney general; Janet Napolitano, governor of Arizona; and Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts and a former assistant U.S. attorney for civil rights.

My source says Davis' support is driven largely by his intelligent and persistent questioning in various hearings conducted by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

Here is one Alabamian who hopes Davis will strongly consider the position if it is offered. From a political perspective, I don't know if Davis has the statewide name recognition to win a governor's race. And given that Obama lost Alabama by some 20 percentage points to the dismal John McCain campaign, it appears our state still is wrestling with its race-based demons. Also, in current Lt. Governor Jim Folsom Jr., Democrats are likely to have one attractive candidate for the 2010 race already.

From a governance standpoint, attorney general is one of the most critical appointments Obama will make. The new AG will have to clean up after a Bush administration that has turned the Justice Department into a corrupt cesspool. Davis has shown signs that he has the intellect and the spine that will be needed for the task.

UAB Steps in More HR Doo-Doo

The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer, can't seem to stay out of trouble related to human resources.

Regular readers know about my firing from UAB and some of the university's machinations in trying to cover up a clearly wrongful termination. Heck, UAB's own grievance committee determined it was wrongful.

Now we learn that UAB has stepped in more HR doo-doo. This time it involves Dr. Rosalia Scripa, a professor in the School of Engineering and a former assistant provost at the university.

Scripa has filed a lawsuit claiming she was paid less than male employees with similar duties and demoted after complaining that female faculty were being discriminated against.

Like me, Scripa is no Johnny-Come-Lately to UAB. She came to the university in 1976 as its first female faculty member in the School of Engineering.

In 2000, Scripa was named associate provost and eventually became principal investigator on a National Science Foundation grant on the advancement of women in math and sciences.

The grant application asked for data on faculty salaries, and while researching this topic, Scripa saw that female professors in the schools of business and social and behavioral sciences were being paid less than their male counterparts.

Scripa complained to UAB Provost Eli Capilouto about the pay discrepancy. But she says Capilouto and the head of human resources (who is unnamed in the article) asked her to use pairs of male and female faculty members with similar backgrounds "to see if they would show the salary data in a more favorable light."

Soon afterward, the lawsuit states, Capilouto called a meeting with Scripa and told her she was "not well suited" for her job as associate provost and was being removed. She was asked to sign a letter stating she was stepping down for family and personal reasons.

The Scripa lawsuit is just the latest in a rather lengthy list of troubling HR-related cases at UAB. We've already noted an ongoing case involving discrimination against medical trainees from India. I'm also aware of a School of Business case that involved allegations of unequal pay based on gender and outrageous actions with racial overtones.

We will be providing details on all of these cases--and any others that emerge. But already, we see disturbing patterns:

* Discrimination based on gender, age, race, national origin, and religious practices;

* Unethical, or even fraudulent, behavior regarding money--particularly research funds or major gifts;

* False statements made to or about employees--or pressuring employees to engage in making false statements;

* A willingness to repeatedly violate federal law, even though the university receives more than $400 million a year in federal funds.

On Obama, Roosevelt, and the Threat of Tribalism

It was a late night in the Schnauzer household as we all stayed up well past our normal bedtimes, yearning for another nugget of wisdom from Keith, Rachel, and the MSNBC crew.

Heck, even our cats, Baxter and Chloe, seemed to sense that something special was going on.

I guess we are bleary eyed today partly because we wanted to see history in the making. And the election of our nation's first African-American president seems particularly powerful when you watch it unfold from Birmingham, Alabama, the heart of our nation's struggle for equal opportunity and home to the splendid Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.

We probably stayed up an extra hour or two because we just could not believe that Republicans had not managed to steal the election. I think we kept expecting someone to break in and say, "Whoops, looks like we called Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado too early. And my God, look at McCain's late surge in California!"

Some commentators have compared the 2008 election to the election of 1932 that swept Franklin D. Roosevelt into office. I don't pretend to be an expert on Depression-era American history, but I would submit that Barack Obama might face an even stiffer challenge than the one Roosevelt encountered.

Certainly our current economic crisis has not reached Great Depression levels. But it's also likely to get worse before it gets better, and no one knows just how bad it might become.

Roosevelt inherited a relatively calm international scene, while Obama inherits two wars--one that was initiated in a boneheaded fashion by the United States and one that has been going badly for months.

