The Orwellian World of UAB

Since the politicization of the Bush Justice Department first came to public attention, no one has done more to shine light on the scandal than Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor at Harper's magazine.

I never dreamed that my little corner of Alabama would be touched by corrupt Bushies; I figured they would be content to go after big timers like former Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

But I was wrong about that, and in May 2008, I was fired from my job as an editor in the Publications Office at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

A mountain of evidence suggests my firing was a "political hit," and Horton closes out 2008 by spotlighting my termination on his No Comment blog at harpers.org. UAB's handling of my case, compared to its handling of some legitimate violations of the university's Acceptable Use Policy, is right out of George Orwell, Horton notes:

We could hardly end 2008 without delivering a George Orwell Honorable Mention to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for its truly extraordinary “acceptable use” policy on employee Internet use. There’s nothing strange about the language of the policy–in fact it’s pedestrian (the Internet “may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal” it says). But how the university interprets and applies this prohibition might surprise an observer–unless, of course, the observer is attuned to the peculiarities of Alabama politics.

Horton expertly puts UAB's actions into perspective, taking special delight in noting that the university expressed concern that I had actually read Harper's to help keep up with Alabama-related events:

Case in point: The university recently fired Roger Shuler, a long-time public relations employee who blogs on legal developments under the moniker “the Legal Schnauzer,” apparently expressing concern in a grievance hearing over the fact that he regularly visited and read Harper’s. After The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the firing, the university posted a credibility-straining assertion that the firing was “based solely on work performance.” Also according to the Chronicle:
The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.

Horton then dives into the "Rest of the Story" version of my firing, focusing on the numerous threatening anonymous e-mails I had received--including one specifically stating an intention to go after my job:

Shuler says that the decision to fire him was based on the political content of his blog posts, which were critical of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and one of his key allies, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. According to Shuler, the firing occurred only a few months after one of Riley’s political cronies threatened him with the loss of his job because of his blogging. Indeed, to the university’s chagrin, his final review session was taped, and portions which have now been published suggest that the primary concern of his reviewers was that he was publicly critical of the state’s political powers.

Horton provides more details about Alice Martin's curious denials regarding my firing:

Martin’s office, according to a report from Raw Story, denied that “her office was in any way involved with Shuler’s termination. ‘There has been no contact by the office to Mr Shuler’s employer,’ she wrote.” So what led to the firing? That apparently will be for a court to determine. In the meantime it’s worth noting some other cases of Internet abuse at the university to see how they were handled.

Yes, indeed, UAB recently has dealt with at least two cases where its computer/Internet use policy actually was violated. One involved anti-gay comments sent from a UAB computer to a California-based gay-rights organization. Another involves a vile and racist e-mail that appears to have been sent from a UAB computer. It includes crude and profane references to President-Elect Barack Obama. So how did UAB handle those? Horton clues us in:

Apparently the university actually is prepared to be liberal about Internet use–as long as that use isn’t in “liberal” interests. Huntsville CBS affiliate WHNT recently broadcast a study of the university’s bizarre double standard. One university employee recently used her work account to pen this note to the leaders of an Anti-Proposition 8 group in California: “You freaks make me sick. You are the scourge of the earth and are responsible for everything that’s wrong in this sorry world because of the immorality you have brought on the world as a whole.” The university’s response to the use of its facilities to transmit this hate mail? According to WHNT, they won’t say more than that they did “follow up appropriately as outlined by UAB’s Acceptable Use Policy”; there is no evidence of whether any disciplinary action was taken. WHNT’s Greg Privett also noted a widely circulated ditty coming from the university’s pediatrics office. It starts “Wuz the night befo Crizzmus” and it proceeds to ridicule President-Elect Obama in overtly racist tones. Surely this violates the university’s “acceptable use” policy?

This all might seem hopelessly bizarre for folks who live in areas where rational thought prevails. But Horton notes it fits right in with the strange terrain of Alabama:

It seems that in Birmingham one type of “political speech” is protected and can be freely spread using the university’s servers while another is not–even when the employee is expressing it on private time and his own computer. George Orwell would understand.

The Times--And Lyrics--Are A Changin' For Baby Boomers

Regular readers know that 2008 has not been a happy-go-lucky year here in SchnauzerLand.

"Highlights" included yours truly being screwed out of my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and having a portion of the rights to our own house unlawfully auctioned by a corrupt Republican sheriff. I chronicled this theft of our own home in a number of posts, including this one and this one.

Mrs. Schnauzer and I will be more than happy to see 2008 in the rearview mirror. But the year's hardships have made us appreciate it that much more when someone gives us reason to have a good belly laugh.

Such a moment came recently from one of our regular Mississippi correspondents. Our friend shared with us her concern that, with the first wave of Baby Boomers pushing age 60 and beyond, it might be time to update the lyrics to some of the musical hits from the 1960s, '70s, and maybe a few from the '80s.

Some examples our friend suggested:

* Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Walker--Herman's Hermits

* I Get By With a Little Help From Depends--The Beatles

* The First Time Ever I Forgot Your Face--Roberta Flack

* Fifty Ways To Lose Your Liver--Paul Simon

* A Whiter Shade of Hair--Procol Harum

* Once, Twice, Three Times to the Bathroom--The Commodores

* You Make Me Feel Like Napping--Leo Sayer

* Papa's Got a Kidney Stone--The Temptations

* It's My Procedure, and I'll Cry If I Want To--Leslie Gore

* On the Commode Again--Willie Nelson


After we finished cackling, Mrs. Schnauzer and I decided to add a few to the list:

* Chair Lift to Heaven--Led Zeppelin

* Assisted Living For the City--Stevie Wonder

* Don't Pull Your Teeth Out On Me, Baby--Hamilton, Joe Frank & Reynolds

* Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is (That Judge Wapner Comes On)--Chicago

* Eli Wallach's Coming--Three Dog Night

* Hey You, Get Off of My Lawn--Rolling Stones

* Drool's Out--Alice Cooper

* A.A.R.P. in the USA--John Cougar Mellencamp

* I'm Free Fallin' (And I Can't Get Up)--Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers


We welcome your additions to the list.

Online Porn And Other Workplace Hazards

As someone who was fired for allegedly engaging in "non work-related activity" at work, I was intrigued, and slightly amused, by a recent article in Newsweek.

The magazine reports that one-fourth of employees who use the Internet visit porn sites during the workday. The figure comes from an October survey by Nielsen Online, showing that workplace porn visits are up 23 percent from a year ago and porn sites receive more hits during office hours than any other time of the day.

What's driving the workplace porn rush? Some experts say it is driven by the stress of a wobbly economy. Others say many younger folks, who have grown up with the Internet, don't see porn as a big deal.

I particularly like this quote from Dawn Adams, CEO of a Wisconsin HR consulting firm:

"Managers are dealing with so many issues right now that sometimes people are able to hide out and no one knows what they're doing."

Hah! Has Ms. Adams considered that maybe the managers are the porn watchers? She sounds like a typical HR dolt. Managers are the ones who have time to watch porn. Non-managers have real work to do!

A few employers are catching on to the porn parade. Earlier this year, nine Washington, D.C., city employees were fired for viewing porn sites thousands of times while on the job. The worst offender reportedly logged an average of one hit every 2.5 minutes.

In addition to lost productivity, some companies are concerned about their equipment. Reports Newsweek:

Adult sites also expose computers to viruses, adware and spyware—though such ills can serve as smoking guns. At her last job, Adams fired an executive for spending hours a day on adult sites. "His computer was always crashing," she says. "That's how we found out."

Now let's do a little math here. The story says a quarter of employees who use the Internet visit porn sites--that includes men and women. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'm guessing about 90 percent of the visitors to porn sites are guys. (I've seen few signs that the porn industry is designed with the interests of women in mind.)

If we take the survey results and my guesses as accurate, then what percentage of guys are viewing porn in the workplace? I'm not a whiz at math--hey, that's why colleges have journalism programs--but the figure must be getting close to the 50 percent or higher range.

Here's some irony for you. Was I viewing porn at my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)? Nope. Was I doing "non work-related" activity at work? Nope. For good measure, that term isn't defined, or even mentioned, in the UAB employee handbook or its Acceptable Use Policy for computers and networks. The university evidently doesn't consider "non work-related activity" an issue--except in my case.

If the Nielsen Online survey is to be believed, UAB must be awash in people viewing porn at work. But is the university doing anything about it? Heck no, it's too busy firing me for reading articles about Don Siegelman!

Remember my tape recorded conversation with Anita Bonasera, UAB's director of employee relations? She flat-out admits that I was targeted because I followed the Siegelman case on my computer, even though part of my job description was to keep up with news and public affairs, particularly as they pertain to Alabama. Last time I checked, the Siegelman case had something to do with Alabama--and his codefendant, Richard Scrushy, is UAB's most famous alum and one of its major donors. The university has named buildings for the man.

But hey, I could have been watching porn, and all would have been fine. God, if I had only known!

You can see the absurdity in UAB's actions. And that reminds me of a classic moment from my grievance hearing.

One of the women on the panel asked me, "Why were you checking the Harper's magazine site?"

Don't remember my answer exactly, but it went something like this: "Harper's is the second oldest monthly magazine in the United States and is considered one of the top general-interest publications in the world. Since we are in the business of producing magazines, it seems kind of natural for a member of the Publications Office to check out world-class magazines.

"One of Harper's writers, Scott Horton, is an Alabama native and a law professor at Columbia University--which is in the Ivy League, by the way--and is a highly respected writer on legal and public affairs. He has a special interest in Alabama, and part of my job description is to keep up with issues that affect our state.

"Is there some problem with an employee at an academic institution checking out Harper's magazine?"

My real answer probably wasn't that sarcastic. But that's exactly what I wish I had said, and that's the point I hope I got across. Apparently it worked because the grievance committee found I never should have been fired. But UAB's president upheld my termination anyway.

Go figure.

Gee, I just wish UAB had been clear about its policy. If I'd known they wanted me to scope out Jenna Jameson but not Scott Horton, I would have been happy to comply.

Bob Riley Continues His Anti-Gambling Charade

Alabama Governor Bob Riley persists on positioning himself as an anti-gambling crusader, despite a mountain of evidence that Riley's administration actually has been fueled by gambling interests.

The latest news has Riley forming a task force, led by retired Jefferson County district attorney David Barber, to crack down on illegal gambling.

Riley's move comes roughly two weeks after he had announced 12.5 percent proration in the state's education budget. Some legislators have proposed expanding gambling and levying state taxes to help offset budget cuts.

But Riley, who claims to be pure as new-fallen snow on gambling, won't hear of it.

The governor either has turbo-charged reserves of hypocrisy or he considers Alabamians to be complete dolts--or both.

This is the politician who took $13 million of Mississippi Indian gaming money, funneled through disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, for his 2002 campaign. And U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) withheld from a Senate investigation an e-mail that proved Riley's ties to Abramoff.

It also has been reported that a number of Riley's close associates, including his son Rob Riley and former campaign manager Dax Swatek, have had ties to the gambling industry.

We are going to be reporting on these Rob Riley and Dax Swatek gambling connections in a series of posts coming soon.

I can only assume that Bob Riley figures if he spouts the anti-gambling BS often enough, Congress and an Obama Justice Department will forget about looking in his direction when it examines the sordid Abramoff mess.

Obama attorney general-designate Eric Holder doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would fall for that trick.

Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex

Mountain Brook Is One of the 10 Wealthiest Communities in U.S.
I've long heard that the Birmingham suburb of Mountain Brook is one of the wealthiest towns in the United States. Now we have confirmation that "The Brook" is indeed in the top 10.

A survey by University of Montevallo urban geography professor Stephen Higley places Mountain Brook at No. 9, with a mean household income of $210,089.

Three of the four wealthiest communities--Darien, No. 1; Westport, No. 3; and Greenwich, No. 4--are in Fairfield County, Connecticut. No. 2, Lake Forest, is near Chicago. And Nos. 5 and 6--Potomac and McLean--are near Washington, D.C.

Here's a shocker: Beverly Hills, California, did not make the top 50. It was No. 52, with a mean household income of $148,758. Gosh, Jed Clampett might as well have stayed in the Ozarks.

Higley has all kinds of interesting stuff at his Web site, higley1000.com. For example, he examines racial integration in the wealthiest 1,000 places in America. (Heck, I thought the whole idea of living in one of these places is to avoid headaches like racial integration.)

You can check out a detailed analysis of the Birmingham area, along with a look at our wealthiest neighborhoods, here.

Newbies Give Birmingham High Marks
Folks who have lived around Birmingham quite a while tend to pooh-pooh the place. But relative newcomers, those who have lived here less than two years, are high on "The Ham."

That comes from a survey conducted by Samford University marketing students for the Birmingham Regional Chamber of Commerce.

The five greatest strengths of the Birmingham area: (1) Medical community; (2) Southern hospitality; (3) Restaurants; (4) Higher education; (5) Historically rich.

The five greatest weaknesses: (1) Crime; (2) Government officials; (3) Public transportation; (4) Behind the times; (5) Public K-12 education.

Where is knee-jerk Republican voters on that list?

Here is some encouraging news: Only 12 percent of respondents considered racism a major weakness.

"My sense is that the new generation is more bullish, more positive, more aggressive about change in our city," said Betsy Holloway, associate professor of marketing at Samford. Holloway said newcomers and young respondents seemed to be saying "the past is the past, and we're not going to let it dominate the future."

Victims of Discrimination Receive Justice In Court

Two victims of workplace discrimination recently received justice in court--and both cases have their roots in the South.

Both cases also involve substantial amounts of money, an indication that courts do not look kindly upon organizations that discriminate and retaliate against their employees.

The better known of the two cases involves Mauricia Grant, a former technical inspector for NASCAR who said she was subjected to repeated racial discrimination and sexual harassment in the two-plus years she worked for the stock-car organization.

NASCAR recently announced that it had reached a settlement in Grant's $225 million case.

Grant apparently came away with a solid financial result, but Ed Hinton of ESPN notes the down side to such settlements--particularly when it comes to NASCAR, which has a history of effectively hiding its dirty laundry.

The second case involves Yvonne Baldwin, the former acting police chief in Prichard, Alabama. Baldwin claimed that the city discriminated against her, and a federal jury in Mobile agreed, awarding $235,000.

Baldwin's attorney, James Starnes of Birmingham, said the case involved overwhelming evidence of disparate treatment compared to Baldwin's male counterpart.

The case also involved retaliation after Baldwin filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

No two cases and no two juries are alike, of course, but it is interesting to compare the Baldwin case to the one I will be filing against UAB. Disparate treatment, based on gender, race, age, etc., is at the heart of any discrimination case. It appears to have been clearly present in the Baldwin case, along with retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint.

Those two issues are present in my case, along with a couple of issues--wrongful termination and First Amendment violations--that apparently were not present in the Baldwin case.

Baldwin no longer works in the Prichard Police Department, but she was not terminated. She declined to accept a contract offer that she said was not equal to one offered to a male colleague. And First-Amendment issues were not present at all in the Baldwin case.

News accounts note that Baldwin also could receive attorney's fees and costs in her judgment.

Memo To Alice Martin: Get Lost!

Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has been described by Scott Horton of Harper's magazine as perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.

Now it appears that Horton did not go far enough in his critique of Martin. He should have added delusional to her list of attractive traits.

The Alabama blog Doc's Political Parlor reports that Martin has asked U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to help her get a one-year extension to serve under the Barack Obama administration.

You heard that right: One of the most notorious and corrupt members of the Bush Justice Department--and there is a lot of competition for that title--wants to stay on under Obama. Why? So she can lead the prosecution of Birmingham mayor Larry Langford on corruption charges.

A few facts seem to have escaped Alice Martin in her state of delusion:

* U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and typically hand in their resignations when administrations change. As John McCain once famously said, "Elections have consequences." And Alice, one of the consequences of the November election is that you are about to be out of a job.

* Jeff Sessions is a Republican who, based on the word of Lanny Young (one of the government's star witnesses in the Don Siegelman case), has some serious ethical baggage of his own. What makes Martin think Sessions would have any pull with an Obama administration? Is she really that stupid/desperate?

* If Obama's attorney general-designate Eric Holder has the kind of spine we hear he has, Martin is more likely to be a target of the new Justice Department rather than a part of it. She already is being investigated by multiple governmental agencies--under the Bush administration. Those investigations are likely to be coverups, but Holder has a history of fighting corruption. He might want his department to scrutinize Ms. Martin's activities.

I would be glad to show Holder & Co. how she handled my complaints to her office about corruption among Republican judges in Alabama. We already know that Holder has a history of going after corrupt judges in Pennsylvania. I think he and his lieutenants would find the actions of Alabama judges in my case--along with Martin's efforts to protect them--to be most interesting.

If they were to look into Martin's possible role in my unlawful termination at UAB . . . well, there is no telling what Holder & Co. might find on that trail.

That brings us to another point raised by Doc's Political Parlor. It reports that Martin is interested in the seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals vacated by Greg Shaw, who won a spot on the Alabama Supreme Court.

My understanding is that Governor Bob Riley will appoint someone to fill Shaw's seat. There is no doubt that he and Martin are political buddies, and Riley has shown an inclination to take care of his buddies, no matter the circumstances. Martin and Riley even have shared a campaign manager--Montgomery-based "consultant" Dax Swatek, who has a history of sleazy activity and has become a major character in our Legal Schnauzer story.

But you have to wonder if even Bob Riley will shy away from appointing Alice Martin and the sizable baggage she brings with her. Not only is Martin already under investigation for unethical conduct, a Congressional inquiry into political prosecutions and other Bush-era activities could head in her direction.

Congressional attention also could focus on Riley and his ties to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Riley might not want to draw attention to himself by appointing someone who is likely to become a political "hot potato."

How would it look to have a judge on Alabama's Court of Criminal Appeals wind up being indicted on criminal charges herself? And to know that Bob Riley put her there?

Has UAB Become A Haven For Hate Speech?

Has the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) become so infected with Republican sleaze that it tolerates hate speech while unlawfully firing an employee who writes a progressive blog?

