Today is a big day for American workers as President Barack Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The law's roots are firmly planted in Alabama soil.
The act is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a 70-year-old widow and former employee at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Alabama. The law grew from a U.S. Supreme Court decision that deprived Ledbetter of compensation for the gender discrimination she experienced for years.
The Ledbetter case touches on many of our major themes here at Legal Schnauzer--employment law, discrimination, judicial corruption, political shenanigans, and more. We're going to take a "rest of the story" look at the case shortly. But first, I would like to use the case as an example of how our political discourse has been tainted.
I was driving home from a college football game on a Saturday evening back in October. The presidential election was on the horizon, but I had more important things on my mind. So I decided to scan the AM dial for a college-football scoreboard show.
(You know you are a certified Southerner when it isn't enough to spend five or six hours at a stadium on Saturday; no, you have to hear scores of other games on the way home.)
I was amazed when I couldn't find a scoreboard show, but came across all sorts of right-wing talkfests. At 8 o'clock on a Saturday night!
"Obama's father was in a terrorist organization," a genius on one station was saying.
"William Ayers is an unofficial advisor to the Obama campaign," said a wise guy on another station.
"Dear God," I thought, "do these people ever give it a rest?"
That was my first thought. My second thought was, "Jo Lynn Orr was right."
Jo Lynn is one of my favorite former colleagues at UAB. I grew up in the Ozarks of southwest Missouri, and Jo Lynn grew up partly in the Ozarks of northwest Arkansas, so we have that connection. And I've always appreciated the fact that Jo Lynn has a backstory that is, well, "different."
She is in her early 60s and actually knew Elvis--and as Dave Barry would say, I'm not making this up. Jo Lynn lived in Memphis for a time, and Elvis' family lived in the same apartment complex. If I remember the story correctly, Elvis was friends with Jo Lynn's older brother.
Jo Lynn lived in LA for many years--that's Los Angeles, not Lower Alabama--before returning to her Southern roots. Along the way, she became a Buddhist. And she became such a liberal that she makes me look like Grover Norquist.
Suffice to say that Jo Lynn is not a standard-issue Southerner, and I seem to have an affinity for those types--heck, I married one.
Anyway, one of the many wise things I've heard Jo Lynn say is that the demise of the Fairness Doctrine during the Reagan years was one of the worst things that ever happened to our democracy. Jo Lynn's theory was that, under the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters had to present both sides of an issue, and that led to balanced, educational programming. Without the Fairness Doctrine, right-wing radio took over because it was attractive to sponsors, and millions of Americans began to form opinions based largely on the spewings of talkmeisters like Rush Limbaugh. The airwaves became less about education and more about ideology--and the electorate seems to have been dumbed down as a result.
A few days after my failed effort to find a scoreboard show, I was reminded again about what I call "Jo Lynn's Theory of Modern Broadcasting." I came across a Birmingham talk show hosted by Lee Davis.
I've known Lee for many years, mainly because we both used to be sportswriters, and always considered him a likable fellow. Only recently did I become aware that he is afflicted with a right-wing political mindset.
On this afternoon, Lee was talking with a lawyer who apparently had worked on the management side of the Lilly Ledbetter employment-discrimination case. The equal-pay issue had come up in a presidential debate a night or two earlier, and Barack Obama had mentioned that he was concerned about the U.S. Supreme Court's finding in the Ledbetter case.
Lee and his guest ran with that, essentially saying that Obama was misguided and the Ledbetter case had been correctly decided. At issue in the case was whether Ledbetter had filed her discrimination claim within the prescribed statute of limitations and how that limitations period was to be applied in an equal-pay case.
Lee's guest said that Ledbetter had testified in a deposition that she had known she was receiving unequal pay long before filing her complaint. This meant, the guest said, that the high court was correct in ruling that Ledbetter's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
As I listened to this, I was reminded of "Jo Lynn's Theory of Modern Broadcasting." And as has become commonplace in broadcasting today, Lee Davis did not present the "pro worker" side of the story. He did not interview, for example, a lawyer who had represented Lilly Ledbetter.
I, and other listeners I'm sure, were left with the impression that the Supreme Court got it right when it kicked out the Ledbetter claim.
But with Jo Lynn's words echoing in my head, I thought, "Is that the whole story? Did Lee Davis and his guest present the full picture?"
With that, I vowed to conduct a little Legal Schnauzer research on the Lilly Ledbetter case. And guess what I found out?
Let's just say the Bush v. Gore case of 2000 is not the only case the U.S. Supremes have butchered lately.
(To be continued)
Thursday, January 29, 2009
As the Legal World Turns
Some curious cases are making their way through the briar patch of American justice. Here is a Schnauzer wrapup:
A Stripper's Story
I'm not the savviest blogger in cyberspace, but even I pretty quickly grasped one of the truths of the trade: If you want to increase traffic to your site, figure out a way to write something--anything--that has to do with sex.
We recently wrote about the growing incidence of online porn in the workplace (here and here) and immediately saw our traffic shoot up. That's why Legal Schnauzer readers can look forward to upcoming posts about "Online Porn and the Crisis in Gaza," "Online Porn and the Music of Gilbert O'Sullivan," and "Online Porn and the Heartbreak of Psoriasis."