Obama also must deal with critical issues such as climate change and renewable energy sources that had yet to be contemplated at Roosevelt's time.

For all of that, I would suggest that Obama's greatest challenge might come from what I call a peculiar form of American tribalism. We raised this issue in a post yesterday, and I think the subject is worth another look. (Hey, I like pretending to be a social scientist.)

Tribalism is defined as the "possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from members of another group." It's a phenomenon that can corrode a society and turn it into a quagmire.

Consider that we supposedly are trying to bring democracy to two countries--Iraq and Afghanistan--that have been dysfunctional for ages, largely because of tribalism. There is rich irony in that, of course. But there also is danger that I suspect many Americans do not sense.

I propose that tribalism began to rear its ugly head in America with the civil-rights legislation of the middle 1960s. Driven by race-based fears and resentments, a white, middle-class "tribe" began to pick up steam with Ronald Reagan's "states' rights" rhetoric in the 1980 presidential campaign.

That took the tribe and placed it firmly under the "conservative" banner. And even on the night of a major victory for Democrats, the power of tribalism could be seen on the electoral map.

Across a swath of the Deep South, and up through a chunk of the Midwest and Plains states, millions of white Americans voted against their economic and social interests and for a Republican candidate who had run one of the most dreadful and sophomoric campaigns in American history.

While I was pleased with Obama's "landslide" victory, I'm alarmed that the race was as close as it was. In fact, I remain amazed that McCain won a single state, other than perhaps Arizona.

In my view, McCain had disqualified himself on multiple levels, making yesterday's election essentially a one-man race.

So why did we have to wait till 10 o'clock central time last night to see the winner declared? My guess is that many Americans, perhaps subconsciously, have placed the values of the conservative "tribe" over the concepts that make us Americans--due process, equal protection of the law, justice for all.

In short, I fear that a tribal identity has come to trump an American identity in many hearts and minds.

We are asking a lot of Barack Obama as he inherits what one news organization termed a "staggering mess" from George W. Bush. Can we ask him to help us overcome our own worst instincts, the ones that cause us to separate into "tribes?"

What's one more problem to heap on Obama's table? Let's hope he can show us the way.

A Birmingham Perspective on a Historic Election

When folks at the American News Project (ANP) decided to chronicle election day 2008, Birmingham seemed a natural destination.

Polls were showing that the country was poised to elect its first African-American president. And perhaps no U.S. city is more associated with the struggle for civil rights than Birmingham. In fact, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute is a prime stop for anyone wanting to fully understand the struggle for equal opportunity in this country.

ANP launched in May 2008 and is devoted to producing online video journalism. The project is funded by the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and works in conjunction with a number of news organizations, including McClatchy Newspapers. You can check out the people behind ANP here.

ANP dispatched a reporter/photographer team to Birmingham to capture the mood of the city heading into election day--and on into election night. Reporting teams also chronicled activities in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Palm Beach, Florida.

You can check out a video report on election day in Birmingham here. It is produced by Garland McLaurin.

Tony Pugh, a Washington-based reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, contributes two compelling pieces. His pre-election piece, "In Birmingham, Obama's Run is More Than Just Politics," captures the city's mood against the backdrop of its tortured history on race relations.

In his election-night piece, "Civil Rights Battleground Celebrates Obama's Victory," Pugh noted that some residents were moved to tears of joy by the election of the nation's first black president. He spoke to others who expressed a sense of fear, feeling that America is turning to an unknown and untested leader at a time of crisis.

In the video, Pugh poignantly calls Obama's election the "prize-winning fruit" of a civil rights struggle that has its roots deeply planted in Birmingham.

A Game Plan for Voting in a Deep Red State

The presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain definitely is the big-ticket item in today's election.

But what if you live in a devoutly red state, such as Alabama, where it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is not going to prevail? What's a progressive to do?

Mrs. Schnauzer and I pondered these questions before casting our ballots this morning, and we came up with our own "Southern Strategy." Perhaps "Red State Mindset" (RSM) would be a better term because red states, unfortunately, are not limited to the South.

So what were the principles of our RSM?