A growing body of evidence suggests the answer to that question is yes.

The latest comes from Greg Privett, an investigative reporter for television station WHNT in Huntsville. Privett reports on an anti-gay e-mail that was sent by Pamala Gibson, an employee in UAB's Department of Physiology and Biophysics, from her work computer. UAB spokesperson Dale Turnbough issued a statement, saying the university had "handled" the matter. But she did not say if Gibson had been disciplined in any way.

Privett also says a second e-mail--one that is filled with racist, profane language, and makes fun of President-Elect Barack Obama--appears to have been sent by a UAB employee from a work computer. WHNT still is investigating that incident.

(Note: You can see the video of Privett's report by clicking on the WHNT Web site, going to the "Top News Video" section near the top of the page and scrolling to the story headed "University of Alabama . . . ")

Regular Legal Schnauzer readers know that I was fired from UAB in May, after 19 years of service. UAB's written reasons for my firing are vague, but they appear to center on allegations that I used my work computer to write my personal blog, which focuses on corruption in Alabama state courts and criticism of the Bush Justice Department, particularly its prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

A number of interesting parallels exist between my case and these recent instances of hate-speech being sent from state-owned computers at UAB:

* Dale Turnbough, who is quoted in Privett's report, is the same individual who signed my termination letter. My former boss, Pam Powell, answered to Turnbough, whose title is associate vice president for public relations and marketing.

* Turnbough mentions UAB's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) in her statement to WHNT. This is the policy that governs the use of UAB computers and networks. We already have noted that Gibson clearly violated the AUP, and yet it is unclear if she was disciplined at all. I, on the other hand, did not violate the AUP or any other UAB policy, and I've been out of a job for six-plus months now. By the way, it is not just my opinion that I did not violate any university policy. I sat through my entire grievance hearing, and saw my former boss, Pam Powell, repeatedly answer "no" when asked to provide documentation to support her claim that I should have been fired. That grievance hearing was tape recorded, so Powell's "answers" are preserved for posterity.

* UAB's Acceptable Use Policy states that any violations should be handled with the university's progressive discipline procedure. As defined in the You & UAB Handbook, that process is to start with an oral warning, then proceed (if necessary) to written warning, and finally possible termination. Immediate termination is reserved for serious offenses such as theft, fighting, showing up for work under the influence of drugs or alcohol, etc. Evidence in my grievance hearing showed I should not have been disciplined at all. But assuming that discipline was merited, it would have been an oral warning. Instead, UAB conveniently skipped the first two stages in its progressive discipline procedure and immediately fired me. Will UAB employees who used state equipment to send hateful and vile e-mails be treated in a similar fashion? Sure doesn't look like it.

* It's important to note that while Dale Turnbough served as UAB's "spokesperson" in the hate e-mail case, she was a central figure in my termination. Greg Privett has interviewed me at length about my termination, and I understand that WHNT plans to include my story in a series about Alabamians who have suffered under the Bush Justice Department. That series is due to run after the first of the year, probably about the time the Obama administration starts to make over the Justice Department.

* Notice that Turnbough did not grant an interview for the WHNT story, instead issuing a prepared statement. Imagine her trying to explain UAB's handling of this bigoted e-mail compared to its handling of my case. And she would have been forced to explain her own actions in my case, not those of some other university official. Is it any wonder that Turnbough didn't want to take questions from Greg Privett?

* Turnbough's quote that UAB cannot comment on a personnel matter is intriguing. The university seemed to have no problem commenting on my personnel matter. After Raw Story ran Lindsay Beyerstein's investigative piece about my termination, several Legal Schnauzer readers voiced their concerns to UAB President Carol Garrison. Garrison had UAB spokesman Gary Mans respond with a statement that my firing was based solely on work performance. Mans went so far as to post the statement in the comments to a story about my firing at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Isn't it interesting that Dale Turnbough can't comment on a "personnel matter" that involves use of UAB computers to send bigoted and racist e-mails, but the university was more than happy to issue a false and defamatory statement regarding my case?

Here is a question for taxpayers from coast to coast: UAB dips its snout in the federal trough to the tune of more than $400 million a year in research funding. You can bet that not long after the Obama administration takes over, UAB representatives will be approaching various agencies with their hands out. Dale Turnbough makes a six-figure salary, and Gary Mans makes close to that (last time I checked). Do they have an obligation to explain UAB's handling of "personnel matters" that involve the use of taxpayer-supported equipment?

And if this vile, racist, anti-Obama e-mail did indeed come from UAB--and I have information, which I've shared with Greg Privett, that indicates it is legitimate--how should Obama officials and supporters react if UAB takes no substantive disciplinary action?

Here's a final thought: It's undisputed that I was fired because I write a blog--on my own time--that has been supportive of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and critical of the Bush officials who prosecuted him. Contrary to what Carol Garrison/Gary Mans have said in their public statement--again, notice they repeatedly refused to answer questions about my case--I have an audiotaped conversation with a UAB human-resources director admitting that I was targeted because of my blog and its pro-Siegelman content. It's also undisputed that UAB's own grievance committee found I should not have been terminated, but President Garrison upheld my termination anyway.

Come January 20, Democrats are going to be in charge of the White House, both chambers of Congress, and the Alabama Legislature. And representatives from UAB are going to approach those Democrats and beg for dollars.

Isn't it about time that Democrats take a hard look at this southern university that protects hate speech while violating federal employment law at will? If UAB officials don't want to answer questions from reporters, shouldn't they have to answer questions from Democrats who are expected to help fund the university's endeavors?

A Dog Day Christmas Afternoon

While browsing on the computer this afternoon, I came across a holiday video that I just had to share with the Schnauzer crowd.

In fact, Mrs. Schnauzer pointed out that the video actually features a schnauzer--a black standard or giant. I think it might be a standard, and you don't seem to see many of those in the U.S.

Looks like this little gem originated in Hungary. For some reason, I've always envisioned Hungary as a grim, eerie place; maybe I've watched too many Dracula movies. Based on this video, Hungary looks like an uber cool place, and it makes me want to visit.

With a tip of the hat to Pam Miles' e-mail list in Huntsville, Alabama, we offer a doggie version of "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree."

Happy holidays:

Hope For White People In Alabama

Sometimes I think a huge chunk of our white population has lost its collective mind.

White people, after all, are responsible not only for electing--but somehow re-electing--the worst president in our nation's history, leaving us with a mess not seen since the days of Herbert Hoover.

More evidence of "whities gone wacko" comes with a charming Christmas Day story in The Birmingham News. It tells us that local gun enthusiasts are buying up every firearm in sight out of fear that a Barack Obama administration will somehow make it difficult to get that much needed semi-automatic weapon and ammo.

And get this: One gentleman visited a Birmingham sporting-goods store the day after the election and bought $40,000 worth of semi-automatic hunting guns. Said the store's proprietor: "He said that he wanted to guarantee that his children, his grandchildren and yet-to-be-born grandchildren would have a way to hunt."

Gee, I thought the economy was bad, but this bozo could blow $40,000 on guns. And given his enthusiasm for firearms, I think it's safe to say he already had a bunch of guns.

Now, this gentleman could have put that money into college funds for his grand kids. Heck, he could have even made donations in their names to a favorite charity--say, one designed to help fight cancer or heart disease or hunger or poverty.

But no, he wanted to make sure the fruit of his loins could shoot guns to their hearts content. Makes you feel good about the future of our country doesn't it?

In the same edition of the same newspaper, we find a story that actually does make you feel good about our country.

Joe Openshaw, a retired veterinarian from Bessemer, Alabama, has 11 Christmas trees in his 1895 home. The trees have different themes, and each year, one tree has a patriotic theme.

This year's patriotic tree includes a tribute to our president-elect. It features Barack Obama campaign buttons, plus pictures of Obama and his family. The "Tribute Tree to Our President-Elect" stands in the bedroom of Openshaw's 18-year-old son, Daniel, and won't come down until after the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Openshaw's 22-year-old daughter, Marlow, is particularly protective of the Obama tree. Her best friend said she was going to put a John McCain ornament on the tree, but Marlow said it wouldn't stay on long.

How often have you heard patriotism associated with the Republican Party, almost as if it has been permanently hijacked? But here you have a white family, living in a state with a tortured history on race, showing support for our first African-American president.

Maybe there's hope for our country, and our state, after all.

A Christmas Gift to Make You Smile

Our Legal Schnauzer team has been thinking of something special to do for our readers at Christmas.

We are deeply grateful for the loyal readers who regularly make their way to our little corner of cyberspace. It's heartening to know that people recognize our system of justice is hurting--and they want to help make it better.

All of us here in SchnauzerLand certainly wish that our readers--and our world at large--will find comfort, joy, and hope in the religious and spiritual foundation of Christmas.

But we wanted to offer something, in keeping with the spirit of this blog, that might touch our readers in a down-to-earth way. Few things touch the human spirit quite like humor and music. And when you add in a legal connection, we thought we had found the perfect gift.

For our gift, we can thank the creators of Scrubs, which we think is one of the funniest, most creative shows in television history. And we are happy to report that, after seven years on NBC, Scrubs has found a new home on ABC--with new episodes starting on January 6.

We want to focus on Ted, the sad-sack lawyer at Sacred Heart whose primary source of joy in life comes from singing a cappella tunes with his fellow hospital employees. They call themselves the "Worthless Peons."

Ted's Band practices in the hospital elevators and roams the halls cranking out cartoon, prime time TV, and movie theme songs at opportune times.

In a way, Ted and his band mates provide the spiritual centerpiece of the show. They exhibit a childlike quality, the kind we associate with Christmas, as they brighten a world where illness and death are regular visitors.

And so we share this compilation of Ted's "Greatest Hits," with hopes that it will bring a smile to your face on Christmas Day. Be sure to make it to the end for the Worthless Peons' version of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." It may be the best version of the classic that I've ever heard:



We can't go without including a clip where Ted's Band and the Janitor's group get into a "sing off" to impress Elliot, the show's blonde, goofy, and wonderfully hot doctor:



By the way, Ted's Band is for real. The guys actually sing those songs, and in real life, they are called The Blanks-complete with a Web site and a CD.

For good measure, we had to include a clip from one of the funniest bits in television history. The Janitor is convinced that J.D. thinks he's stupid. It plays out with hysterical results that have forever changed the way I look at sloppy Joes.

Merry Christmas!

A Basketball Coach, Assault, and Legal Ethics

A defamation lawsuit filed by University of Mississippi basketball coach Andy Kennedy against witnesses in an assault case raises some troubling legal-ethics questions.

Kennedy sued Cincinnati cab driver Mohamed Jiddou, who said in a police report that Kennedy struck him. Kennedy also sued Michael Strother, an employee at a valet service who supported Jiddou's story in an interview with a Cincinnati television station.

Speaking about the lawsuit for the first time, Kennedy told the Jackson Clarion Ledger that he filed it to protect his credibility.

Phil Taliaferro, an attorney representing Strother, had a very different take in an interview with USA Today:

"I've been practicing for 46 years and I've never heard of a situation in which a witness has been sued within 24 hours for telling what he saw. Michael is a 22-year-old young man who had the courage to tell the police what he saw."

I don't pretend to be an expert on legal ethics, which puts me in company with about 98 percent of lawyers. But based on my research and experience, Kennedy appears to be acting out of desperation. And his lawsuit smacks of witness intimidation, not only of Jiddou and Strother but against other witnesses that might come forward.

A Cincinnati television station reported that police wanted to interview two bar patrons who reportedly had a confrontation with Kennedy and a limo driver who might have witnessed the alleged assault. Wonder if those folks will be anxious to come forward now?

The Kennedy lawsuit raises serious questions about attorney Richard Katz, who filed the lawsuit on Kennedy's behalf.

A few points to consider:

* A person filing a criminal complaint has a qualified privilege to do so, and that privilege would appear to protect Jiddou and Strother from a defamation claim. In making their statements, it seems that Jiddou and Strother simply described certain events as they saw them, and at the time of their accounts, it appears they did not even know who Andy Kennedy was. How can they defame Andy Kennedy's character when they did not know who he was at the time of the event?

* Most jurisdictions have a "Rule 11" requirement, stating that by signing a pleading or motion, the lawyer certifies that he has good grounds to support it. This generally requires that a lawyer conduct some investigation before filing a claim. It's hard to see what kind of investigation Katz could have conducted in the roughly 24 hours from the time of the incident until the lawsuit was filed;

* What if Jiddou and Strother are making up their stories? What if they did conspire to "get" Kennedy? The law has a provision to protect someone like Kennedy in that situation. It's called malicious prosecution, and it's been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer. (Two examples can be found here and here.) If Kennedy were to prevail in criminal court, and he can show that Jiddou and Strother had no "probable cause" to have him prosecuted, he could file a claim for malicious prosecution--and he should prevail;

* Here's the rub with malicious prosecution: Such a case could not be filed until the criminal case is over, with a finding in Kennedy's favor. Kennedy clearly does not want a criminal trial to happen at all, and that probably is why he filed the defamation case. In fact, his attorney pretty much admitted as much in one newspaper interview;

* I look for Jiddou and Strother to file motions to dismiss Kennedy's lawsuit. Such motions differ from motions for summary judgment, which come only after discovery has taken place. A motion to dismiss cuts a case off at the outset, and such motions are rarely granted. But if the Jiddou/Strother lawyers can show their clients engaged in privileged communication, a dismissal would be called for;

* Jiddou and Strother also should counter with an abuse of process claim against both Kennedy and his attorney. This tort involves the issuance of legal process (such as a lawsuit), with an ulterior motive. In this instance, the ulterior motive would be to intimidate the witnesses into dropping the criminal complaint;

* Jiddou and Strother also can come back with an assault and battery counterclaim. Assault is both a crime and a tort, so they can countersue for assault;

My guess is that Kennedy and his attorney want to get this problem into the civil arena, so they can offer Jiddou and Strother enough money to make the problem go away, protecting Kennedy's job--and those of his assistant coaches.

Here's a problem with that scenario: Even if Jiddou and Strother settle civilly and agree to drop the criminal charges, that can't be done without the OK of the Cincinnati prosecutor. After all, that case will be the People of Ohio vs. Andy Kennedy, and victims don't get to make the call on whether it will be dropped or not.

Chances are, Kennedy's attorney is well enough connected in the legal community that he will be able to get prosecutors to drop the criminal case if a civil agreement is reached. Kennedy's attorney also is likely to be well connected enough to avoid the Rule 11 sanctions that he probably should face. (Jiddou and Strother could play hard ball by immediately filing a bar complaint against Katz. If the Ohio bar is like the Alabama bar, nothing is likely to come of that.)

It's a dangerous game Kennedy is playing. Since he was on university business, a countersuit for assault and battery also could name the University of Mississippi as a defendant, along with its officers. Such an outcome is likely to make said officers most unhappy and make it more likely that Kennedy and his staff will lose their jobs.

My guess is that Kennedy wants a quick settlement that will save his career and keep the university out of the equation.

Kennedy might have fired the first shot in the civil battle over the downtown fracas. But I would say Jiddou and Strother still hold all of the good cards.

One of the fundamentals of American law is that someone who feels he has been wronged, either criminally or civilly, is to use the justice system without fear of a facing a lawsuit.

I know all about this principle, and how it doesn't necessarily protect crime victims. I was the victim of a criminal trespass, and because the accused was wrongly acquitted, I faced a lawsuit for malicious prosecution. Not only did I have probable cause for bringing the criminal complaint, I had actual cause; the perpetrator unwittingly admitted in court that he had trespassed.
I became a victim both of a crime and a lawsuit. By law, Alabama courts are not supposed to allow that to happen. But a few corrupt judges did allow it, and that's why I started this blog.

From where I sit, it appears that Jiddou and Strother are going through the same kind of double victimization.

Kennedy's lawyer should have known better than to file a defamation lawsuit in this situation. It just makes him and his client look desperate, and it heaps abuse upon some of the basic foundations of American law.

Smell Like A Whopper, Become a Hot Lover

I approached Mrs. Schnauzer with an idea for spicing up our love life.

"I'm going to try the new men's body spray by Burger King," I said.

"You're going to try the what?" she said. "By who?"

"A new body spray for men, by Burger King."

"Have you been reading The Onion again?"

"No, this is real. I read about it in the business section of the newspaper."

"What on earth is it called?"

"It's called Flame. The company describes it as "the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat."

"Won't you smell like a Whopper?"

"Well, yeah. Is there a problem with that?"

"Don't think you're going to attract many women with that. A pack of dogs maybe. But women? I doubt it."

At this point, I figured I should use a time-honored technique that husbands have used successfully throughout the ages. You take your own stupid idea/mistake/phase and pin it on your spouse. We experts call it "flipping"--as in flipping a burger, at Burger King.

"Hey, what if you're an oddball?" I told the Mrs. "What if other women find me and Flame irresistible?"

"You mean: What if the fact you smell like a Whopper causes you to drive other women wild with passion?"

"Exactly."

"That's a risk I think I can live with."

I examined her face for a hint of the concern she was hiding so well.

I'm still looking.

Connell Story Appears to Be Growing Legs

The plane crash that killed Republican information-technology expert Michael Connell is increasingly being placed in context with corruption that has plagued the Bush White House and sullied recent presidential elections.

That does not mean that the crash is anything other than an unfortunate and curiously timed accident. But journalists, lawyers, and activists with national influence are asking serious questions. And evidence continues to grow that Connell and his family felt threatened because of his possible testimony in an election-fraud lawsuit in Ohio.

Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, puts the plane crash into a broader perspective with a piece titled "A Troubling Black Box Death:"

Michael Connell was well-known to those who follow the “black box” voting drama. A voting technology expert from Akron, Ohio, Connell faithfully served the Republican Party, and in particular its chief electoral guru, Karl Rove–faithfully, that is, up until a few months ago. Under subpoena and court order, Connell was compelled to testify about his role in managing the 2004 election tabulations in Ohio. In that race, Connell both served as information technology consultant to the Bush-Cheney campaign and, under contract with the state of Ohio, managed the vote tabulation from servers he maintained in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He emerged as the focal witness in the current controversy over voting machine manipulation in Ohio. In 2004 exit polls put Kerry on top, but official results in black box districts, strongly at variance with the exit polls, gave the state, and the race, to Bush. After Connell was reportedly threatened by Karl Rove, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the litigation appealed to Attorney General Mukasey for protection late last summer. Now Connell is dead, the victim of a crash on the approach of his plane to the Akron airport on Friday.