But seriously folks, we have a sex-related legal case in Birmingham that demands discussion. Patsy Hamaker, a dancer at a local strip club called The Furnace, claims that mandatory on-the-job drinking led to a drunken car crash that left her disfigured and with a broken back.
Hamaker sued The Furnace, seeking compensation for medical and vehicle-repair bills, lost income, and punitive damages. The club says Hamaker is responsible for her injuries. A judge recently refused to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case is set for trial in October 2009.
Court papers offer a behind-the-scene glimpse at the stripping business. Consider these insights:
* Dancers must enter the club from a side door--never using the front entrance--and surrender their car keys when they arrive;
* Under house rules, dancers are to subtly encourage customers to buy them "dancer drinks," ranging in price from $12 to $2,500. (What on earth is in a $2,500 drink?!) Dancers get the drink and $5 to $900 from each sale;
* Dancers must pass a breathalyzer test before receiving their car keys, the house rules say. But Hamaker and a former manager filed sworn statements saying they never saw the breathalyzer used for dancers;
* A "house mother" inspects the dancers to ensure that no body parts are exposed that the law requires to be covered;
* Dancers pay a series of fees after work, including $3 to the house mother, $10 to the DJ, and a $35 "house fee." Security is supposed to escort dancers to their cars after work;
* The club has a dancers' manual that takes a pep-rally approach to the business at hand. It's all part of what the club calls "Showtime." And here's a shocking revelation: Women taking off their clothes is the prime attraction at The Furnace. "We make the difference," the manual says in all capital letters. "Not the tables, not the chairs, not the bars, and not the lights."
Gee, I could have sworn that guys go to strip clubs to check out the furniture.
A Coach is Charged with Homicide?
A high-school football coach in Kentucky has been charged with reckless homicide in the heat-related death of a 15-year-old player who collapsed while running sprints in August heat.
David Jason Stinson, head coach at Pleasure Ridge Park High School in Louisville, pleaded not guilty in the death of offensive lineman Max Gilpin.
It is believed to be the first case in the nation where a coach faces criminal charges for the death of a player on his team.
Gilpin's parents have filed a lawsuit against Stinson and his coaching staff. The case has generated national attention and strong emotions in Louisville.
Unfortunately, heat-related deaths connected to August football practices are not uncommon. The mainstream media has addressed the issue, and academic researchers in Alabama have studied it. During my newspaper days, I covered the funeral of a University of Alabama defensive tackle who died during a practice in the mid 1980s.
Lawsuits, against coaches, trainers, school officials, are to be expected in cases like these. But to charge the coach with a crime? That has the smell of grandstanding on the part of David Stengel, the Jefferson County Commonwealth attorney who is handling the case.
The reckless homicide statute from the Kentucky Code is short and to the point. I'm sure the full statute and the case law provide more details about the elements of the crime.
Even if the prosecution is successful at the trial level, our research indicates that reckless-homicide convictions often do not hold up on appeal.
In a 2001 Kentucky case, a father was convicted of reckless homicide based partly on his failure to obey the state's seatbelt-restraint law in an accident that caused the death of his daughter. The conviction was overturned.
In a 2007 Kentucky case, a man was convicted of reckless homicide based partly on the fact that his vehicle had worn tires when he was involved in an accident that led to a death. The conviction was overturned.
State of mind is a critical component in this crime. And Kentucky statute states in pertinent part:
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
The heat index on the day in question was reported to be 94, which means the temperature probably was in the high 80s. That's not excessively hot, and it's hard to see how a coach conducting football practice in such weather would have a state of mind that could justify a criminal indictment. Did Stinson exhibit a "gross deviation from the standard of care" that a reasonable person would observe? I don't see it, and I don't understand how a prosecutor could see it?
I'm sure more information will be coming out on this case. But for now, the prosecutor's actions smell like those of Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse rape case.
Victims of Sexual Harassment Receive Added Protection
Here's a case that will make you ask: "Why did this have to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before what should have been an obvious standard was settled law?"
Believe it or not, an employee who voiced complaints about a supervisor in a sexual-harassment case had no protection against being dismissed or demoted. Protection did exist for an employee who made discrimination complaints. But an employee who was interviewed as part of an investigation was vulnerable to being fired or demoted.
A 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Monday changed that. The case involves a woman who was fired after she agreed to be interviewed by a human-resources officer as part of a sexual-harassment investigation. The officer asked if she had witnessed inappropriate behavior, and the woman said she had seen a male supervisor grab his crotch and make crude comments to several women.
The woman now will be able to sue on grounds that she was fired in retaliation for speaking candidly in the sexual-harassment investigation. It's mind-boggling that the right to sue under such conditions was granted only four days ago.
Cheerleading Becomes a Contact Sport
High-school cheerleading is a contact sport, and its participants cannot be sued for accidentally causing injuries, according to a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The court ruled that a former cheerleader cannot sue a teammate who failed to stop her fall while she was practicing a stunt. The court also said the cheerleader cannot sue her school district.