* Keep Drilling Toward "46," Baby--That's as in 46 percent of the vote. And that's a magic number for Obama supporters to shoot for, even in states where he is not going to win. This little nugget of wisdom comes to us from Mike Hubbard, chair of the Alabama Republican Party, of all people. Earlier this week, Hubbard said, "Obama won't win Alabama, but if he pulls 44, 45, 46 percent of the vote, then that could make it hard on some of our candidates down ballot." For once, Mike Hubbard actually said something intelligent and honest. And it can serve as an incentive for progressives in red states.

* Remember ExxonMobil! A Battle Cry for Alabama--After the presidential race, the highest profile battle in Alabama is for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court. That one pits Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur against Republican Greg Shaw, and it will be watched by a lot of folks beyond the boundaries of Alabama. Our state has become the poster child for nasty, expensive, ugly, insipid judicial races. And, by golly, the Paseur/Shaw race is the most expensive court race in the country in 2008. What does Alabama have to show for it's big-dollar court races? Some of the most corrupt courts in the country. We've recently noted the corruption that riddles the five-member, all-Republican Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. The nine-member Alabama Supreme Court (eight Republicans) isn't much better. In fact, it's decision last November to overturn a $3.6 billion fraud verdict against oil giant ExxonMobil is a rank example of judicial corruption at its ugliest. Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, a Democrat who cast the lone dissenting vote in the ExxonMobil case, is a beacon for justice in an otherwise bleak Alabama judicial picture. If Paseur is able to overcome Shaw, and all the dollars he has received from business interests, it will be another baby step toward undoing Karl Rove's electoral handiwork that turned Alabama courts into the cesspool we see today.

* Say "No" to Tribalism--Having heard Barack Obama referred to as a "socialist" and a "Marxist" in recent days, I put on my pseudo-social scientist hat the other day and asked myself, "What is going on?" The answer I came up with? I've decided America is suffering from a peculiar strain of tribalism. What is tribalism? One definition is "the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from members of another group." I submit that tribalism is at work when folks of a certain political persuasion apply bogus labels to Obama--or anyone else, for that matter. Tribalism, I submit, is at work when a woman in Grosse Point, Michigan, denies Halloween candy to children who say their parents support Obama. More importantly, tribalism probably is at work when droves of white, middle-class Americans vote for John McCain--even after he ran a dreadful campaign, picked an unqualified vice presidential candidate, and espoused economic policies that clearly favor the wealthy. Over the past 30 to 40 years, these white, middle-class Americans have come to view themselves as members of the "conservative" tribe. And that identity, I fear, trumps their identity as Americans. How else do you explain the fact that many white Americans don't seem the least bit bothered that the Bush administration has butchered such American concepts as "due process," "equal protection," and "justice for all." Bush and his hatchetman, Karl Rove, have gotten away with it because they are seen as members of the "conservative" tribe. And many Americans place more value on tribal membership than they do adherence to fundamental Democratic principles. No wonder these folks consider Barack Obama and his supporters to be oddballs. We aren't in their tribe. And how ironic is that? The Bush administration led us into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that have been dysfunctional for ages largely because of . . . tribalism. My inner social scientist says this might be the greatest danger our country faces, aside from global warming. Unchecked tribalism, I suspect, will rot our own democracy far worse than anything that happened on 9/11. Could an Obama presidency turn back the tide of tribalism? Let's pray that it does.

* Stand Up for Justice--I'm not a progressive who yearns for the ruination of the Republican Party. I believe a legitimate, functional Republican Party is important for the health of our democracy. But I do believe the GOP, in its current dysfunctional and corrupt state, needs to be dismantled. And that won't happen without a good electoral spanking. Hopefully, that will come today. (Even if it does, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman does not look for the GOP to move toward the mainstream anytime soon. He says an electoral spanking could make the party more, not less, extreme.) Nowhere has Republican rot been more present than in the Bush Justice Department. The extent of that rot remains unknown, but a Democratic Congress and an Obama attorney general, hold the promise of fumigating a DOJ that stinks to high heaven. Will that process begin today and kick into high gear on Inauguration Day 2009? I pray that it does.

A Presidential Election Turns Deeply Personal

As Mrs. Schnauzer and I drove to our heavily Republican precinct to vote this morning, a number of thoughts were on our minds.