Horton notes that Connell's role in Republican IT activity went well beyond the 2oo4 election:

Mike Connell set-up the alternate email and communications system for the White House. He was responsible for creating the system that hosted the infamous GWB43.com accounts that Karl Rove and others used. When asked by Congress to provide these emails, the White House said that they were destroyed. But in reality, what Connell is alleged to have done is move these files to other servers after having allegedly scrubbed the files from all “known” Karl Rove accounts.

A number of experts believe that these "side" e-mail accounts, which Connell created, might hold the answers to what really happened in a number of critical elections over the past eight years or so. And they might shine considerable light on events that have sullied the reputation of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Telegraph of London reports on the Connell plane crash and the troubling questions it raises about the Bush Administration.

As a resident of Alabama, I was amazed to learn that some local television stations still practice serious journalism. WOIO, of Cleveland, presents the following substantive report on the Connell case:

Siegelman Reveals Pressure Tactics Used Against Witnesses

Government prosecutors tried three times to get former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to provide incriminating evidence against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, including once while their criminal trial was under way.

Scrushy refused each time, and that is why he is in federal prison, Siegelman says in an interview with The Daily Beast.

Paul Alexander, author of Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove, conducted the interview.

Siegelman provides background on his appointment of Scrushy to a hospital board:

Scrushy had just recently resigned from the board and the person I had defeated, Fob James, had appointed one of Scrushy's vice presidents to the position. When I got elected I called Scrushy and said, "I want you to serve in my administration like you did in three previous administration." And he said, "Oh, Governor, do I have to? I just resigned from that board. Can't I get you the name of somebody?" I said, "Nope, it's either you or nobody." So he went onto the board reluctantly. And this poor guy is still in prison today.

Scrushy paid dearly for refusing to give false statements to federal authorities, Siegelman says:

In an effort to get me, the prosecution went to Scrushy before they indicted him and said, "Just tell us Siegelman extorted the money; just tell us he twisted your arm." He said, "I can't do that because that's not what happened." They went to him after he was indicted and said, "Okay, we will give you another chance. Tell us Siegelman twisted your arm and tried to extort money." He said, "I can't say that because that's not what happened." During the trial, he was sitting at the defense table, and they came and got him again and gave him a third chance to throw me under the bus by lying for the prosecution and he wouldn't do it. This is not the way the justice system in this country is supposed to work.

Siegelman remains hopeful that a Barack Obama administration will support efforts to get at the truth behind the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department under George W. Bush:

There are lots of good fights, and I know that Obama is looking to end the war in Iraq, to provide health care to all Americans, to fix the economy, and to deal with global warning—there are so many important issues that are out there—but restoring people's faith and trust in the government, assuring people the Department of Justice will no longer be used as a political weapon in this country, is vital. We are not going to allow the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo, nor are we going to permit the torturing of witnesses until we get the correct testimony to put political enemies in jail in this country.

A lot of Americans are aware of the injustices that have been going on in the Bush administration. They need to know that the Obama administration is not going to tolerate these kinds of injustices. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will work with an interested House Judiciary Committee (and hopefully a Senate Judiciary Committee) in finding the truth.

Dome or Retractable Roof? You Make The Call

Birmingham residents should turn their attention north to Indianapolis if they want to see how our city's stadium of the future should take shape.

The 24-year-old RCA Dome, the former home of the Indianapolis Colts NFL team, was imploded Saturday to make room for additional convention space.

You can check out a story and video about the implosion here. It involves lots of dusts and explosions, but that's what happens to massive structures that become obsolete in less than a quarter of a century.

And what has replaced the RCA Dome as home for the Colts. Why, spanking new Lucas Oil Stadium, which features a . . . retractable roof.

HOK Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri, has been chosen as architect for the Birmingham facility, and HOK officials say a retractable roof would add only about $30 million to a project that is expected to cost between $450 and $500 million.

Should Birmingham go with a fixed-roof dome, which will be obsolete the minute it is finished? Or should it go with a retractable roof, which will put the facility in step with the latest in multipurpose facilities?

From here, seems like a pretty easy question to answer

The Newspaper Industry Is Hemorrhaging

The outlook keeps getting bleaker for America's newspaper industry.

Now we have word that Detroit, one of the few cities that still has two newspapers, will see a major change in its market.

The Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News will slash home delivery to three days a week, printing small editions on other days and encouraging readers to get information online.

Since 2002, the Detroit papers have lost 19 and 22 percent of their print circulations, respectively.

Why is that? The reasons are varied and complicated.

But I suspect one reason is that the mainstream press, over the past 25 years or so, has been pelted with charges of "liberal bias" from right wingers. And editors have either begun to believe it--or they have been intimidated by it.

As a result, they have largely called off their reportorial dogs on Republican corruption that has infected our country for the past eight years--and beyond.

History will show that George W. Bush has presided over the most corrupt administration America has seen. But how many truly ground-breaking, enterprising stories have been written about Bush scoundrels?

Precious few.

Consider this: In the United States, at this very moment, we have at least three classic political prisoners--and I'm talking about in the Josef Stalin sense of that term.

Their names are Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield, three Mississippians who are spread out in federal prisons around the South. How many American mainstream newspapers have taken a serious, in-depth look at their plight, explaining to their readers the truth--that these innocent men were railroaded?

I can't think of a single newspaper. Certainly none in Mississippi has done it.

And don't forget: Don Siegelman is not out of the woods yet. He's out of prison for the moment, but a three-judge panel of appellate judges (all Republicans) could put him right back in the slammer.

What should be on the gravestone of American newspapers when the last one goes under?

"We were intimidated into extinction."

Did the Rove Crime Syndicate Strike Again?

Has the United States, the most powerful nation on earth, been led for the past eight years by a crime syndicate?

Many Americans would recoil at such a thought. "We're not Sicily," they would say.

But a growing body of evidence suggests we might be more like Sicily than we care to admit. And the latest grim evidence came Friday evening when a plane crashed in a residential area near Akron, Ohio.

The pilot and lone occupant of the plane, Michael Connell, was killed. Connell was an information-technology expert for the Republican Party and was set to testify in a lawsuit about possible rigging of elections in Ohio.

Connell and his wife, Heather, reportedly had received threats from GOP strategist Karl Rove, and attorneys in the Ohio case had asked the U.S. Justice Department to provide protection for the Connells.

Larisa Alexandrovna, of the blog at-Largely, said Connell had become a central witness in the Ohio election-fraud case.

The Akron Beacon Journal followed up with a story today, focusing on Connell's connections to the Bush family and possible election fraud. Bob Fitrakis, an attorney who helped bring the Ohio lawsuit, said Connell's death "sent a chill down my spine."

"He was the Bush family's IT guru. He had tremendous knowledge and information."

Velvet Revolution, an election-reform Web site, reported that one of its investigators had been talking with Connell about ways he could come forward with information about vote rigging.

Connell, an experienced pilot, had to abort two recent planned flights out of fear that his plane had been sabotaged, VR reports. A Connell associate had told VR that Connell was responsible for destruction of Bush White House e-mails and setting up an off-the-grid e-mail system.

Friday night's plane crash is under investigation, and a likely cause is not expected to be known for months.

Mark Crispin Miller, reporting at his blog News From Underground, writes about a growing list of people who have met untimely ends while getting close to information about alleged dirty tricks during the Bush/Rove era.

The title of Miller's post? "Bloody Karl."

As a resident of Alabama, I've seen signs of a possible Bush/Rove crime syndicate. In fact, I would argue that such an organization probably has its roots in Alabama, thanks to Rove's electoral success in state-court races in the 1990s.

Here's a prediction: If U.S. Rep. John Conyers, incoming Attorney General Eric Holder, and a few gutsy journalists ever get to the bottom of the Bush Justice Department scandal, several key players will have connections to Alabama.

Consider just a few events in this neck of the woods:

* Votes for Democratic incumbent Don Siegelman mysteriously disappear in the middle of the night in Baldwin County, Alabama, giving Republican challenger Bob Riley a "victory" in the 2002 gubernatorial election;

* Two subsequent criminal prosecutions target Siegelman. One in Birmingham flops; one in Montgomery is "successful;"

* A house fire and an automobile "accident" involve Republican whistleblower and attorney Jill Simpson;

* Questionable prosecutions, against a Democratic state legislator (see Schmitz, Sue) and a defense contractor who had supported the Democratic Party (see Latifi, Alex), become a common tactic.

For what it's worth, my unlawful termination at UAB has the fingerprints of Alabama Republicans all over of it, and some of them have connections to Karl Rove. This suggests that GOP corruption has not only infected Alabama's executive and judicial branches, but also our system of higher education.

And next door in Mississippi, attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield remain in federal prison because of a case that has "political prosecution" written all over it.

Let's leave, for now, with these questions:

What was in the off-the-grid e-mail system that Michael Connell helped set up? Did it include information about the Siegelman prosecutions, the Paul Minor case, the 2002 governor's race, efforts to silence Jill Simpson, and more?

Was Michael Connell the "man who knew too much?"

Basketball Coach Files Defamation Suit in Assault Case

University of Mississippi basketball coach Andy Kennedy has filed a defamation lawsuit against a cab driver and a valet who say the coach struck the cabbie early Thursday morning in Cincinnati.

The lawsuit seeks $25,000 each from cab driver Mohamed Jiddou and valet Michael Strother.

The suit states that Jiddou's criminal complaint, which says Kennedy punched him with a closed fist while yelling racial slurs, is false. Strother backed up Jiddou's version of events in an interview with reporter Eric Flack of WLWT in Cincinnati.

Flack has been on top of the story from the beginning, and you can check out his report from last night on the latest in the Kennedy case. Near the end of the piece, you can click on a link to the lawsuit.

Today's Cincinnati Enquirer story includes a couple of intriguing quotes from lawyers involved in the case.

Here's this from Kennedy's attorney, Richard Katz:

"As an athlete or a coach, if you're in this business and something happens, whether you're innocent or guilty, it's with you for the rest of your career. We don't want this to happen. We want this to be over and then throw the baggage in the river."

Katz seems to be saying that, from his view, this is not about a possible crime; it's about Kennedy's career. In a startling moment of candor, he also seems to admit that the purpose of the lawsuit is to help force the criminal case "to be over."

Here is a quote from Jiddou's attorney, Rusty O'Brien:

"Any basketball coach knows that the best defense is a good offense. The guy's back is up against the wall because he got caught red-handed, so he's coming out with his guns blazing."

Ironically, the opposing attorneys seem to agree: In less than 24 hours time, the focus has gone from a possible crime to Kennedy's career.

Kennedy's defamation lawsuit raises some interesting legal ethics questions, and we will be examining those in an upcoming post.

Eye Witness Comes Forward in Andy Kennedy Case

A Cincinnati television station has an interview with an eyewitness in the Andy Kennedy assault case--and the witness supports the story of a cab driver whom Kennedy allegedly struck.

The story, by reporter Eric Flack of WLWT, features an interview with a valet at Bootsy's restaurant. Bootsy's is near the Lodge Bar, where Kennedy had been drinking and had to be escorted out and threatened with arrest--before the incident with the cab driver. Witnesses say Kennedy got into a confrontation with two individuals at the bar.

The valet said Kennedy, and others in his party, were hitting and kicking the cab before Kennedy struck the driver. "I saw it with my own eyes," the valet said.

Police are looking for a limo driver who apparently also witnessed the incident.

Ole Miss officials already are starting to back away from their unqualified support for Kennedy. Athletics Director Pete Boone said today that he needed a few days to "sort things out" before granting more interviews on the subject. Translation: He's going to talk with the president, board members, and other higher ups at the university.

Boone said there was no question that Kennedy would be the Rebels coach for the rest of this season. He said nothing about Kennedy's status beyond that.

I've yet to see any news reports raising the possibility of a civil case against Kennedy and others. That's when things really could get hairy for Ole Miss, although the criminal case is likely to play out first.

Since Kennedy and his staff were on university business, Ole Miss is likely to be a target in a lawsuit.

Hope everyone on the Ole Miss coaching staff has good liability coverage. They are probably going to need it.

An update: Apparently Kennedy has decided to beat everyone to the punch in the lawsuit phase. Another Cincinnati television station is reporting that Kennedy filed a lawsuit today against both the cab driver and the valet. It appears that the lawsuit alleges that the cab driver and the valet are conspiring to defame Kennedy. I haven't seen the lawsuit, but one has to wonder what connections the cab driver and the valet could possibly have and how they could pull off such a conspiracy.

Even UAB's Alumni Can't Stay Out of Trouble

We posted yesterday about the numerous unsavory stories brewing at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer.

Now we learn that even some of UAB's most high-profile alumni cannot stay out of trouble.

Andy Kennedy, the head men's basketball coach at the University of Missisisppi, was arrested early Thursday morning in Cincinnati on a misdemeanor assault charge. Kennedy, a UAB graduate and the school's second leading all-time scorer, allegedly punched a cab driver and used several racial insults.

Ole Miss assistant coach Bill Armstrong, another UAB graduate, was arrested for disorderly conduct related to the incident, which took place at about 1 a.m.

Ole Miss assistant coach Torrey Ward, also a UAB graduate, apparently was present and involved in the fracas but was not arrested.

The cab driver, Mohammed Moctar Ould Jiddou, is a legal resident of the United States and has been in the country for seven years, according to his attorney. Jiddou said Kennedy referred to him as "bin Laden," "Saddam Hussein," and other disparaging names.

The Ole Miss team was in Cincinnati to play the University of Louisville in a game nationally televised on ESPN last night. Louisville won the game 77-68, and Ole Miss lost star guard Chris Warren to a knee injury.

The fate of the Ole Miss coaching staff also appears to be in question. Newspapers and Web sites around the country have run mug shots of Kennedy and Armstrong over the past 24 hours. And the fact the altercation involved a person of color could be troublesome for Ole Miss, which has a tortured history with racial issues.

This story has a strong personal touch here at Legal Schnauzer. I've known Kennedy, Armstrong, and Ward for a number of years and always considered all three to be good guys and solid professionals.

Also, Torrey Ward's mother, Janice Ward, played a central role in my termination at UAB. She is the human resources representative for our department, and until she decided to professionally stab me between the shoulder blades, we were good friends.

Janice Ward, you might recall, was in the meeting with my supervisor Pam Powell when I was alleged to have acted in a "threatening" and "belligerent" manner upon being told I was to be disciplined for "policy violations" I didn't commit. Janice Ward agreed with Powell's account of the closed-door meeting, but when questioned at my grievance hearing, she said only that she was "uncomfortable" in the meeting--and she didn't say I was the one who made her uncomfortable.

In other words, Janice Ward's story fell apart under scrutiny, and UAB's own grievance committee found that neither she nor Powell were creditable about the events in our meeting.

I find it interesting that Janice Ward once stood in judgment of my professional behavior in a closed-door meeting, and now her son is involved in an ugly altercation at 1:15 a.m. on a public street while on a business trip representing a state university.

Janice Ward testified against me and backed up a version of events that she apparently knew was not true. I wonder if that is how she would like her son to be treated if he goes before some inquiry board at Ole Miss.

And I imagine that will happen.

Ole Miss Athletics Director Pete Boone was with the team in Cincinnati and issued a statement backing Kennedy. But I suspect that tone might change when the team returns to Oxford, Miss., and the president and other administrators get involved--particularly after seeing the flurry of negative publicity this has caused for the university.

Several different versions of the altercation are flying around in news reports. But the bottom line, right now, is this:

* The Cincinnati police report portrays Kennedy and his staff members as the aggressors. The report says Jiddou's face was swollen in the immediate aftermath of the fracas;

* The police report evidently was based partly on the word of a third-party witness, someone not connected to the cab driver or the Ole Miss staff;

* Regardless of what happened, Kennedy and his staff were out on the town at 1 a.m. and got involved in some kind of altercation where racial slurs and alcohol were involved. Administrators at Ole Miss are likely to take a dim view of that behavior and wonder what kind of example it sets for the school's student-athletes.

This could be the killer for the Kennedy staff's tenure at Ole Miss: Kennedy and Armstrong have entered not-guilty pleas and have pretrial hearings on January 16. Criminal cases move relatively quickly, but this still is likely to tarnish the entire 2008-09 season for Ole Miss.

And it could go way beyond that. Assault, in most states, is both a crime and a tort. In other words, you can be sued for assault, and it can drag on a long time. In Alabama, the statute of limitations on an assault and battery lawsuit is six years.

I know because I was assaulted by my criminally inclined neighbor, who is a central character in this blog. Corrupt prosecutors in Shelby County insist it was a misdemeanor assault, but I have read the law and know it is a felony because he used a "dangerous instrument" (a roadside sign) to hit me in the back. I don't care to trust the case to the sorry prosecutors in Shelby County, but I still can bring a lawsuit against this neighbor--and I have a third-party eye witness to the assault.

As someone who has been the victim of an assault, I can tell you it's not a fun experience. I know the UAB alums involved, but I tend to be sympathetic to the cab driver here.

When my neighbor assaulted me, he immediately started trying to cover his tracks--not knowing there was an eye witness to the whole thing. When someone physically strikes out at another in a public place, I think a heavy "cover my ass" mode kicks in. I suspect that's happening with someone in the Ole Miss party.

Also, some reports quote the Ole Miss people as saying the cab driver used a racial slur against Ward, who is black, after Ward told him to quit talking to another cab driver and get the party back to its hotel. But under the law, anything the cab driver might have said does not justify an assault.

If my understanding of civil procedure is correct, Jiddou could sue everyone in the Ole Miss party individually. And since they were on university business, he probably could sue the university and its board of trustees. And the lawsuit could drag on for years, with the attending negative publicity.