For one, neither of us ever dreamed that we would feel such a personal stake in the outcome of a presidential race. I can remember going to Brewer Fieldhouse on the University of Missouri campus to cast my first vote, for Jimmy Carter in 1976, and I've taken elections seriously ever since.

But until this year, my wife and I agree, we had always felt some detachment from the process of voting for president. After all, we figured, how will our little corner of Alabama be directly impacted by decisions made by an administration based in Washington, D.C.?

Over the past eight years, we've learned the hard way that the fallout from a corrupt administration in Washington can land right in your living room--and mess up your life big time.

Mrs. Schnauzer and I did not become Barack Obama supporters only because of the trauma we've experienced in Alabama courts, events which led to this blog. We are concerned about the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the environment, health-care reform, education, and more. And of course, there is global warming, the issue we must get right or all of the other issues won't matter.

We strongly feel that Obama is far better equipped than John McCain to lead the country in the right direction.

But on a personal level, our greatest hope is that Obama will help restore integrity to a badly broken justice system. With a McCain administration, evidence suggests that the U.S. Justice Department will remain the cesspool it has become under George W. Bush.

So let's return to our earlier question: How do decisions made at 1600 Pennsylvania wind up harming regular folks in the most personal and private areas of their lives?

Here's how it happened to us. When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, it meant his administration would appoint U.S. attorneys in districts around the country. Where we live, that meant Alice Martin became U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

Some of you might be thinking, "Schnauzer, you're talking about federal stuff here. How is that likely to have an effect on me, in my state, in my county?"

Good question. I've learned, through eight years (and counting) in the School of Hard Knocks, that public corruption cases almost always are federal matters. For example, if you have a corrupt mayor, city councilman, sheriff, police chief, judge, or dog catcher in your area, that person's wrongdoing is likely to involve money, the U.S. mail, or the federal wires (telephone lines, computer lines, etc.). That makes these federal crimes.

What if a corrupt official in your area shares a political affiliation with the local U.S. attorney and knows the USA is not likely to prosecute him--because the administration in Washington wants to use the Justice Department for political gain, to primarily go after people of the other party? Well, that public official pretty much has carte blanche to cheat at the public trough.

What if you happen to have a matter before that public official--and your adversary in the matter happens to be the official's buddy? Well, you are going to get screwed. And the federal government, which probably would have jurisdiction in the matter, isn't going to do a darned thing about it.

This is precisely what happened in our Legal Schnauzer case. An unethical Alabama attorney (William E. Swatek) who has ties to the Bush administration through his son (GOP political consultant Dax Swatek) was the beneficiary of repeated unlawful rulings by corrupt state judges.
Why? Because the judges knew the FBI and Alice Martin were not about to investigate them in a Bush administration.

Keep in mind, this all started because a neighbor with a criminal history moved in next door to us and wound up filing a bogus lawsuit against me when I tried to protect our property rights.

Moral of the story? Even the most seemingly innocuous matter can drag you into your local justice system. And if the administration in Washington is corrupt, your local officials are likely to know that they can get away with federal crimes.

Consider how this kind of situation has hit home for Mrs. Schnauzer and me. We've lost our lives' savings, I've been assaulted by the criminal who lives next door, we no longer own our house free and clear, I've been cheated out of my job, and we strongly suspect that my wife lost out on a number of jobs over a three-year period because someone was tracking our telephone communications.

This all happened under George W. Bush and the renegades in his administration. Pretty personal, indeed.

If Barack Obama is elected, will he possess a magic wand that will make this kind of problem go away instantly? I doubt it. I suspect pockets of corruption still will exist around the country--and public corruption is a bipartisan problem, one that is not limited to Republicans.

In fact, Obama almost certainly will have a number of priorities in line ahead of justice issues. That means my local courthouse--and perhaps yours--will remain a sewage dump of corruption for quite some time.

But regardless of what happens with my case, the culture of the U.S. Justice Department must change. We currently have an administration that is turning political opponents into political prisoners. If that continues, our nation will erode into something none of us can recognize.

I believe an Obama administration will make significant strides toward taking political considerations out of federal prosecutions. It must happen because our democracy depends on it.