I notice that it didn't take long for Jiddou to find an attorney who would represent him. That means the attorney probably is thinking beyond the criminal case.

Something tells me the higher-ups at Ole Miss will not be thrilled at that prospect. And that could be the key that sends the Ole Miss coaching staff packing.

Has UAB Become a Hotbed for Mismanagement and Corruption?

The UAB men's basketball team took the floor last night against Jacksonville State with only six scholarship players on hand, well below the NCAA-allowed 13.

That's because the program took a major hit on Tuesday--two players were declared academically ineligible and two others left the program for unspecified reasons.

All of UAB's usual starters were in place, and they responded admirably to a tough situation, beating Jacksonville State, 75-48. But UAB's once-proud basketball program became almost a butt of jokes on SI.com, Fanhouse, and other sports Web sites.

While some fans quickly pointed fingers at Coach Mike Davis or Athletics Director Brian Mackin, I think a couple of other questions should be raised: Is an implosion taking place on Birmingham's Southside and does it go well beyond the basketball program? And are the basketball problems merely a symptom of problems brewing under the weak leadership of President Carol Garrison?

Substantial evidence suggests that Garrison is steering the institution right into an iceberg. Let's consider some recent UAB-related headlines:

* A longtime engineering professor files a discrimination lawsuit, alleging wide-ranging pay disparity for female faculty members.

* A longtime history professor files a discrimination lawsuit, alleging disparate pay for African-American faculty members.

* A major donor to the university has a horrifying history behind the wheel, including a conviction for driving 112 mph in a 55 zone, and a history of potentially problematic political and business affiliations.

* An office associate in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics uses state equipment to send a hate-filled e-mail to a California gay-rights group. UAB has announced no disciplinary actions for this clear violation of university policy.

A number of other UAB stories are lurking just beneath the headlines. You will be reading about them here at Legal Schnauzer:

* A School of Business faculty member, Susan Key, has filed a lawsuit alleging disparate treatment, retaliation, and equal-pay violations. Part of her claim involves allegations that former marketing faculty member Bob Underwood routinely conducted a "comedy act" involving an elderly black character named "Pork Chop." For some reason, black staff members found Underwood's act offensive, but Key states that it was allowed to go on for an extended period of time. Key's suit helped set off a number of administrative changes at the School of Business. Underwood exited to Furman University.

* Multiple medical trainees from India have alleged discriminatory practices at UAB's program in Huntsville. This includes a finding by the U.S. Department of Labor that some trainees were not paid properly. (This story already is making headlines in India, and soon should be making headlines here--although the Birmingham press is likely to ignore it.)

* A key administrator, who was at the heart of several human-resources imbroglios, recently left the university to take a job at another institution in the South. It appears she "got out while the gettin' was good," in order to preserve her professional reputation from activities going on at UAB.

* A case involving two whistleblowers outlines massive research fraud at UAB. The case was "settled" with the university paying roughly $3 million, but court documents indicate the actual fraud was at least 100 times that amount. Settlement documents state a criminal, civil, or administrative investigation can be reopened at any time. This could be a priority for an Obama-appointed U.S. attorney in Birmingham, considering that UAB evidently has cheated taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and records show that current U.S. Attorney Alice Martin never conducted a thorough investigation. Evidence also suggests that Martin, who already is under investigation by multiple government agencies, used this case as leverage to get a certain blogging UAB employee fired.

* A company owned by a well-known member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees was implicated in a major fraud case a few years back in Pennsylvania. So far, the trustee and his company have managed to escape scrutiny. But again, that could change with an Obama-appointed U.S. attorney in Birmingham. Documents from the Pennsylvania case show the Alabama fraud case is pretty much already made. Someone just needs to have the guts to bring it.

* Finally, we have my discrimination complaint, which has been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). That process, which usually runs about six months, is a precursor to a lawsuit against UAB. The case promises to be much more than a standard employment lawsuit. Substantial evidence shows that I did not engage in misconduct or violate policy in anyway and that my termination was driven by political forces external to UAB. If the U.S. mails and/or the federal wires (computers, telephone lines, etc.) were used in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme to unlawfully fire me, criminal behavior might be involved. Let me rephrase that: Criminal behavior--honest services mail or wire fraud--definitely would be involved, regardless of whether law-enforcement ever brings charges.

The bottom line? These might seem like tough days at UAB, with a few basketball players hitting the exits. But a year or two from now, after a few perp walks have been conducted with university leaders, these might seem like the good old days.

Higher Education Loses a Whistleblowing Heroine

America today is minus a true heroine, a woman who showed extraordinary courage in the face of the ignorance that sometimes reigns in the "hallowed halls" of higher education.

Jan Kemp died on December 5. That name might not ring a bell for you. But if you lived in the Deep South in the 1980s and followed college football--which includes just about everyone in the Deep South--the name will definitely ring a bell.

Kemp was an English professor at the University of Georgia who blew the whistle on preferential treatment given to "student-athletes." She was fired when she refused to inflate grades for Georgia athletes, particularly football players, some of whom were functionally illiterate.

Kemp sued the university and won, earning a "hero of the '80s" title from People magazine. She died at age 59 from complications of Alzheimer's disease.

The lawsuit proved to be a public-relations nightmare for the university, and Kemp won a $2.58 million award--later reduced to $1.1 million.

Until I began to research the Kemp case following her death, I did not realize just how much torment she endured--all because she insisted that an institution of higher learning should actually be educating its students.

She stayed in Athens, Georgia, home of the university, for most of her adult life, even though she was reviled by many UGA alums. Her private life was filled with pain, including two suicide attempts and an ugly divorce/child custody case--all of which seemed to stem from her battles with the university.

Taxpayers across the country owe a debt of gratitude to Jan Kemp. To be sure, colleges and universities still are plagued by corruption--as my own unlawful termination and other assorted problems at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) show.

But Jan Kemp took a major step toward holding public institutions accountable for their actions. I can only imagine the amount of fortitude it took for her to stare down the football-mad machine at a major Southern university.

Bob Riley Takes Hypocrisy to New Levels

Alabama Governor Bob Riley two days ago announced a state hiring freeze and a 10-percent cut in the state budget.

So what did Riley do on the very same day?

He hired one of his cronies to an $80,000-a-year job.

We're not making this up, folks. We know about it thanks to some top-notch reporting by Sebastian Kitchen, of the Montgomery Advertiser. Maybe there is hope for Alabama journalism yet.

Kitchen reports that Riley hired Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh to work for State Finance Director Jim Main.

A Riley staff member said the process for hiring Cavanaugh started three or four weeks ago. But Kitchen reports that Riley told Associated Press as early as November 6 that budget problems likely would result in a hiring freeze.

Cavanaugh, who is in her third stint with Riley, apparently needed a job because she lost to Democrat Lucy Baxley for a seat on the Public Service Commission in the November election.

If Don Siegelman were governor and pulled a stunt like this, can you imagine the sniffing that would ensue from Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register?

I wonder if Fast Eddie will be on top of this Riley story? Probably not. Guess he's got that Siegelman book to crank out.

UAB Has More HR Headaches

My former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), seems to have lost all ability to manage human beings.

You would think an institution of higher learning might have a grasp on that by now. But I guess you would be wrong.

We've written extensively about my wrongful termination after 19 years of service--and I have filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a precursor to a lawsuit against UAB. Much more is coming on that.

We have written about a lawsuit filed by Rosalia Scripa, a professor of engineering and former assistant provost who has been a faculty member at UAB for more than 30 years.

We also have noted a case against UAB involving medical trainees from India. That case recently became international news and shows signs of becoming a colossal headache for the folks on Southside. We have much more coming on that case, too.

Now comes word of a discrimination lawsuit filed by Horace Huntley, who has taught history at UAB for more than 30 years.

Huntley alleges that the university has discriminated against him and denied him fair pay because of his race and age.

"Basically he just feels like he hasn't been treated fairly in his salary over the years," says Byron Perkins, Huntley's attorney from the Cochran Law Firm.

According to the lawsuit, Huntley asked Provost Eli Capilouto to correct the pay disparity, and Capilouto suggested that Huntley retire.

Capilouto also is a central figure in the Scripa case. That lawsuit alleges that Capilouto asked Scripa to alter figures on a study regarding faculty salaries and suggested that Scripa sign a letter stating she was stepping down from her provost position for "family and personal reasons."

Guess who shows up in the Huntley case, issuing a "no comment" on UAB's behalf? Why, none other than Dale Turnbough, the "spokesperson" who wrote my bogus termination letter.

In other words, UAB's spokesperson on employment matters is someone who herself practices employment discrimination.

Do we see a pattern developing here? Counting credit for sick time, I have more than 20 years of service at UAB; Scripa and Huntley have more than 30 years.

The Huntley and India cases involve people of color. All four cases involve charges of discrimination based on age, gender, race, or ethnic origin.

While UAB is mismanaging its own employees left and right, it jumps in bed with Birmingham businessman William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, who has a horrifying record of misadventures on the highway and a number of curious (some might say troubling) political and business associations.

What is the message from UAB? It seems to be:

"Hey, if you give us $5 million, you can wreak all kinds of havoc in public places, and we don't care one bit.

"But give us 20 to 30 years of professional service, and we are likely to cheat you on the job. Be particularly aware if you are over the age of 50, are female, or have dark skin. Then, you are definitely on our radar.

"And woe to the employee who doesn't toe the conservative Republican line. If you don't kneel at the altar of Bob Riley or Alice Martin, you are toast.

"Should we have to follow federal laws, even though we have our hand in the federal trough to the tune of some $400 million a year? Heck, no. We want cash without accountability.

"And if you get screwed, we'll be sure to put Dale Turnbough front and center as a glowing example of the way we handle employee relations."

Is Karl Rove Securing the Crime Scene?

The nation was treated to quite a postmodern political spectacle the other day.

A national television program invited former Bush strategist Karl Rove to critique President-Elect Barack Obama's plans for the U.S. Justice Department.

That's a little like asking Charles Manson for his thoughts on Martin Luther King and the nonviolence movement.

But there was Matt Lauer, of NBC's Today Show, asking with a straight face for Rove's thoughts on Obama's nomination of Eric Holder as attorney general.

Seems King Karl considers Holder to be a "controversial" nominee. That's interesting coming from a guy who is under investigation by a special prosecutor for allegedly manipulating the Justice Department for political reasons.

Republicans apparently have chosen Rove to lead the opposition on Holder, which provides more evidence that the GOP is morally bankrupt.

We know that Rove could not possibly be concerned about what's best for the nation, so what is he really up to? Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides the answer in a piece titled "Securing the Crime Scene."

No one should be surprised that "Turd Blossom" Rove is trying to save his own skin. Writes Horton:

There’s something fouler afoot here, I think. Karl Rove has his own agenda at Justice. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s report on the U.S. Attorneys scandal identified the individual whose manipulations produced the firings of eight of the country’s best U.S. Attorneys so they could be replaced with partisan hacks: Karl Rove. The Justice Department’s Inspector General hints at just the same conclusion, but notes that it was thwarted from completing its study by the refusal of Karl Rove and those who worked for him to cooperate with the probe. When the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Rove to testify on these same issues, and his nefarious role in the prosecution of Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, Rove failed to appear, choosing instead to vacation with post-Soviet Mafiosi at a Crimean resort favored by Stalin. Now a special prosecutor is looking closely into Rove’s dealings and speculation that he may face criminal charges mounts.

Horton notes that Rove has had other brushes with the law and narrowly escaped an indictment in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame:

And in all of these dealings, Rove has held an ace in the hole—political appointees at the Justice Department have undermined the inquiries into him and furnished him with highly improbable cover to avoid answering to Congress. Thus no one in Washington faces greater exposure as a result of the changing of the guard at the Justice Department than Karl Rove.

Thus it appears Rove has two objectives in taking on Holder. The first is to delay the turnover in the attorney general’s office as long as he can, providing more time in which his misconduct can enjoy the cloak of nefarious secret opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel and the attorney general’s own wink-and-nod. The second is to tar Holder as a political player, so that if charges are brought against Rove in the coming administration—as appears increasingly likely, unless Rove gets the pardon he wants for Christmas—Rove can bellow charges of “politics.”

If Karl Rove is concerned about the Holder nomination, that makes me think Obama made a good choice.

Do Republicans have reason to fear Eric Holder? This diary at Daily Kos suggests the answer is yes.

Outing a Bigot at UAB

We have written posts here and here about the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) employee who used state equipment to send a hate-filled e-mail to a California gay-rights group.

Now we can finally identify the sender. Her name is Pamala Gibson, and she works as an office associate in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at UAB.

Matthew Keys, a reporter with Fox 40 KTXL TV in Sacramento, outed Gibson in a recent story.

Sean Hetherington, a Sacramento native now living in West Hollywood, received the e-mail from Gibson. The e-mail was sent in response to Day Without a Gay, a grassroots protest of California Proposition 8, which eliminated same-sex marriage rights when it passed in the November election.

Hetherington and his partner organized Day Without a Gay, asking supporters to call in sick for work and not purchase anything for one day.

Gibson made it clear in her e-mail that she is not a supporter:

"You freaks make me sick," the e-mail read. "You are the scourge of the earth and are responsible for everything that's wrong in this sorry world because of the immorality you have brought on this world as a whole."

Said Hetherington: "We were baffled that an educator could be so anti-gay."

According to Keys, Gibson did not seem anxious to discuss her missive:

We tried to contact Gibson via a phone number found on the university's website. Gibson answered the phone, but hung up after we identified ourselves as FOX40 News. Subsequent attempts to contact Gibson thereafter failed, and a message left on her phone mail system went unanswered.

UAB seems to be doing its best duck-and-cover routine in the wake of Gibson's e-mail. Reports Keys:

While Gibson's speech would be protected under her First Amendment right under the US Constitution, it's not protected by her employer.
In an e-mail obtained by FOX40 News from a University of California, Davis activist, Alesia Jones, the Interim Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Alabama said the university is aware of the e-mail sent from their school.

"[The University of Alabama at Birmingham] strives to create and maintain an environment that (sic) all of our employees feel valued," the e-mail read. "We are looking into this matter and will address according to our internal policies."

That's more of a response than Hetherington received. "I left a message and asked for a phone call to explain the university's acceptable-use policy," Hetherington said. "Nobody has contacted me. Nobody returned my phone call."

UAB and "Acceptable Use" of a Computer

We recently reported on a story about a UAB employee who used a state-owned computer to send a hate-filled e-mail to a gay-rights group.

You might have noticed a deafening silence from UAB on the issue of possible discipline for the woman who sent the e-mail. You might also notice a disconnect between the way UAB seems to be treating this woman and the way it fired me unlawfully after 19 years of service.

All of which brings us to the issue of computer usage in the workplace. And it brings up a mistake I made in my previous post on this subject.

I wrote that UAB did not have a policy on the use of computers and the Internet--or at least one that I had been able to find. Well, I finally found it, and it is called UAB's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).

Funny that I worked at the university for 19 years--and I was pretty good about keeping up with campus news, reading office memos, etc.--and I had never seen or heard of this thing. Guess that's because some genius decided it shouldn't be published in the employee handbook.

Anyway, the UAB AUP makes my termination smell even worse than it did before--if that's possible. And it also raises an odor about the blanket of protection UAB appears to be laying down for the woman who sent the anti-gay e-mail.

A few points jump out from reading the UAB policy:

* It is a policy violation to transmit messages that use threatening, racist, sexist, or harassing language. Bottom line? The woman, with the anti-gay e-mail, clearly violated UAB policy.

* UAB gave only vague reasons for my dismissal, but they seem to focus on allegations that I engaged in excessive "non work-related activity" on my computer, involving my "personal blog." Nowhere are these subjects mentioned in the UAB AUP policy, and we already have established that they are not mentioned in the employee handbook. We also have established that the Web research I did on my work computer was indeed related to my job--in fact, it was a requirement of my job. Bottom line? I did not violate UAB policy. I already knew that, but a reading of the AUP doubly confirms it.

* The AUP says violations of policy will be handled with revocation of user accounts, revocation of network access, and/or progressive discipline actions. Under university policy, progressive discipline is to start with an oral warning. Neither the AUP, nor the employee handbook, says that immediate termination--as happened in my case--is appropriate. And that's if you actually violated policy--which I did not.

The general tone of the UAB policy is to prohibit computer use that is "destructive, disruptive, or illegal." Even if the allegations against me were true, my use was none of those things. And considering that my use actually was part of my job description . . . well, you can see why I sense that my termination was driven by Republican political forces external to the university.

As we recently have shown, using Auburn University and its football program as examples, people in higher education can do some incredibly stupid things. But my termination is, shall we say, off the charts.

So what should happen to the woman who sent the anti-gay e-mail? According to university policy, she probably should get an oral warning--although a case could be made for written warning considering the nasty nature of the offense.

If you take my case in consideration, the woman should be fired. Of course, if my case were used as a guideline, almost everyone on campus would be fired--at least those who were using computers to do their jobs.

In reality, UAB does not have a problem with employees using computers to do their jobs. The university only has a problem when an employee, on his own time, writes a blog that exposes corruption among Alabama Republicans and criticizes the Bush Justice Department, particularly its handling of the Don Siegelman case.

So what do we learn from the case of the anti-gay e-mail and the case of the Legal Schnauzer? We learn that UAB has no problem with an employee using state-owned equipment to send a bigoted, threatening message, an act that clearly violates university policy.

On the other hand, UAB does have a problem with an employee who writes a blog, on his own time, about government corruption--an act that clearly is not a violation of university policy.

Do you see a problem with UAB's application of the First Amendment?

UAB is supported both by state taxpayer dollars and by more than $400 million a year in federal research grants. Taxpayers from one coast to the other have a vested interest in how this institution conducts itself.

Perhaps it is time that taxpayers make their voices heard about discriminatory and unlawful practices at one of the nation's largest academic medical centers.

A good place to start would be by contacting the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, which controls the purse strings that send millions of dollars to UAB every year.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) chairs the committee, and contact information can be found here.

Beverly Pheto recently was named staff director for the House Appropriations Committee.