Alabama: Still on the Wrong Side of History

It's hard to know whether to laugh or to cry upon reading the following quote from Mike Hubbard, chairman of the Alabama Republican Party:

"I think some of us in Alabama are just baffled by how the rest of the country seems to be falling for a guy who is a socialist and Marxist."

It's easy to laugh at Hubbard's ignorance of history. But it's sad to think that we are in 2008, and Alabama still has its head--and heart--buried in the past. In fact, the same could be said of Alabama's brethren in the Deep South--with the possible exception of Georgia, which shows signs of crawling out from under the rock of racial fear and resentment.

Let's take a shot at clearing up some of Hubbard's bafflement. And we will start with this question: "Mike, when has Alabama ever been on the right side of history?"

Well, let's consider:

* Alabama supported slavery, big time;

* Alabama was at the heart of the Confederacy;

* Alabama supported Jim Crow laws;

* Alabama was at the heart of the Dixiecrat movement to resist racial integration;

* Alabama was wholeheartedly behind efforts to fight civil rights and voting rights legislation;

* Alabama was at the center of a coalition of states that became part of the Republican Party's "Southern Strategy" to make electoral gains based on racial fears and resentments;

* Alabama is at the heart of the GOP's "Solid South," which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980 and has supported policies that led to mounting national debt, the foreign-policy debacle in Iraq, and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Yep, the Solid South, that's where the Dixiecrats came home to roost--in organizations like the Alabama Republican Party.

So Mike, let's ask our question a different way: "When has Alabama ever been 'guilty' of forward thinking?" Answer: Never.

Who is really out of step here--the rest of the country or Alabama?

Mike, you are just the latest in a long line of disgraced Alabama politicians whose ideas have been discredited by history.

Your forebears made statements like:

* "I'm baffled that the rest of the country is against slavery."

* "I'm baffled that the rest of the country is against Jim Crow laws."

* "I'm baffled that the rest of the country supports civil rights."

Here, at Legal Schnauzer, I quite often receive comments from well-meaning readers that go something like this: "Your problem is that you live in Alabama. I used to live there, and I got out at the first opportunity. It's a hellhole, worse than Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Wilmington, Delaware. (Props to Jason Sudeikis/Joe Biden.)"

I understand those sentiments, but I don't quite share them. Yes, I get terribly frustrated with my adopted home state. But I've lived here 30 years, and no one has forced me to stay, so I must find something appealing about this "hellhole."

Actually, I thought up a whole laundry list of good things about Alabama and put them in a post, "Alabama: Love it or Leave it?" a few months back.

At times, I feel like the father of an unruly adopted child who drives me crazy and causes me to toss and turn at night. But I see so much potential in the child that I'm just not ready to kick him to the curb.

With that, let's hope that the nation makes a giant leap forward tomorrow. And let's hope that even Alabama takes a few baby steps toward progress.

You see, Mike Hubbard and his "conservative brethren" have for years been making their political living by telling Southerners, "No, we can't."

Perhaps the tide is starting to turn, as Southerners slowly realize, "Yes, We Can." If you don't believe it, check out this video:

Confronting a Corrupt Republican Judge at Election Time

We posted recently about the race for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals between Republican incumbent William Thompson and Democratic challenger Kimberly Drake.

It is unfortunate, we noted, that Drake has not been able to put up a stronger fight because Thompson is demonstrably corrupt. Thompson is bidding for his third term on the five-member court, which is all Republican.

I know Thompson is corrupt because I had a case before him three years ago, and he ruled contrary to law and violated established appellate procedure in the process. And his ruling just happened to favor the opposing attorney (William E. Swatek) who has a son (Dax Swatek) who has worked closely with Bill Canary. And Bill Canary is a close associate of Karl Rove. Hmmm.

The Thompson/Drake race has not received nearly as much attention as the battle between Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur and Republican Greg Shaw for a seat on the Alabama Supreme Court. And that's too bad because if you are a regular citizen in a case that involves a relatively modest amount of money, you almost certainly will go before the Court of Civil Appeals, not the Supreme Court.

In our earlier post about the Thompson/Drake race, I noted that I would e-mail Thompson and ask him to respond to my questions about his handling of my case. I stated that I would post the contents of my e-mail and any reply I received from him.