Is Siegelman Appeals Panel Trying to Protect Corrupt Judge?

It has been a week since oral arguments were heard in Atlanta on the appeal of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. But a major mystery about the proceedings remains:

Why did the three-judge panel spend most of its time asking questions about relatively minor issues--juror misconduct and an obstruction-of-justice charge involving the sale of a motorcycle? Why did the justices largely ignore the case's centerpiece--the alleged bribery scheme between Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy?

Adam Nossiter, of The New York Times, was one of several journalists who seemed baffled by the judges' questioning. When one of Siegelman's lawyers tried to raise his main argument--that the government failed to show a quid pro quo agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy--Judge J.L. Edmondson cut him off. "I don't think that's going to be your best argument today," the judge said.

Edmondson's statement, of course, is goofy because the bribery argument, showing the trial judge Mark Fuller gave an unlawful jury instruction on the issue, is central to the case.

So what was Edmondson up to? Well, we have a theory here at Legal Schnauzer.

Experience has taught me that many judges and lawyers are like members of a dysfunctional fraternity--something out of Animal House, without the humor.

They will go to extraordinary lengths to protect a fellow member of the tribe and hide the seamy underbelly of their profession. I suspect that is what Edmondson was doing by steering the conversation away from the bribery issue.

With the juror-misconduct issue, the focus was on jurors. With the obstruction-of-justice issue, the focus was on an inanimate object--a motorcycle--and a charge that was essentially an add-on to the main case.

But the bribery issue put the focus right where it belongs, on corrupt U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller. Had Edmondson allowed the bribery argument to proceed, two truths would have become clear:

* Fuller intentionally treated a legal campaign contribution as an illegal bribe; and

* Fuller intentionally gave the jury unlawful instructions, which virtually guaranteed a conviction.

What does this mean for the appellate panel's ruling? That is anyone's guess. Evidence for granting a new trial is overwhelming, and some experts say the convictions could be tossed altogether.

But my guess is that, even in their written ruling, the appeals judges will go out of their way to protect Fuller. The oral argument, which lasted less than an hour, probably was for show anyway, I suspect. The judges have plenty of written information before them to make what should be an easy decision.

Even if the judges write an opinion that is highly favorable for Siegelman and Scrushy, look for them to steer attention away from Fuller. It remains unclear how hard-nosed an Obama administration will be about rampant corruption in the Bush Justice Department. But it's possible that Mark Fuller could receive some unwelcome scrutiny in 2009.

My guess is that the all-Republican panel in the Siegelman appeal will do its best to take a corrupt crony out of the cross hairs.

Auburn Football: A Portrait of Dysfunction In Higher Education

Our crack Legal Schnauzer sports staff has been following the ongoing saga of Coach Tommy Tuberville and the Auburn football program, and we find it an intriguing story for several reasons.

Back in my sportswriter days, I covered Auburn for three years in the mid to late 1980s. Pat Dye was the coach then, the Tigers regularly went to big-time bowls, and I spent quite a bit of time in the "Loveliest Village on the Plains."

The Tuberville story grabbed our attention because it is both instructive and amusing.

It's instructive because it shows just how dysfunctional higher education can be. That's a subject I know something about, having recently been unlawfully terminated after working for 19 years at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

How goofy is the Tuberville story? Consider this: Tuberville arguably is the most successful coach in school history. Over 10 years, he had an 85-40 record, regularly had the Tigers in major bowl games, and beat archrival Alabama six consecutive times. Unlike a number of his predecessors, he evidently did it in an honest fashion; Auburn never stepped in NCAA doo-doo during his tenure.

You might think that Auburn would give Tuberville a lifetime contract and erect statutes of him all over campus. But what did the Aubies do? They panicked when Tuberville went 5-7 in 2008, while Alabama was going 12-1, and figured that one down year was enough to merit a coaching change.

So Tuberville wound up "resigning," Auburn paid him a $5.1 million buyout (even though it wasn't owed if he truly resigned), and went searching for a new coach. And who did the Aubies come up with? A fellow named Gene Chizik, who had a 5-19 record in two seasons as Iowa State's head coach. He is expected to be formally announced as Auburn's new coach today.

Now to be fair, Chizik has been highly successful as a defensive coordinator at Central Florida, Auburn, and Texas. But as a head coach? Well, the folks in Iowa aren't exactly sorry to see him go.

Take a few higher-ups with doctoral degrees, mix in a harried athletic director and two or three power-mad trustees, and these are the kinds of decisions you get. Paul Davis, a columnist for the Opelika-Auburn News, captured the Auburn nuttiness nicely.

It's nice to know that UAB is not the only massively dysfunctional institution in Alabama.

Why is the Tuberville story amusing? Well, that came when a reporter interviewed Olive Tuberville, the former coach's mother. She cut through all the BS from Auburn administrators and let the truth out of the bag: "He didn't resign," she said of her son. "He was fired."

Then as mothers are wont to do, Olive Tuberville became protective. "He's at an age (54) where something could happen to him. Heart problems are all through my family. I didn't want him getting stressed out."

This was touching, for obvious reasons. But I couldn't help but find some (dark) humor in it, particularly compared to my unceremonious parting with UAB.

Tuberville got a $5.1 million buyout, so unless he's a complete dunderhead with money, he won't have to work again the rest of his life. Technically, Auburn didn't do Tuberville wrong. The university decided to break the contract and was willing to pay the piper to do it.

Auburn acted in a stupid fashion, but it did not cheat Tuberville.

Also, Tuberville did contribute somewhat to his own demise. He made the decision last December to hire new offensive coordinator Tony Franklin and go to a "spread" offense, a move that backfired and resulted in Franklin's exit at midseason.

Me? I got fired, literally, for doing my job. I haven't received the first penny of a buyout or severance. And while Auburn folks have publicly praised Tuberville, UAB went out of its way to trash me, issuing a false statement saying I was fired due to job performance.

Gosh, if Tommy Tuberville was feeling stress, it's a wonder I can function at all.

Olive Tuberville, though, brings up a serious issue regarding turmoil in the workplace. What impact does it have on a person's health, particularly when the turmoil is manufactured and not based on legitimate work issues?

I just turned 52, close to Tommy Tuberville's age. As far as I know, my health is good. Like all families, mine has some health issues in our history. But in general, the Shulers of southwest Missouri have been a pretty hearty bunch.

But how many of my forebears have been under the kind of postmodern, sociopath-induced stress I've faced the past eight years, particularly the past six months. Could the political games that UAB is playing cause me, or someone close to me, to have a heart attack or a stroke? Would anybody at UAB care if that were the outcome of their charade?

And what about mental health? What if I, or someone close to me, were to snap and do something rash. I don't sense that happening with me, but who knows how bad things might get. And what about the people who depend on me? There are one or two of those who are more than a little fed up with the crap we've taken for close to a decade now.

I've been fortunate to be surrounded by good-natured, good-hearted people my whole life. But even the best of people have a breaking point, I suspect. What if one of us finally cracks and strikes back in an unfortunate way?

I wonder if certain folks at UAB--and certain lawyers, judges, and politicos--have thought about that.

As Olive Tuberville might say, maybe they should.

A Shocker: Alabama Is NOT No. 1 in Corruption

Alabamians are fond of saying, "Thank God for Mississippi," particularly when we rank 49th in something and have only the Magnolia State behind us. And that happens a lot.

But now, we can say, "Thank God for Louisiana."

A survey by the Corporate Crime Reporter found that Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the country. The ranking is based on data from the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, examining federal convictions per 100,000 residents over the past 10 years.

Louisiana is followed in the top five by Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, and Ohio. Hmmm. Four of the top five most corrupt states are from the South. Surprise, surprise.

And rounding out the top 10, we have Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.

This survey was from fall 2007, so the recent antics of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich were not included.

A couple of thoughts from the Schnauzer gallery:

* This survey doesn't begin to reflect the amount of actual corruption in the United States. The editor of Corporate Crime Reporter notes that at least 80 percent of public corruption cases are handled by federal, not state, authorities. And the feds can look into only a tiny percentage of corruption cases. That's why judges and sheriffs in places like Shelby County, Alabama, make no effort to hide their unlawful acts. They know the chances of getting caught are infinitesimally small.

* This survey doesn't take into account corruption in the Justice Department itself, particularly over the past eight years. If you factor corrupt Bushies like Alice Martin and Leura Canary into the mix, Alabama almost certainly becomes No. 1.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, nicely summarizes the special role Bush prosecutors have played in Alabama corruption:

Martin and Canary, who remain the subject of multiple internal ethics probes in the Bush Justice Department, have a long track record of abusive political prosecutions. While Illinois and Alaska are suddenly gaining attention over their multifaceted political corruption probes and prosecutions, Alabama still charts a special place. I imagine even Canary and Martin would argue that their state has a culture of political corruption which puts it in the running for the honor of “most corrupt” among the fifty members of the union. But Alabama distinguishes itself by the special role played by federal prosecutors in the process. The real center of the state’s political corruption lies smack in the U.S. attorney’s offices. Martin and Canary have mastered the art of using their prosecutorial powers to advance the interests of their political party and political associates, as Bennett notes. And they have done so with a wink and a nod from the Bush Justice Department, which has systematically swept all complaints against them–notably led by their career employees–under the carpet. These awards are richly deserved.

Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, has an excellent quote about the nature of public corruption:

“Public officials in any given state can be corrupt to the core, and if a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the resources or the sheer political will to bring the case and win a conviction, the public corruption will not be reflected in the Justice Department’s data set."

That's a major story in Alabama. Corruption is a bipartisan problem, but Republican sleaze has received almost no scrutiny in our state over the past eight years. Hopefully that will begin to change on January 20.

In the meantime, we can learn a lot from this sobering appraisal of our corrupt culture by Frank Rich, of The New York Times.

Retractable Roof is a MUST for Birmingham Dome

I've followed the Birmingham sports scene professionally, in some form or another, for 30 years. And I like to think I've gained some insight into our city's pluses and minuses when it comes to the games people play.

And here is one insight I can offer as the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex (BJCC) prepares to pick an architect for a proposed $500 million domed stadium: The facility simply MUST have a retractable roof.

College football will be one of the prime events at the stadium. And when people rhapsodize about the popularity of college football in our part of the country, they often forget about one of the main reasons for that: We have gorgeous weather in the fall.

Southerners love football for a variety of reasons. We are the most violent region in the country, and the sport's collisions appeal to our Scotch-Irish heritage.

But I've long contended that Southerners are no more into the actual sport of football than folks from any other region. For Southerners, football is a social event. They love the pageantry, the tailgating, the sights, sounds, and smells.

A large part of that is associated with the weather. In the South, the most pleasant season is the fall--the heart of college football season. And it tends to be dry. I can count on one hand the number of times I've watched a Southern college football game in rainy or cold conditions.

That's why a true dome is such a bad idea for Birmingham--and a retractable roof is a great idea. It would allow the facility to host true indoor events throughout the year, with the roof closed. It would provide a pleasant setting on those rare times when we have bad weather for football. But it would provide an open-air setting, which is so much a part of the Southern football experience.

Consider that UAB football is likely to be one of the stadium's primary tenants. Alabama and Auburn have massive stadiums on their campuses, and they usually pack them, so they don't play in Birmingham anymore. But UAB's fledgling program has no on-campus facility and has called aging Legion Field home.

Most of UAB's crowds are in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. If you put that small a crowd in a true dome, the place is dead. Just look at the Superdome in New Orleans when Tulane University plays there. Tulane draws modest crowds, and with the Superdome, it has probably the worst atmosphere in college football.

But put a UAB crowd in an open-air stadium, on a gorgeous fall afternoon, and you have a nice event.

And here's the kicker: The two finalists for the design job are HOK Inc. of Kansas City and HKS Inc. of Dallas. HOK officials said they think the Birmingham stadium could be built for $410. If BJCC officials opted for a retractable roof, it would add about $30 million to the cost.

Now, $30 million is a lot of money, but it's not much on a $410 project. Apparently, the technology for retractable roofs has improved, bringing the cost down.

HOK has designed a proposed new baseball stadium in Tampa that would use a fabric-based retractable roof. Perhaps a similar plan could be used for Birmingham.

Domed stadiums have been on the decline in sports for years now. Detroit, Houston, Seattle, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Tampa are just a few of the cities that have, or plan to, move away from domed stadiums.

For years, Birmingham has been seen as several steps behind Atlanta, its bigger, bolder neighbor to the east. But Atlanta is stuck with the Georgia Dome for the foreseeable future, and some folks already are calling that facility obsolete.

A retractable-roof stadium would be a sign of visionary thinking for our city and give us a leg up on Atlanta. I like the sound of that.

Let's hope BJCC Chairman Clyde Echols and his associates are listening.

UAB Employee Used State Computer to Send Anti-Gay E-mail

An employee at UAB apparently used a state computer to send a hate-filled e-mail to a gay-rights organization.

UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) has announced no disciplinary action against the employee.

UAB, of course, is my former employer. The university fired me in May, after 19 years of service, for vague reasons that appeared to center on allegations that I had used my university computer to work on my personal blog.

A UAB investigation of my computer usage showed I never had worked on my blog from my work computer, and a UAB grievance hearing found that I should not have been fired. But UAB President Carol Garrison upheld my termination anyway.

Lindsay Beyerstein reported on my case in a major investigative piece at Raw Story. The Chronicle of Higher Education also picked up on the story.

Substantial evidence indicates that I was fired because my blog exposes corruption among Republican public officials in Alabama and is critical of the Bush Justice Department, particularly its handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution.

We are investigating several leads that suggest my termination was driven by pressure from people with ties to the Alabama Republican Party.

Ebony Hall, a reporter for Birmingham's ABC 33/40, broke the anti-gay e-mail story in a broadcast on Wednesday night. The Web site Left in Alabama picked up on the story yesterday.

The e-mail, sent from a uab.edu account, apparently went to a gay-rights Web site in Los Angeles. The author referred to gays as "freaks" and "the scourge of the earth" and said gays were "responsible for everything wrong in this sorry world."

Jonathan Quinn, president of Central Alabama Pride, called the e-mail contents "shocking," particularly since they originated from taxpayer-funded equipment.

A UAB statement released to ABC 33/40 said the university was looking into the matter. If such conduct occurred, the statement said, it would violate the university's acceptable-use policy and appropriate action would be taken.

UAB's statement raises several issues here at Legal Schnauzer:

* I've read the UAB employee handbook from cover to cover, and I've yet to see a policy regarding use of computers and the Internet. If it's in there, it's well hidden.

* Considering that I was fired, even though UAB's own investigation showed I wasn't using my computer for my blog, one can only assume that an employee who did use UAB equipment for an improper reason--to send a bigoted e-mail--will be fired pronto. So far, no word on whether that has happened.

* Of course, UAB has been wildly inconsistent in applying its non-policies regarding computer use. In 2004 one of my former coworkers, Doug Gillett, was caught actually blogging and conducting a variety of political activities on his work computer. (Doug was a volunteer with the John Kerry campaign at the time; I consider him both a friend, a like-minded thinker, and an all-around swell guy.) Engaging in political activity on state equipment is a clear violation of UAB policy and probably state ethics law. But Doug apparently received only a written warning and still works at UAB. Of course, he was about 25 years old at the time, and I was 51. Is it little wonder that UAB has a variety of discrimination lawsuits pending against it at this moment?

The recent anti-gay e-mail raises a number of questions about UAB, which is supported by taxpayer dollars, receives huge amounts of federal research funds, and is bound to conduct itself in an nondiscriminatory manner:

* Who is this woman and what office does she work in on campus? Is this an isolated incident or has this kind of hateful speech been tolerated, even encouraged, in her work environment for some time?

* Who is this woman's supervisor? Why wasn't the supervisor on top of the woman's activities? What vice president does this supervisor report to? And where was President Carol Garrison when this was going on?

* Was this woman's computer usage monitored at any point? According to testimony in my grievance hearing, UAB conducted an investigation of my computer usage in Feburary/March 2008. Were such investigations conducted campuswide, and if so, what showed up on this woman's computer? (I know the answer to that one. I was targeted specifically for investigation. No one else in my department was monitored, much less people on other parts of campus.)

* Is UAB run by an administration that takes massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on one hand, but tolerates bigoted, hateful speech on the other? Does UAB protect employees who express "conservative" viewpoints on university time, while terminating those who express progressive viewpoints on their own time?

That's exactly what appears to be happening.

The Tricky World of Lawyer-Client Relationships

We have more news today about the sometimes contentious connections between lawyers and clients.

We reported on this subject yesterday, focusing on Alabama attorney/whistleblower Jill Simpson and former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White.

More news is out today about White and his former attorney, Walter Braswell. In papers filed with U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Braswell says he released White as a client, not the other way around.

Braswell says he had a disagreement with White and his wife, Judy, on the best way to approach White's defense on corruption charges. The Whites wanted to raise allegations of a conspiracy to bring down White, a plot they say involves Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and journalists Tom Scarritt and John Archibald of The Birmingham News.

Braswell said he could find no evidence of such a conspiracy. The nature of any investigation Braswell conducted is unclear.

The Whites have stated in court documents that Gary White, a Republican, was prosecuted because he refused to provide false evidence against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

Judy White fired back at Braswell. "The truth is not in Walter Braswell. What he has done will result in his disbarment or, at a minimum, result in his suspension from being able to practice in federal court. He is desperately trying to save his legal career."

Archibald weighs in today with a column titled "Tired Stories of Victimization Lack Evidence." Archibald writes of Siegelman, Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and other Democrats who say they have been unjustly targeted by a Republican-controlled Justice Department:'

"Even if you buy it, which I don't, where does Gary White fit in? How does a white suburban Republican jump aboard the victim train. . . .

"That's the problem with the victim defense. Evidence."

Actually, Archibald is exhibiting a serious case of selective memory here. Evidence does exist that Gary White was targeted for political reasons, but The Birmingham News ignored it at the time--and Archibald is ignoring it now.

The evidence comes in the form of an affidavit from Judy White, saying her husband was pressured to give false testimony against Siegelman. Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, reported on the White case and noted that court documents showed U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon was troubled by the allegations in Mrs. White's affidavit.

All of this information, Horton reported, was available in the court file. But did The Birmingham News report it? Nope.

If Archibald and his colleagues want to see evidence, they might try opening their eyes and looking at a few public documents.

The evidence is there.

Siegelman: Obama Administration Will Not Let Rove Off The Hook

A key Congressional leader has assured former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that a Barack Obama administration will seek to hold Bush White House strategist Karl Rove accountable for possible interference with the U.S. Justice Department.

"I was at the Democratic National Convention and I asked [Rep.] John Conyers [the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] if Rove would be pursued in the next administration," Siegelman said. "And he said--and I quote--'Let me put your fears to rest; it will happen. We are committed to the long haul.'"

Siegelman's comments came in an exclusive interview on Tuesday evening with Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News. Earlier that day, Siegelman was at the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta for oral arguments on his appeal.

Siegelman long has maintained that Rove was at the heart of a Republican plan to prosecute him on bogus charges. The trial ended with convictions against Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

"We have evidence that Rove was involved and sworn testimony," Siegelman said. "This could be the string that unravels the whole Rove criminal enterprise."

Many observers were surprised that Tuesday's three-judge panel focused largely on questions about juror misconduct and an obstruction of justice charge based on the purchase of a motorcycle. Little was said about the centerpiece of the case--an alleged bribery scheme between Siegelman and Scrushy.

Siegelman took that as a good sign.

"I think that means that they have already made up their minds about that issue and that is at the crux of the whole case. The fact that the same 11th Court of Criminal Appeals freed me in a highly unusual move in March because they had real questions about how the case was handled tells me they think that was a trumped up charge."

Improper communications between jurors seemed to be of particular interest to the judges.

"There were a whole lot of pointed questions about that, and they all seemed helpful to our case that the whole case should be thrown out or at least a mistrial be declared because of prosecutorial misconduct," Siegelman said.

Lawyers Take Money, Don't Take Responsibility

Two prominent figures in the Don Siegelman story are fighting legal battles of their own, with both cases involving fees paid to lawyers who allegedly then did little or no work.

That's an issue we are intimately familiar with here at Legal Schnauzer. And it helps explain why a national reform movement called JAIL 4 Judges has grabbed a foothold.

Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, the whistleblower who testified under oath that Republican operatives were behind the Siegelman prosecution, has filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar against lawyer Stephen Glassroth.

Simpson hired Glassroth to represent her in a tax matter, but he failed to take action on her behalf. The Alabama State Bar suspended Glassroth's license when he failed to answer Simpson's complaint.

Glassroth perhaps is best known as the attorney who filed the original complaint to force former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.

Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White also has problems with a lawyer. White recently fired his lawyer and said he is having trouble finding a new one because of the volume of public-corruption cases in Birmingham.

(That's good to know; the Bush economy might be imploding, but by golly, criminal defense lawyers are doing a gold-rush business.)

White was convicted in January on corruption charges, but the conviction was voided and a new trial granted. White's wife stated in an affidavit that federal prosecutors targeted him after he refused to provide false testimony against Siegelman.

According to court documents, White said he had paid lawyer Walter Braswell an upfront fee, but Braswell failed to filed a notice of appearance and missed a deadline for filing a brief. After firing Braswell, White eventually got his money back.

I have considerable empathy for Simpson and White because I have been down a similar road.

When my neighbor (Mike McGarity) and his corrupt lawyer (Bill Swatek) filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me, I hired Jesse P. Evans III to defend me. Evans then was with the Birmingham firm of Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson, and he assigned most of the work to an associate Michael Odom. Evans and Odom since have both left for the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter.

Evans and Odom filed two motions for summary judgment and a number of other documents on my behalf. But they did not truly represent my best interest, even though I paid them about $12,000.

For example, they refused to file a counterclaim on my behalf, even though Evans notes from my initial meeting with him showed a notation about a counterclaim. He had immediately filed a counterclaim in a similar property-related dispute in Shelby County, but the opposing counsel in that case was not named William E. Swatek and did not have family ties to the Alabama Republican Party.

When Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner twice denied properly executed and supported Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJ) when the other party did not respond--an MSJ under such circumstances must be granted--Evans and Odom had to know Joiner was cheating me. But they did nothing about it.

They filed no interlocutory appeal to overrule Joiner's unlawful findings. They filed no Motion to Recuse to get a corrupt judge off my case. When I fired them and demanded my money back, they refused.

Evans and Odom, best I can tell, generally have a good reputation. Evans even has written a book about property law in Alabama. So why did they mishandle my case? Evidence suggests that they sold their client down the river in order to placate a judge they knew was corrupt.

My second attorney, a solo practitioner named Richard Poff, appears to have done pretty much the same thing. I paid him $4,500 up front, and he did virtually nothing on my case. When I fired him and demanded a refund, he, too, refused.

Like Simpson, I am dealing with the Alabama State Bar over the actions and inactions of my attorneys. I'm pleased to see that the bar seems to be taking appropriate action in the Simpson matter. I've seen no evidence, so far, that they will hold Evans and Odom accountable, and I still have time to file a complaint against Poff.

Much more is coming here at Legal Schnauzer about Evans, Odom, and Poff, and their many failings in my case.

Interestingly, both Evans and Poff were going through ugly divorces at roughly the same time they were representing me. Did that have an impact on how they handled my case, considering that both were about to take serious financial hits in family court?

We will be examining that question, along with details from their rather juicy divorce cases.

Court records indicate that both Evans and Poff are trying to get reductions in payments they owe through their divorce settlements. (You ladies should enjoy reading about the legal reasoning these two gentlemen use in an effort to get off the financial hook to their ex-wives and children.)

For good measure, Poff is engaged in an intriguing case involving bankruptcy court and charges of legal malpractice. We will dive into that situation with both feet.

You will learn about the steps some lawyers will take to avoid accountability--and the steps the justice system will take to protect them.

We also will be looking at one of the most fundamental problems of our legal system--the fact that law is a self-regulating profession.

If you--like Jill Simpson, Gary White, and me--have problems getting your money's worth from an attorney, how is your complaint likely to be handled? It will be handled by another lawyer.

It's a classic "fox guarding the hen house" situation, and that explains much of what is wrong with American justice.

It also explains why an organization like Jail 4 Judges came into being and has developed a nationwide following. If lawyers effectively policed themselves, a movement like J.A.I.L., with its focus on removing the immunity that protects judges from most lawsuits, probably would have never happened.

But lawyers have proven that they are incapable of policing themselves. That's why anyone who takes a reasonably objective look at the J.A.I.L. movement is likely to say, "You know, these folks have a point."

Siegelman Appeals Panel Might Be Leaning Toward a New Trial

An attorney and a veteran journalist, both from Birmingham, said they expect a new trial to be granted in the Don Siegelman case, after listening to oral arguments yesterday at the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Associated Press reported that two of the three judges made comments indicating they saw grounds for granting a new trial.

Attorney Ed Gentle said he expects the appeals panel, at the very least, will grant a new trial based on juror misconduct. Gentle also said he saw signs that the appellate court might overturn the case and throw it out entirely.

Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, reported Gentle's comments and said he agreed with the lawyer's analysis after hearing yesterday morning's court session, which lasted less than an hour.

The court's questions focused primarily on juror misconduct and an obstruction of justice count involving the purchase of a motorcycle, with little time spent on the alleged bribe between Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

Gentle said that might be a good sign for Siegelman and Scrushy. "The court can't be willfully blind to the overwhelming evidence" that jurors improperly read news reports and communicated via e-mail, Gentle told Wilson. "And if the motorcycle is all the prosecution has, they've got nothing."

Wilson reported that all three judges appeared to have in-depth knowledge of the case, based on having read briefs in the case. And he said the judges' questioning indicated they assumed the juror e-mails were authentic.

Immediately after the hearing, Siegelman said he was "impressed with the depth of knowledge of the judges on the case, and I have full confidence in the court."

Bob Johnson, of Associated Press, reported that one judge said the juror e-mails, if authentic, provided the basis for overturning the convictions and granting a new trial. Another judge said, "These are dynamite letters here."

The Tuscaloosa News had a powerful editorial yesterday, titled "Appeals Court Must Dismiss Case." The paper's editorial staff writes:

There is no doubt that federal prosecutors in the Republican Department of Justice deliberately trained their sights on Siegelman. The state's leading Democrat, he was a prime target for partisan strategists and masterminds. The plotting that figured into his prosecution has been well documented.

On the evidence alone, however, trial judge Mark Fuller should have vindicated Siegelman by dismissing the charges.

According to the prosecution, Scrushy arranged for $500,000 in donations to retire the debt from Siegelman's failed campaign for an education lottery in 1999. In return, they charged, Siegelman promised to appoint Scrushy to the state hospital board.

They based the charge on the testimony of Nick Bailey, a former Siegelman aide who testified as part of a plea deal with the feds. Later, he told CBS News that he was coached by the prosecution, in 70 separate pretrial meetings, to tailor his story for the witness stand.

But even if his story was true, neither he nor any other witness showed there was an explicit promise by Siegelman to appoint Scrushy in exchange for $500,000. Indeed, testimony showed that Scrushy had been named to the board by two previous governors.

But Fuller ignored that point in his instructions to the jurors. He also did a half-hearted investigation of defense complaints that jurors exchanged tainted e-mails.

The Siegelman case stinks. The appeals court should waste little time in ruling for the former governor.

It's Time for Democrats to Parrrrrty!

We've been dealing with some fairly heavy subjects lately, so we could use a good belly laugh. A conservative friend from Mississippi provided one the other day.

(Did you expect us to have a liberal friend in Mississippi? Actually, I do have a couple of liberal friends from Mississippi, but they are in federal prison right now. That's what happens to liberals in Mississippi.)

Anyway, our friend sent this animation that apparently is making its way around the Web. I think she meant it as a negative commentary on the folks in the cartoon. But I thought it was both positive--and hysterical.

In fact, Mrs. Schnauzer and I almost wet ourselves when we saw it.

All of the characters are a scream, but I particularly love Joe Biden doing the boogie or the shimmy or the funky chicken or whatever you call that in the backseat. That's how I felt on election night. Except Biden has more rhythm than I do--it would be hard to find a human being who doesn't have more rhythm than I do.

Michelle Obama has that cool, funky, urban-chick thing going on. Hillary Clinton looks more real than the real Hillary Clinton; we didn't know she could appear to be having that much fun. And Obama is not paying a lick of attention to the road, which places him in company with about 85 percent of modern drivers. Who says he's not a mainstream guy?

Would love to know who did this, and how they made it work.

It's possible this already has gone "viral" on the Web. It would be unusual for me to be on the leading edge of something. Either way, hope you enjoy.

Here's How An Alabama Newspaper Approaches Public Corruption Stories

Is John Archibald a tool?

This question came to mind the other day when reading a John Archibald column in The Birmingham News about the indictment of Mayor Larry Langford.

To his credit, Archibald raises the "tool" question himself. And based on my personal experiences, I'd have to say, "Yes, John, it does appear that you are a 'tool' of your bosses at the News."

Let me explain. About three months ago, Archibald asked to meet with me after I had e-mailed him following a column he had written that was critical of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department. The column focused on the department's handling of a multiple murder in the Inverness area.

I wrote and told Archibald that I had evidence that the department's problems go well beyond the murder case. He wrote me back, said he had received similar complaints from a number of Shelby County residents, and we arranged to meet at the Safari Cup downtown on September 9.

We visited for about 45 minutes, and Archibald seems like a pleasant enough fellow. I gave him an overview of my experiences, focusing mainly on Sheriff Chris Curry's willingness to push ahead with a unlawful auction of our house. I told Archibald that I could show him documentation and citations from statutory and case law to support my claims that Curry acted corruptly--in conjunction with Pelham attorney William E. Swatek's, whose son Dax has ties to Governor Bob Riley and GOP operative Bill Canary (and through Canary to Karl Rove).

Not surprisingly, I've yet to see anything in The Birmingham News about corruption among white Republicans in Shelby County. But the paper devoted almost six full pages to alleged corruption by Langford, who happens to be a black Democrat.

Here is an e-mail I sent to Archibald on December 6, reminding him of our long-ago visit about problems in Shelby County:

From: Roger Shuler rshuler3156@gmail.com

Date: Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM

Subject: Langford vs. Shelby County

To: John Archibald jarchibald@bhamnews.com

John:
I was intrigued by your column of December 4, 2008, regarding the Larry Langford case.

You note the importance of evidence in determining whether someone is prosecuted, and I certainly agree with you on that. You also note community activist Frank Matthews and his contention that The Birmingham News plays an active role in determining what public officials do and do not receive scrutiny--and perhaps prosecution--in our community.

I think Matthews has a point, and I will tell you why.

Perhaps you recall that you and I met for about 45 minutes on Sept. 9 at the Safari Cup downtown. You asked to meet with me after I had responded to one of your columns that was critical of the Shelby County Sheriff's Department, particularly its handling of a multiple murder in the Inverness area. I had e-mailed you and said the handling of the murder case is only one of many problems associated with the Shelby County Sheriff's Department. You responded that you had received numerous notes from citizens citing troubling experiences with the department and asked to meet with me. My impression is that you also planned to get the stories of other citizen complainants.

It's now almost three months since our meeting, and I've yet to see a word in the paper on the subject of wrongdoing by the Shelby County Sheriff's Department. I e-mailed you a few weeks back for a status report on the story and received no reply.

The issue has been ignored even though I showed you extensive evidence--citing chapter and verse on fact and law--to support my claims of corruption under Sheriff Chris Curry. I also showed you evidence that this corruption is tied to a local attorney who has direct family ties to Governor Bob Riley.

I can only wonder what kind of information you might have received from other citizens.

If evidence shows that Larry Langford is a crook, then he should pay the piper. But I can't help but notice that the News provides wall-to-wall coverage of a case involving a black Democrat while ignoring wrongdoing by a white Republican.

That seems to coincide with the way U.S. Attorney Alice Martin conducts her business. Speaking of Martin, you note that some folks consider her "Darth Vader in the flesh." Well, I am one of those people, although I hate to give Darth Vader a bad name. My feelings come from personal interaction with Martin. I have indisputable evidence that Martin picks and chooses her cases based on politics. I've outlined much of this evidence on my blog, Legal Schnauzer, and I have more evidence to come.

Please consider this a personal invitation for us to reconvene at the Safari Cup and go over how Alice Martin really operates. Of course, we should only meet again if you truly are serious about reporting on public corruption as practiced by both political parties, not just one.

You noted that Frank Matthews labeled you a "suspected tool of your bosses." Is Matthews right about that? Well, based on the results of the meeting I had with you, I wonder if the answer is yes.

I would be happy to be proven wrong about that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Sincerely,

Roger Shuler

Still Sniffing the Trail of a GOP Money Man

We have focused recently on the legal, financial, and political connections of Birmingham businessman William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, looking for clues about the real cause of my termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

Our examination would not be complete without a reference to Dax Swatek.

Regular readers will recognize Swatek as our "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" character here at Legal Schnauzer. His father, William E. Swatek, is the Pelham, Alabama, attorney who filed a fraudulent lawsuit that started my legal "adventures." For good measure, Bill Swatek has a 30-year history of ethical sanctions from the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of "dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit."

Dax Swatek has worked for a number of Republican luminaries, including Business Council of Alabama chairman Bill Canary, Governor Bob Riley, and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Through Canary, Swatek has connections to former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove.

Swatek also appears to have connections to Chip Hazelrig, whom we have identified as a "person of interest" in my termination for a couple of reasons:

* He has significant clout at UAB because of a $5 million donation, the largest individual gift in university history;

* He has political and financial connections to Bob and Rob Riley and Tuscaloosa businessman Robert Sigler, who is heavily involved in gaming enterprises.

So how is Hazelrig tied to Dax Swatek? Well, Swatek served as a consultant for the 2000 campaign of Republican Glenn Murdock for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. Hazelrig gave $10,000 to that campaign, which was the second largest donation given. (Murdock now is a member of the Alabama Supreme Court.)

Hazelrig later gave $10,000 to Bob Riley's 2002 campaign for governor and shared an interest with Riley's son, Rob Riley, in Sigler's firm Crimsonica.

Swatek has been a prominent member of Camp Riley throughout Bob Riley's governorship and served as manager of the Riley re-election campaign in 2006.

Chip Hazelrig has given at least $20,000 to a pair of campaigns that Dax Swatek was involved with.

Is Dax Swatek familiar with Chip Hazelrig? I would say there are at least 20,000 reasons to say the answer is yes.

And did Dax Swatek want to shut down this blog, which was writing unkind (and undeniably true) things about his daddy?

Well, let's consider the evidence.

On February 18, 2008, I wrote a post about the connections between Alice Martin and Dax Swatek, with a special emphasis on the sleazy way he had run her campaign. That post drew an anonymous comment that said: "Nut case yours is comong (sic)."

Gee, I wonder who sent that? And I wonder what he meant by "yours is coming?"

And a post dated April 14, 2008, drew an anonymous comment from someone claiming I was blogging at work, and that my employer (UAB) needed to know about it.

Gee, I wonder who sent that? Sounds like "yours is coming" was a reference to my job.

Never mind that on the date in question, a Monday, I was on vacation, nowhere near work. Pam Powell, my UAB supervisor, wrote me up on false charges of policy violations the very next day. And roughly a month later, I was fired, even though UAB's own internal investigation showed I had never blogged at work.

Sure sounds like someone contacted UAB doesn't it?

Who was that person? Well, our investigation is ongoing. But we are getting closer to the truth.

We also are learning a great deal about this Tuscaloosa-based company called Crimsonica, which has extensive ties to gaming, both domestically and abroad.

Crimsonica's tentacles go directly to the Bob Riley administration, and in a less direct way, they go toward UAB. Much more coming on that.

As for Chip Hazelrig, we will continue to examine his political and financial activities, including a most interesting lawsuit filed against Hazelrig's company, W&H Investments, by the heirs of Birmingham businessman Sloan Bashinsky.