Well, I e-mailed Thompson on Thursday--and I have yet to receive a reply. Here is my e-mail, and it lays out the unlawful actions Thompson took in my case:

To: wthompson@appellate.state.al.us

From: Roger Shuler

Judge Thompson:

I live in Birmingham and write a blog called Legal Schnauzer. The blog focuses on justice-related issues, and I am particularly interested in your race against Kimberly Drake for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. That's because I had a case before your court, and it was handled in a most curious fashion.

I would like to give you a chance to respond to my concerns. I've already expressed my concerns on Legal Schnauzer, and I will run your response in its entirety.

First, some background: The case was styled Roger Shuler v. Mike McGarity (Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court: CV 00-1248). The appellate docket number was 2040161. The case was assigned to you, and a no-opinion affirmance was issued on June 24. 2005.

Rule 53 of the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure states, in pertinent part, that the Court of Civil Appeals may affirm a judgment or order of a trial court without an opinion if the court "after a review of the record and the contentions of the parties, concludes that the judgment or order was entered without an error of law."

Now, I am not a lawyer. But I do have a college education, and I know how to find the Jefferson County Law Library, ask for the appropriate materials, and read simple declarative sentences. Through that process, I've learned that the trial court's handling of the lawsuit filed against me was riddled with errors of law.

And we aren't talking about complicated law here. This is the equivalent of "three strikes and you're out" in baseball.

So I am left to wonder: What in the world were you and your four colleagues on the Court of Civil Appeals thinking when you issued a no-opinion affirmance in my case?

In an article dated October 20, 2008, in The Birmingham News, you noted that the court's cases tend to affect working people and stated: "Win or lose, I want them to leave feeling they got a fair shake. It's an important part of the public's view of the court system."

Well, I didn't leave with that feeling. In fact, I didn't "leave" at all because I never was allowed to enter the court. There was no oral argument in my case--although none should have been necessary to get it right. More alarming, I see no evidence that anyone even read my appellate brief or the record on appeal.

I know I didn't get a fair shake, so I am going straight to the source--you--to find out why.

In The Birmingham News, you stated: "We handle a lot of matters that affect people's lives very personally." I'll agree with you there. Let me tell you what has happened to my wife and me as a result of the lawsuit Mike McGarity filed against me: We've lost our lives' savings; our home has been vandalized repeatedly; I've been assaulted by Mr. McGarity (who has an extensive criminal record); we've had our house unlawfully auctioned by the Shelby County sheriff, and I've been unlawfully terminated from my job at UAB, where I had worked for 19 years.

Those last two actions occurred because I dared to start a blog and tell the public about what actually goes on in Alabama courts. We lost full ownership of our house, and my job, because somebody wanted to hide the truth about "justice" in our state.

A lot of the suffering my wife and I have experienced would have never happened if you and your colleagues had ruled correctly on my appeal. So yes, your rulings do affect people very personally.

By a conservative estimate, I would say that trial-court judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves made at least 25 to 30 unlawful rulings in the lawsuit filed against me. In fact, I'm not sure they made a single ruling that was in accordance with the law. I would have come closer to getting justice in Afghanistan.

So I would like to know: Why did you "affirm" their ugly handiwork? I've read some of your opinions in other cases, and they are quite impressive. I know you have a sharp mind, when you decide to use it. But why would you let a clearly unlawful ruling stand in my case?

This missive is getting long, so I want to focus briefly on two simple issues. If these had been decided correctly, all of the other unlawful rulings in my case never would have happened:

(1) Amending a Complaint--Mike McGarity initially sued me for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, stemming from a criminal case where he was acquitted of criminal trespass, third degree. McGarity's lawyer, William E. Swatek, dropped the false imprisonment charge, but added a claim for conversion. Swatek, however, did not do this in a lawful manner. The case originally was set for trial on August 20, 2001, and the amendment to McGarity's complaint was filed on Sept. 12, 2001. Rule 15(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (ARCP) requires a party to obtain leave of court to amend a pleading after 42 days before the first trial setting, and Swatek failed to do this, making his amendment untimely by some 65 days. Numerous examples of case law--including Malone v. Malone, 854 So. 2d 109 (Ala., 2003)--state that an untimely amendment, without leave of court, must be disallowed. In my case, McGarity's amendment was so late that I had already filed a timely motion for summary judgment. And the court's ultimate judgment against me in the amount of $1,525 was based on this bogus claim of conversion.