We noted in a previous post that the Bashinsky estate is seeking a proper accounting of investments Bashinsky made in some 280 oil wells. Those investments apparently were made through Hazelrig's firm. Until his death in 2005, Bashinsky was best known as the man behind Golden Flake Potato Chips and other snacks. Now, some of his heirs are wondering where his money went.

Also, I should note that Chip Hazelrig is hardly the only person of interest we are following. In a recent post, we noted that we will examine at least three lines of inquiry regarding my unlawful termination at UAB--the Alice Martin line, the University of Alabama System line, and the UAB donor line.

The Alice Martin line, of course, deals with folks connected to the Bush Department of Justice. And the University of Alabama System line encompasses members of the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor's Office, who oversee UAB.

Interesting names and connections will continue to surface. Some of them might be of considerable interest to the Obama Justice Department come 2009.

An Alabama Newspaper's Curious Take on Criminal Law

The Birmingham News might have written the most inane editorial in its history the other day--and that's saying something.

The screed was titled "Corruption Fatigue" and dealt primarily with the recent indictment of Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and former Democratic Party officials William Blount and Al LaPierre.

The News reveals an "interesting" take on criminal law:

Even if Langford is cleared of criminal wrongdoing, he still was wrong to take gifts and money from people doing business with the county.

Let that sentence sink in for a moment. The News is saying that the key point in a criminal prosecution has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed; it's whether folks like the News' editorial writers perceive certain actions as "wrong."

In other words, the News isn't concerned about the law; it's concerned about appearances, particularly when the public official has dark skin and/or a "D" beside his name on the ballot.

Just in case we didn't get the point, the News repeats it:

When citizens see public officials benefiting from arrangements like this--and rewarding their benefactors with our tax dollars--they are justly suspicious. They see it as corrupt, whether the law says it is or not.

You almost have to give the News credit for honesty. They seem to be flat-out saying, "We know Langford probably didn't violate the law, but we like the fact he got arrested anyway."

And what does the News mean by "arrangements like this?" Is it talking about a public official taking money from supporters and then rewarding those supporters? Kind of like what Governor Bob Riley did when he took piles of cash from Huntsville boosters and then rewarded them with millions of taxpayer dollars for a biotech center?

Oh wait, Riley's a white Republican. What were we thinking?

Those "arrangements" are perfectly fine.

A Primer on the Don Siegelman Appeal

Oral arguments will be heard tomorrow in the appeal of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

A three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has devoted 30 minutes to oral argument on Tuesday.

Scott Horton, legal affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, provides important historical perspective on the case, noting that political prosecutions can have dire consequences for the party that practices them:

In 1798, the Federalists decided to silence an outspoken Democratic Congressman, Matthew Lyon, by prosecuting and imprisoning him. But the effort backfired. Lyon was reelected from prison, and in 1800 he cast from his prison cell the decisive vote ending the rule of the Federalists and starting the first administration of the Democratic Party, under Thomas Jefferson. The Federalist’s grip on power was shattered and they soon disappeared from the political scene altogether. The Lyon prosecution was viewed by American historians as the most outrageous political prosecution in the nation’s history . . . until the Bush Justice Department’s prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman, that is.

David Fiderer, of Huffington Post, provides an overview of the case. And Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, examines the key legal issues that are involved. Wilson will be on hand in Atlanta to provide coverage.

The Birmingham News devotes considerable space to the appeal in today's edition, noting that a key issue will be the distinction between a legal campaign contribution and an illegal bribe.

An "Honor" for Alice Martin--And a Mention for The Schnauzer

Two Alabama representatives are on this year's list of the "Top 10 Worst Prosecutors," as awarded by the Bennett Law Firm of Houston, Texas.

Alice Martin, of the Northern District in Birmingham, and Leura Canary, of the Middle District in Montgomery, are front and center.

I'm not sure two individuals ever have more richly deserved such an "honor."

You can check out the complete list of bad prosecutors, along with their "Certificates of Underachievement."

The entry on Alice Martin notes her wretched prosecutorial efforts against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi.

And the entry even makes an apparent reference to Legal Schnauzer. "Unfortunately, it has not been easy to criticize Martin for her antics," the report states, "considering she brings charges upon those who do criticize her, most notably an individual employed at the University of Alabama."

Hey, I guess that's me. Actually, Martin didn't bring charges against me--yet. But substantial evidence suggests she played a role in costing me my job.

Either way, I'm proud to be in good company on Alice's hit list.

I'm even more proud that the report goes on to state that Martin is "being investigated by several Government organizations on many levels." That's something you won't read in The Birmingham News.

The report also states that had a straight-shooting attorney general been in place during Martin's reign, she probably would have "been disbarred and perhaps punished severely a very long time ago.

"Maybe this will change with a change of administration."

I like the way these folks at the Bennett Law Firm think. Bully for them-- and may 2009 be a most unpleasant year for Alice Martin, Leura Canary, and their brethren in the "Alabama mafia."

Meanwhile, in Birmingham, Alice Martin Receives Praise

Is Alabama a "Through the Looking Glass" kind of place or what?

How else can you explain the fact that while Alice Martin is being named one of the "10 Worst Prosecutors In the Country," she is receiving praise here in Birmingham.

You heard that right. Robin DeMonia, a columnist for The Birmingham News, lauds Martin's efforts at "Battling Corruption in Birmingham."

Never mind that loads of evidence indicate Martin is far more corrupt than anyone she has prosecuted.

Martin is being investigated by multiple government organizations for possible ethical violations. The Journal of the American Bar Association reported that, during the investigation of Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi, one of Martin's lieutenants said prosecutors wanted to run Latifi out of business whether he was guilty of crimes or not.

But Robin DeMonia and her cronies at The Birmingham News clearly are not interested in scrutinizing Queen Alice. They are too busy heaping praise upon her.

DeMonia recites a list of Martin's targets for public corruption. But she doesn't note that almost all of them are Democrats.

Among the few Republicans, was former County Commissioner Gary White. And his wife testified under oath that her husband was targeted when he refused to provide damaging information about former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

The other prominent Republican is former County Commissioner Mary Buckelew. And Martin's own public statements indicate Buckelew was targeted only in an effort to go after a "bigger target," which apparently was Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, a black Democrat.

Our local fishwrapper wants you to believe that Alice Martin practices her prosecutorial craft with the utmost of objectivity. But I know otherwise--and that's probably why I no longer have a job at UAB.

In numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, I've chronicled my own experiences with Martin, which clearly show how she practices political prosecution. I've shown that Martin took evidence of wrongdoing by Alabama Republicans and intentionally sent it to the wrong investigative agency.

In fact, I have more evidence coming up about steps Alice Martin took to sweep my allegations under the rug. And she did it because the charges involved folks with ties to her GOP buddy, Governor Bob Riley.

Did Martin's actions rise to the level of obstruction of justice? That's a question we will be examining in detail.

Now that a new administration will be in place come January, we are going to make sure federal authorities are plugged in to our firsthand encounter with Alice Martin.

News Is Popping on the Siegelman Front

Some excellent reporting comes out today on the Don Siegelman story--both of the breaking and big-picture variety.

Plus, we have an interesting effort to hold a federal prosecutor accountable for her handling of the Siegelman case.

On the breaking front, Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that the U.S. Justice Department has reopened an investigation into possible juror misconduct in the Siegelman case. Wilson also provides an overview of issues that are likely be at the heart of oral argument in the Siegelman appeal, which is set for December 9 in Atlanta.

On the big-picture front, David Fiderer, of Huffington Post, presents "Nothing About the Prosecution of Don Siegelman Escapes the Taint of Corruption." It's a powerful piece, focusing heavily on prosecutor Louis Franklin and his tortured relationship with the truth.

Fiderer also presents fascinating details about a friend-of-the-court brief submitted by 54 former state attorneys general as part of Siegelman's appeal. The verdict of the former state AGs? The prosecution's allegations, taken on their face, do not constitute a crime.

Finally, Fiderer focuses on U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, who oversaw the Siegelman case. Fiderer says the U.S. House Judiciary Committee should pursue evidence that could lead to Fuller's impeachment.

The HuffPo piece concludes with a list of 16 dubious rulings Fuller made in the Siegelman case. In their totality, Fiderer writes, they show an "unmistakable pattern of corruption."

Powerful stuff.

Also powerful is an e-mail from the author of The Grievance Project, stating reasons why the Alabama State Bar should investigate U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for unethical conduct related to the Siegelman prosecution.

The e-mail is addressed to Tony McLain, general counsel of the Alabama State Bar, and serves as prima facie evidence upon which McLain could initiate an investigation of Canary.

The Grievance Project is written by an attorney named E.M., and he/she probably has to remain anonymous out of fear of being blackballed for trying to shine light on unethical activities in the legal community.

I am impressed with E.M.'s efforts, and I look forward to seeing what kind of reply comes from Tony McLain. I've had recent interactions with Mr. McLain, and to say that I am unimpressed with him and his Office of Legal Counsel, would be a massive understatement.

In my view, Mr. McLain is more interested in protecting corrupt lawyers than in holding them accountable. I will be providing details on my experiences with his office.

The Siegelman/Schnauzer Connection: Sniffing the Trail of a GOP (and UAB) Money Man

Many folks probably cling to the notion that higher education is driven by noble pursuits such as teaching, learning, and research.

But anyone who has spent much time in higher ed knows the field is driven by the same factors that drive most other American institutions--power, politics, and money. Not necessarily in that order.

The tale of my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)--much like the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman--is driven by power, politics, and money. Let's examine those three factors as they relate to my termination--and you will notice names, and industries, that are familiar from the Siegelman case.

Our examination will center on Birmingham businessman William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig. We have identified Hazelrig as a "person of interest" in my termination partly because of money--he gave UAB $5 million, the largest individual donation in university history. That kind of cash will buy a lot of clout on any college campus.

We already have chronicled some of Hazelrig's financial and legal entanglements. But now, we will look at Hazelrig's connections to power and politics. Again, we encourage you to be alert for names that are familiar from the Don Siegelman case:

The Bob Riley Connection
In 2002, Hazelrig gave $10,000 to Bob Riley's campaign for governor of Alabama. That was the campaign that ended with Riley "defeating" Siegelman when votes mysteriously disappeared into the good night in heavily Republican Baldwin County.

Riley soon returned the contribution to Hazelrig. Why?

The Gambling Connection
Word leaked to the press that Hazelrig had ties to the gaming industry--and we all know that Bob Riley is opposed to all forms of gambling (even though Jack Abramoff funneled $13 million of Mississippi Choctaw gambling money to Riley's '02 campaign).

Riley evidently got a case of the vapors when he "discovered" that Hazelrig is a stockholder in Paragon Gaming, a Las Vegas-based outfit that was formed in 2000 to help Indian tribes develop casino gambling on their reservations.

Given Riley's clear ties to Abramoff, I wonder why Hazelrig thought his Indian gaming interests would be served by making a hefty donation to Riley? Hmmm.

In an interview with the Anniston Star, Hazelrig described his interest in Paragon Gaming as a "side investment" and "totally passive," estimating that he owned about a five-percent stake in the company.

But that doesn't square with reporting from the Decatur Daily, which broke the Hazelrig story. (Those stories are not available online.) The Daily reported that Hazelrig was one of four founders of Paragon Gaming.

Here's something else that doesn't square: Bob Riley tried to distance himself from Hazelrig and claimed the businessman's ties to gambling were a "complete surprise."

But Hazelrig said Riley had called him, asking for a donation. And the Riley family clearly knew about Hazelrig's background. How do we know that?

The Rob Riley Connection
Folks who follow the Siegelman story are quite familiar with Rob Riley, a Birmingham attorney who is the governor's son.

In sworn testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson stated that Rob Riley told her his father and GOP political operative Bill Canary had enlisted the help of White House strategist Karl Rove in initiating a criminal prosecution of Siegelman.

Riley has tried, without much success, to discredit Simpson ever since. And he remains up to his neck in the Siegelman affair.

Rob Riley also has been up to his neck in the gambling industry, thanks partly to his ties to Chip Hazelrig. Why is that?

The Tuscaloosa Connection
UAB is based in Birmingham, but it is part of the University of Alabama System, which is run by the UA Board of Trustees and based in Tuscaloosa. I've stated several times on this blog that my termination almost certainly was executed with pressure from, or approval of, someone in the UA System or the Board of Trustees.

In other words, the roots of my unlawful firing are probably in Tuscaloosa. So I was more than a little interested to discover that Chip Hazelrig--and Rob Riley--have ties to a curious company in T-town.

It's called Crimsonica, and it's run by a UA grad named Robert Sigler. Evidently Sigler's devotion to UA is so great that he named his company after the university's mascot, the Crimson Tide.

We noted earlier that Chip Hazelrig was one of the four founders of Paragon Gaming. But the principal founder was Robert Sigler. And who was a Crimsonica attorney and board member? Why, none other than Rob Riley.

The Decatur Daily unearthed that little nugget from checking the Crimsonica Web site. Interestingly, the Web site has since become password protected, and Rob Riley's name has been removed from Crimsonica documents filed with the Alabama Secretary of State's Office.

He was a registered agent of Crimsonica until May 5, 2005.

Rob Riley told the Decatur Daily that he was not involved with "people in the gambling industry." But public records tell a different story.

And Robert Sigler has big ambitions when it comes to gambling. An article dated February 19, 2005, says Sigler was head of Global Trust Partners, an outfit that was trying to initiate a national lottery in Russia.

That activity was going on while Rob Riley was affiliated with Sigler's company--and while Bob Riley was residing in the governor's mansion.

So the Rileys fight a lottery in Alabama, the one Don Siegelman supported, but they have connections to a lottery in Russia? Hmmm.

Are we done with Chip Hazelrig and his connections that touch on UAB, Republican Party politics, and gambling? Oh no, there's more to come.

But let's take a breather for now.

(To be continued)

Dear God, Not A Presidential Poodle!

Another story about the Obama family and the presidential puppy is making the rounds, and it raises some serious political concerns for our staff here at Legal Schnauzer.

The latest piece, by Elizabeth Willse of the Newark Star-Ledger, discusses the challenges a new puppy can present, particularly for a family that is about to move and take on the highest profile position on the planet.
Willse notes the important role Barack and Michelle Obama will play in helping their daughters learn about the responsibilities of having a dog. And the story points out that 10-year-old Malia Obama has asthma and allergy problems, so that will be a consideration in choosing a dog.

Several articles have quoted experts saying that no dog is truly hypoallergenic. But Willse reports that of 158 breeds, 11 are considered hypoallergenic, and more than 42,000 people voted in the American Kennel Club's poll of breeds that met the Obamas' needs.

Now here's the alarming part. Willse reports: "The race hasn't been called yet, but the poodle is pretty far ahead in the polls."

Yikes! I happen to like pretty much all kinds of dogs, pure and mixed, and I've heard nothing but good things about poodles. They apparently are smart, loving, good natured, and suitable for folks of all ages.

But here's the problem: Poodles are, shall we say, effeminate dogs. Some might call them "foo foo" dogs. It's hard to imagine, say, Norman Schwarzkopf owning a poodle. That's just not what a "manly" guy would do, right?

So let's look at the puppy paradigm from a political perspective. What are some of the criticisms Republicans are bound to throw at Obama--or any other Democratic president, for that matter?

That he's "soft" on foreign affairs, "soft" on the military, "soft" on crime. They'll call him an "appeaser" and say he's too "diplomatic."

None of those charges is fair, of course. But what does fairness have to do with anything? To quote that political sage Andre Agassi, "Image is everything." And a poodle would send the message that Barack Obama is not a "manly man," that he's too "soft" and "accommodating" and "appeasing."

With a wife and two daughters, Obama already is going to have a highly feminine White House. So he needs a manly looking dog, even if "he" happens to be a "she."

And I have the perfect solution: a miniature schnauzer.

The mini schnauzer, like the poodle, is among the 11 breeds that are considered good for folks with allergies. But unlike the poodle, the schnauzer is part of the terrier group, which is known for its feistiness.

Heck, Boston University calls its sports teams the "Terriers." So does Wofford University. Have you ever heard of a college football team that calls itself the Poodles?

In fact, the miniature schnauzer is just the terrier we need in the White House. The mini is smart, playful, good-natured, and loving. Many people hear the term "miniature" and think they are getting a lap dog--only to be surprised at how tough and rambunctious the schnauzer can be.

No living being was ever more pleasant to be around than our Murphy (1993-2004), who provides the inspiration for this blog. But as my wife used to say, "Murphy doesn't suffer fools gladly." In other words, treat a schnauzer right, and you've got a friend forever. But don't expect them to take crap off anybody.

That's the image Obama needs to project. And with their bushy eyebrows and distinctive beards, schnauzers look manly--even when they are girls. I can't begin to tell you how many times someone would stop us when we were walking Murphy and say, "He's so cute" or "What's his name?"

In fact, I can't remember anyone ever referring to the Murph as "her," even thought she had all the sweet-natured characteristics you associate with a female dog.

Schnauzers are smart as heck. In fact, Murphy could spell--especially words like L-U-N-C-H and D-I-N-N-E-R. Her favorite place to go in the car was to our nearby Sonic drive-in. She would get so excited when it became clear we were going there, that we started spelling the word in an effort to keep her calm. That only worked for one or two times before she figured out what S-O-N-I-C meant.

Schnauzers, though, project an innate, instinctive kind of intelligence. Republicans already have knocked Obama for being too bookish and cerebral.

A mini schnauzer in the White House would help show the world that Obama has real-world smarts.

Plus, we all would feel a little safer knowing a schnauzer was watching over things at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

Will Personality Disorders Jeopardize Our Future

A story with profound implications for America's future came to my attention the other day, and I suspect many folks either did not see it or failed to grasp its importance.

In fact, I almost read right over it myself.

Is it about the economy, the bailout, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new Hannah Montana Tour?

No, it might be more important than all of those stories.

The subject is personality disorders. And researchers now say that almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life.

These range from obsessive and compulsive behaviors to antisocial behavior that can lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental-health problems get treatment.

When substance abuse is counted, the study found that nearly half of young people surveyed have some sort of psychiatric condition.