Question: How do you affirm a trial court's decision to allow an amendment that was filed some 65 days late?

(2) Motions for Summary Judgment--I filed three motions for summary judgment (MSJ), each citing distinct issues of fact and law. The case against me had to be dismissed on so many grounds that multiple MSJs were possible. However, only one should have been necessary. Rule 56(c)(2) ARCP requires that any statement of affidavit in opposition to an MSJ must be served at least two days prior to the hearing on the motion. The hearing on my first motion was held on September 19, 2001, but McGarity did not file an affidavit in opposition until September 27, 2001. Let me be clear about this: My MSJs were properly executed and supported with affidavits regarding material facts. That shifted the burden to McGarity to present substantial evidence showing there was a reason to go to trial. His affidavit on the first MSJ was eight days late, so it had to be struck, meaning he presented no countering evidence.

Alabama law on this is clear: "When a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court MUST consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing." Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown 631 So. 2d 848 (Ala., 1993).

Despite this clear mandate under Alabama law, the trial court denied my first MSJ. On two subsequent MSJs, McGarity filed no reply at all--no response, no affidavit, no evidence, nothing. Both of those MSJs were denied, too.

Question: How do you affirm a trial court's ruling to deny three properly executed and supported MSJs when the non-moving party presents zero evidence in opposition?

A number of lawyers in Montgomery and Birmingham have told me it is quite common for your court to issue unlawful no-opinion affirmances, essentially sweeping bad trial-court rulings under the rug.

In my situation, the opposing lawyer (Bill Swatek) has a son (Dax Swatek) who has served as a "consultant" for a number of Republican politicians, including at least one member of your court. That raises a question in my mind: Was I cheated because I didn't have the right political connections?

You told The Birmingham News, "I am a person of strong moral convictions. I can make tough decisions." Really? What kind of moral convictions does it take to let a bad trial-court decision slide so that it favors one of your Republican Party comrades? Does it bother you at all that two Alabama citizens have been brought to the edge of financial ruin because of unlawful decisions by state judges--decisions that you allowed to stand?

Do I feel I got a fair shake? Not on your life. But you are more than welcome to try to set me straight.

I await your reply.


Sincerely,


Roger Shuler

Alabama GOP Leader Jumps the Shark

Are some Republican leaders losing it, just two days before the 2008 presidential election?

That appears to be the case in Alabama.

Consider this quote from Mike Hubbard, chair of the Alabama Republican Party, about the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain:

"Obama won't win Alabama, but if he pulls 44, 45, 46 percent of the vote, then that could make it hard on some of our candidates down ballot. I think some of us in Alabama are just baffled by how the rest of the country seems to be falling for a guy who is a socialist and Marxist."

A socialist and a Marxist? Hubbard seems to be referring to Obama's support for a modest form of progressive taxation. Just how nutty is Hubbard's statement?

By his definition, every U.S. president from Woodrow Wilson to Jimmy Carter was a socialist and a Marxist. All of them supported progressive taxation.

That includes a number of Republican presidents who supported top tax rates far higher than anything Obama has proposed--Dwight Eisenhower (92 percent), Richard Nixon (77 percent), Gerald Ford (70 percent).

What a bunch of Commies!

And Adam Smith, generally considered the father of modern economics and an icon to many conservatives? He also supported progressive taxation.

One of the best discussions I've seen about the Obama/socialism nonsense comes from James Edward Maule, a professor of law at Villanova University. Maule, as you can tell by his title, is an intelligent, thoughtful guy. You can check out his credentials here.

The last thing Republicans like Hubbard want people to do is think. Republicans generally don't fare well when people take the time to think.

We encourage people to think here at Legal Schnauzer, so we hope you will check out Maule's piece on "Wealth Redistribution, Socialism, and the Tax Law."

It's one thing for a drunk on a bar stool to say Obama is a "socialist and a Marxist." But the leader of a major party in a Deep South state? That smacks of desperation.

Speaking of desperation, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork World News & Journal has some interesting thoughts about the possibly that Tuesday's election will mark the "last gasp of the conservative era."

For another excellent discussion on socialism and desperation, consider this clip with Princeton professor Cornel West from Real Time With Bill Maher.