Scientists generally recognize 10 types of personality disorders, and they are grouped into three clusters.

Perhaps the most alarming of these afflictions is antisocial personality disorder, which has been found to be very common in our nation's prison population.

Antisocial personality disorder, also called sociopathy or psychopathy, basically refers to a lack of empathy for the rights and feelings of other people. It is notoriously difficult to treat, partly because those who have it almost never acknowledge that they have a problem. It's the people around them--family members, neighbors, coworkers--who suffer.

We've taken a serious interest in antisocial personality disorder here at Legal Schnauzer--we've written about it several times--because I strongly suspect our blog is filled with stories that are driven by people who have this condition.

I'm not a doctor, of course, and I'm not qualified to diagnose psychiatric disorders. But if a knowledgeable person were to start at the first post on this blog and read carefully up to today, I bet they could identify a number of key characters who are sociopaths.

And I'm not talking just about certain characters in my personal story. I strongly suspect the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi were driven by sociopaths. The same goes for the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. In fact, my guess is that the entire Bush administration has been a breeding ground for sociopathy.

What does this recent study mean for our country? I think it means that our already turbulent society is about to become even rockier.

Personal experience tells me that coming in contact with people who have personality disorders makes life much harder than it should be. For example, if you take people with personality disorders out of the equation, my wife and I never set foot in a courtroom--except maybe as potential jurors--and never experience any of the ugly events described in this blog.

Take people with personality disorders out of the equation, and I'm still contentedly--and effectively--working at UAB.

Personality disorders are not just about the irritation and frustration they cause. They also are expensive. Just my little episode has cost my wife and me, taxpayers, and society in general tens of thousands of dollars--both in real costs and in lost productivity.

One qualm I have about this new study is its focus on young people. I think personality disorders already are a major problem, in all age groups.

And who knows? Maybe those of us in our 40s, 50s, and 60s are creating a culture that causes these disorders to take hold in our next generation.

Alice Martin: Stealing One Last Page From the Rove Playbook?

The headline in today's Birmingham News reads, in bold capital letters: "LANGFORD INDICTED."

Gee, I'm surprised they left off the explanation point.

The story about the arrest of Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and former Democratic Party officials William Blount and Al LaPierre takes up four-fifths of the front page and five full pages on the A section.

You get the feeling the News considers this a big story. Perhaps I'm a sensitive lefty progressive, but you also get the feeling the News takes a certain delight in reporting this story. And the enormity of the coverage makes you wonder if some of the material was prepared in advance.

Given the cozy relationship the newspaper seems to have with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, my guess is that News editors indeed knew well in advance this was coming.

In spite of all the ink our local newspaper has spilled on the Langford story, is there another side to this ugly tale that Birminghamians won't read in the mainstream press?

I suspect there is, and it goes something like this: Alice Martin, before being booted out of office by the Barack Obama administration in early 2009, is determined to make one last politically motivated act in a reign filled with them.

And my guess is that Martin is pulling a classic chestnut from the Karl Rove playbook: Use the enemy's strength against them.

How does Martin hope to accomplish this? We will get to that in a moment. But first a few thoughts about the Langford affair.

Observing a legal tussle between Alice Martin and Larry Langford is kind of like watching an NBA game between the Los Angeles Clippers and the Oklahoma City Thunder. Both sides emit foul odors, and it's hard to root for either to win.

Langford is unquestionably a charismatic, energetic figure, and he has shown signs of strong leadership. But he also has a "colorful" history with money, and the News goes to great pains to chronicle that history in today's edition.

It's not hard to imagine Langford doing something stupid, maybe criminal, when he was wheeling and dealing as president of the Jefferson County Commission.

While Langford has a troubling history with money, Alice Martin has an even more troubling history with justice--a subject that a federal prosecutor should be pretty solid on.

The Birmingham News is a "conservative" newspaper, and you won't read about Martin's numerous imbroglios in the local press. But the blogosphere, driven by the work of national reporters such as Harper's Scott Horton, is filled with stories about Martin's many abuses of power.

Nowhere in today's News does it mention that Martin is under investigation by two offices in the Department of Justice. And you certainly won't read about the misconduct I've witnessed firsthand from Martin--and chronicled on this blog. In fact, my efforts to expose Alice Martin for the fraud she is probably help explain why I no longer have a job at UAB.

After all, UAB is an institution that has benefited greatly from Martin's willingness to overlook massive research fraud on the Southside campus.

Langford, Blount, and LaPierre might be the lowest of scoundrels--and if that's the case, they should pay the piper, regardless of their party affiliation.

But Alice Martin is like the "prosecutor who cried wolf." She has brought so many bogus cases in the past, and targeted so many people for clearly political (even racist) reasons, it's now hard to take any of her cases seriously.

Why is Martin bringing this case as she is about to be shown the door? Wouldn't it make sense to let the investigation rest until a new U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama can take office and evaluate it?

Of course, that would make sense. But Alice Martin has never been about what makes sense or what is right. She is a pure political animal, and my guess is that the Langford indictment is designed to create a problem for the Obama Justice Department.

What if Martin's successor evaluates the case and discovers that it's filled with more holes than the Kansas City Chiefs' offensive line? That angle was addressed in today's coverage.

And it's not just the Langford case we're talking about. Longtime Langford associate John Katapodis was arrested on October 31, five days before the presidential election. That's another instance of curious timing on Martin's part. What if her successor decides that case also is filled with holes?

If that happens, and the cases are dropped, you can bet that Republicans will howl with cries of "politics in the Justice Department." Those cries will be coming from a GOP crowd that has sullied our justice system with politics to an extent never before seen in American history.

It's easy to envision a classic "pot calls the kettle black" situation. And could that uproar help protect corrupt Bushies like Alice Martin and Leura Canary from having to answer for their wrongdoing while in office?

It sure could.

My guess is you will see an Obama Justice Department that is scrupulously honest. But Republicans already are planning to use that honesty against them.

What did we say earlier: Take your enemy's strength and use it against him? Take a war hero like John Kerry and "Swift Boat" him. Take a forward thinker like Al Gore and make him look like a quack.

Martin & Co. probably are setting up Eric Holder, Obama's future attorney general, to look like a political hack.

How very Rovian.

Sniffing the Trail of a UAB (and GOP) Money Man

I was in Jefferson County Circuit Court yesterday to follow the DUI case of William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, the Birmingham businessman I've identified as a "person of interest" in my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)

It turned out to be an interesting experience. Legal Schnauzer was there, but Chip Hazelrig was not.

Circuit Judge David Lichtenstein stated that Tommy Spina, Hazelrig's attorney, had contacted the court to say his client was dropping the appeal of his conviction in Mountain Brook Municipal Court.

Hazelrig was stopped by Mountain Brook officer Jerry S. Smith on August 10, 2007, after being clocked driving 112 mph in a 55 zone on Highway 280. Hazelrig was found guilty on May 7, 2008, of DUI, speeding, and driving with an improper tag. His license was suspended--for the sixth time--and he has some 20 traffic offenses on his record.

Hazelrig appealed the conviction to Jefferson County Circuit Court. But he apparently had a last-minute change of heart and decided to accept the verdict and his punishment.

Court records indicate that Hazelrig paid $1,163 in fines and court costs. He appealed the suspension of his license, and the Alabama Department of Public Safety agreed to reinstate his driving privileges in exchange for a $275 payment.

Why did Hazelrig drop his appeal? Well, it might have been easy because court documents indicate Mountain Brook waived his $1,000 appeal bond. Did the fact that Legal Schnauzer was sniffing the trail have anything to do with it? I don't know.

Perhaps Hazelrig had an attack of conscience and decided to take his medicine. If that's the case, I would say he made a wise decision.

Hazelrig remains a person of interest here at Legal Schnauzer. He gave a $5 million to UAB for construction of a new radiation oncology facility, and it's believed to be the largest individual donation in school history. Hazelrig has substantial business and political connections to Republican figures who almost certainly are not pleased to read the uncomfortable truths presented on this blog.

A $5 million gift will buy a lot of influence at most any university. And we know that Republicans in the Age of Rove have a proclivity for going after the jobs of people who cause them angst.

We also should note that Hazelrig's legal entanglements do not end with his colorful driving record.

His wife, Lynn S. Hazelrig, filed for divorce in 2005, and the case was handled by Judge R.A. Ferguson. Lynn Hazelrig initially was represented by Birmingham attorney Stephen R. Arnold, but he eventually withdrew from the case. Chip Hazelrig represented himself, and it appears the parties worked out a divorce arrangement on their own. It's hard to tell what happened in the case because Lynn Hazelrig requested that the court file be sealed, and Judge Ferguson granted that motion.

It's my understanding that divorce files are public record, except under rare circumstances, and it's unclear what circumstances existed that caused the judge to seal the file. My guess is that a regular person like you or me would have little chance of having our divorce file sealed. Do wealthy people get special consideration in Alabama courts? Looks that way.

Is it possible the judge unlawfully sealed the file? Given my experience with Alabama judges, I would say the answer is yes. This will be a question for further inquiry here at Legal Schnauzer.

Perhaps of more interest is a civil case involving W&H Investments, one of Hazelrig's companies. (By the way, Hazelrig has his hand in so many business pies, it's hard to tell exactly what he's up to. But his primary interests seem to be in real estate, oil, and gaming.)

The lawsuit, Estate of Sloan Bashinsky v. W&H Investments, involves heirs of one of Birmingham's most well-known business figures, Sloan Bashinsky. As CEO of Golden Enterprises, Bashinsky helped turn Golden Flake potato chips, and other assorted goodies, into snack-time favorites around the South.

Bashinsky died on August 2, 2005, and you can check out business filings related to his Last Will and Testament.

M. Owen Sims, John S. Stein, and John P. McElroy, all representatives of the Bashinsky Estate and Testamentary Trust, brought the lawsuit against W&H Investments, led by Hazelrig and his partner, Fred Wedell.

The case is complicated, and I am still examining the documents. But the main issue seems to be this: Bashinsky held interests in some 280-plus oil wells through a partnership involving W&H Investments, and the plaintiffs are seeking a proper accounting of those funds.

We will follow this case, and other issues involving Hazelrig, as we seek to discover the truth about why I was wrongfully terminated by UAB.

In an upcoming post, we will turn our attention to Hazelrig's political and business connections to prominent Alabama Republicans.

Corrupt Bushies Will Not Go Quietly

Don Henley, one of our favorite musicians here at Legal Schnauzer, wrote a blistering tune a few years back called "I Will Not Go Quietly."

The song, which features snarling backing vocals by Axl Rose, has been rambling around in my head today after reading about the latest shenanigans from the Bush Justice Department.

In a perverse sort of way, you have to give it to the Bushies. Voters soundly repudiated their policies and tactics on November 4, but does the corrupt Bush crowd care? Heck, no. They are heading out the door, but they are not going quietly.

Here in Alabama, we learn today that Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford has been arrested on a variety of federal charges related to sewer-bond deals when he was president of the Jefferson County Commission.

The charges were not a surprise. The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Langford over the sewer-bond transactions, and it was well known that he was the subject of a criminal inquiry. Arrested along with Langford this morning were Montgomery investment banker William Blount and prominent lobbyist Al LaPierre.

Blount is a former state Democratic Party chairman, and LaPierre is former executive director of the state Democratic Party.

We had a decidedly mixed reaction to news of the arrests. Langford, who is black, is a wildly creative, unpredictable leader. Substantial evidence seems to suggest that he has a history of handling money in a careless way.

Is it hard to believe that Langford might have played fast and loose with the law on the sewer deals? Not really.

But here is where the trouble comes in. The case is brought by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who should be the poster child for political and race-based prosecutions in the Bush Department of Justice.

She brought the first case against former governor Don Siegelman, which was promptly tossed out of court. She brought a sloppy, absurd case against Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi, which also was tossed. She has gone after a parade of black Democrats, including Jeff Germany, Chris McNair, and E.B. McClain.

Scott Horton, legal affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, has called Martin perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.

Did we mention that Langford is black? Did we mention that he, Blount, and LaPierre are all prominent Democrats?

Even though Alice Martin surely will be ousted not long after Barack Obama becomes president in January, she's still pushing forward with cases that drip of political, even racist, motivations.

But it's important to note that Alice Martin is not the only person who will not go quietly. Take your humble blogger for example.

Republican henchmen in Alabama cheated me out of my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and I have no intention of going quietly. In fact, a GOP money man who also happens to be a big donor to UAB is probably painfully aware that I'm not going quietly.

Mr. Money Bag's name is William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, and I was in Jefferson County Circuit Court this morning to follow his appeal for a conviction on drunk driving and other traffic charges:

UAB and the Influence of a Drunk-Driving Republican

Why would Hazelrig appeal? Gee, he was only going 112 mph in a 55 zone. Gee, his license has only been suspended five times, not including this most recent incident. Gee, he only has some 20 traffic offenses on his record, most of them serious in nature.

I've identified Chip Hazelrig as a "person of interest" in my unlawful termination. Giving $5 million will buy an awful lot of influence at a university. And several of Hazelrig's GOP buddies have been portrayed in a quite unfavorable (and truthful) light here at Legal Schnauzer.

Did some of those buddies encourage Chip Hazelrig to use his clout at UAB, costing a certain blogger his job? Well, we are building a significant amount of evidence to address that question. And we will be laying it all out on this blog.

In the words of Don Henley, "I Will Not Go Quietly."

Speaking of which, let's check out this video of the Henley rocker. The video is goofy, but the tune is a hum dinger:

UAB and the Influence of a Drunk-Driving Republican

A major donor to my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), today will appeal his conviction for driving 112 miles per hour in a 55 zone.

William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig was convicted of drunk driving, speeding, and driving with an improper tag on May 7, 2008, in Mountain Brook Municipal Court. Hazelrig appealed the conviction to Jefferson County Circuit Court, and that case is scheduled to be heard today before Judge David N. Lichtenstein.

I have identified Hazelrig as a "person of interest" (POI) in my unlawful termination from UAB, after 19 years of service. Hazelrig is a POI because he has given $5 million to UAB, which is believed to be the largest individual gift in university history. Also, Hazelrig has extensive business and political connections to influential Alabama Republicans, several of whom have been the subject of unfavorable (and truthful) reporting on this blog.

We will go into detail about Hazelrig's connections in an upcoming post. But for now, let's say he has ties to Alabama Governor Bob Riley, Homewood attorney Rob Riley (Bob Riley's son), GOP consultant Dax Swatek (former campaign manager for Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin), and Alabama Supreme Court Justice Glenn Murdock.

Dax Swatek, of course, is the son of William E. Swatek, the corrupt Pelham, Alabama, attorney who filed the fraudulent lawsuit against me that started our Legal Schnauzer story.

Perhaps most interesting are Hazelrig's ties to the gambling industry. He is a founder of Paragon Gaming, which focuses on Indian gaming. (Can anyone say, "Jack Abramoff?") And he has ties to a company called Crimsonica, which is headed by Robert M. Sigler and based in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Sigler has been involved with an effort to initiate a national lottery in Russia and has served on the advisory board of the University of Alabama School of Business.

Hazelrig apparently is quite familiar with risk, particularly when he is behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Court records indicate that from 1992 to 2006, Hazelrig had some 20 convictions for traffic-related offenses. He's been convicted at least nine times of driving 20 mph or more over the speed limit.

In that same time frame, Hazelrig's driver's license was suspended five times. And that does not include a suspension for his most recent offense--when he was clocked driving 112 mph in a 55 zone on Highway 280 in the Birmingham suburb of Mountain Brook.

Mountain Brook Police Officer Jerry S. Smith stopped Hazelrig at 11:56 p.m. on August 10, 2007. While stationed at the site of the old Mountain Brook Inn, Smith observed Hazelrig's black Mercedes SL 65 driving at a high rate of speed--112 mph to be precise.

Smith activated his emergency lights and pulled Hazelrig over. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected a strong odor of alcohol.

Hazelrig failed several field sobriety tests and then refused to take a breath test.

This all is reminiscent of the recent DUI case involving former University of Alabama and Oakland Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler. A municipal judge in Robertsdale, Alabama, acquitted Stabler even though the former football star had nearly swerved into a police officer who had stopped another motorist by the side of the road. Stabler, like Hazelrig, refused to take a breath test.

The judge reasoned that the officer had not given Stabler the required 20-minute deprivation period before providing the first breath sample. Legal experts have noted that the deprivation rule generally does not apply to suspects who refuse to take the test. The whole point of the deprivation period is that it allows for an accurate breath test.

The Stabler case raised questions about the impact of celebrity on justice. The Hazelrig case might raise questions about the impact of money on justice.

Let's consider the facts of the Hazelrig case as presented in court documents:

* He was clocked going 112 mph in a 55 zone;

* His vehicle smelled strongly of alcohol;

* He failed field sobriety tests;

* He refused to take a breath test;

* He was convicted in municipal court.

Tommy Spina is Hazelrig's attorney, and a rational person might ask: "What arguments can Spina possibly come up with to get this guy acquitted on appeal to circuit court?"

By the way, the 20-minute deprivation rule shouldn't work in the Hazelrig case. The Certificate of Breath Alcohol Analysis says his time of offense was 23:56:00 (military time) and time of test was 00:28:51. The officer observed the 20-minute rule--and then some.

So what is Hazelrig's best hope for acquittal? Well, he has demanded a trial by struck jury. But we know from following the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases that a jury can come up with all kinds of preposterous findings if the judge makes improper evidentiary rulings and presents unlawful jury instructions.

Remember we noted Hazelrig's ties to Alabama Supreme Court Justice Glenn Murdock? Hazelrig gave $10,000, the second largest donation, to Murdock's 2000 race for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals. A consultant to that campaign just happened to be Dax Swatek, who has gone on to run a campaign for Governor Bob Riley.

Since that 2000 campaign, Hazelrig has developed business interests with Rob Riley, the governor's son.

Has Chip Hazelrig bought enough influence with government officials to help him get away with a gross violation of law, an offense that puts the lives of innocent people at risk?

Legal Schnauzer will be on hand to report on the proceedings.