Brittany Noffke fell backwards off the shoulders of another cheerleader and suffered a serious head injury. She sued a male teammate who was supposed to be her spotter but failed to catch her.
Noffke's attorney argued that contact sports should include only aggressive sports such as football and hockey. But the court found that contact sports include any sport that includes "physical contact between persons."
This brought back frightening memories for your humble blogger. I was covering a college basketball game in the early 1980s when a cheerleader fell backward off a pyramid. A single male teammate was the spotter, but he wasn't looking and failed to catch her. She crashed to the floor, about 15 to 20 feet from where I was sitting. Thankfully, I was looking down and didn't see the accident. But I still remember the sickening thud of the young woman hitting the floor. Remarkably, she was shaken but not badly hurt. Even after she was examined, I believe doctors found that she did not even have a concussion. Being in good shape, and hitting the floor in the best possible position, probably saved her from a catastrophic injury or death.
I'm still amazed that cheerleaders are allowed to do some of the dangerous stunts they try. Whatever happened to "rah, rah, sis, boom bah?"
A Quarterback and the World's Dumbest Criminals
It's Super Bowl week, so we need to conclude with a legal case involving football.
This one comes from Donovan McNabb, the star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles who has an off-season home in Chandler, Arizona. When McNabb's Eagles were about to play the Arizona Cardinals in the NFL playoffs, a couple of Arizona fans decided to have a little fun with the opposing QB.
First, the fans hung a Cardinals flag in one of McNabb's trees. McNabb laughed it off and even left the flag hanging.
The fans returned and left a cardboard box in McNabb's driveway, with "Go Cards" written on one side and "Beat Philly" on the other. McNabb thought that was funny, too.
But the quarterback stopped laughing when he went outside one morning, smelled diesel fuel, and realized someone had burned Cardinals cheers into his lawn, causing about $2,000 in damage.
Here's the great part: Police checked the box that had been left on McNabb's driveway and found an address. That led them to 37-year-old Chandler resident Rex Perkins, who later admitted to the pranks. Perkins helpfully admitted that a co-worker, 28-year-old Ryan Hanlon also was involved.
Memo to stupid criminals: Don't leave your address at the crime scene.
Some of our favorite stories here at Legal Schnauzer involve the incredibly dumb things people do while committing crimes. Who is the world's dumbest criminal? Well, the Arizona brainiacs will have to go a ways to top this guy:
A Stripper's Story
I'm not the savviest blogger in cyberspace, but even I pretty quickly grasped one of the truths of the trade: If you want to increase traffic to your site, figure out a way to write something--anything--that has to do with sex.
We recently wrote about the growing incidence of online porn in the workplace (here and here) and immediately saw our traffic shoot up. That's why Legal Schnauzer readers can look forward to upcoming posts about "Online Porn and the Crisis in Gaza," "Online Porn and the Music of Gilbert O'Sullivan," and "Online Porn and the Heartbreak of Psoriasis."
But seriously folks, we have a sex-related legal case in Birmingham that demands discussion. Patsy Hamaker, a dancer at a local strip club called The Furnace, claims that mandatory on-the-job drinking led to a drunken car crash that left her disfigured and with a broken back.
Hamaker sued The Furnace, seeking compensation for medical and vehicle-repair bills, lost income, and punitive damages. The club says Hamaker is responsible for her injuries. A judge recently refused to dismiss the lawsuit, and the case is set for trial in October 2009.
Court papers offer a behind-the-scene glimpse at the stripping business. Consider these insights:
* Dancers must enter the club from a side door--never using the front entrance--and surrender their car keys when they arrive;
* Under house rules, dancers are to subtly encourage customers to buy them "dancer drinks," ranging in price from $12 to $2,500. (What on earth is in a $2,500 drink?!) Dancers get the drink and $5 to $900 from each sale;
* Dancers must pass a breathalyzer test before receiving their car keys, the house rules say. But Hamaker and a former manager filed sworn statements saying they never saw the breathalyzer used for dancers;
* A "house mother" inspects the dancers to ensure that no body parts are exposed that the law requires to be covered;
* Dancers pay a series of fees after work, including $3 to the house mother, $10 to the DJ, and a $35 "house fee." Security is supposed to escort dancers to their cars after work;
* The club has a dancers' manual that takes a pep-rally approach to the business at hand. It's all part of what the club calls "Showtime." And here's a shocking revelation: Women taking off their clothes is the prime attraction at The Furnace. "We make the difference," the manual says in all capital letters. "Not the tables, not the chairs, not the bars, and not the lights."
Gee, I could have sworn that guys go to strip clubs to check out the furniture.
A Coach is Charged with Homicide?
A high-school football coach in Kentucky has been charged with reckless homicide in the heat-related death of a 15-year-old player who collapsed while running sprints in August heat.
David Jason Stinson, head coach at Pleasure Ridge Park High School in Louisville, pleaded not guilty in the death of offensive lineman Max Gilpin.
It is believed to be the first case in the nation where a coach faces criminal charges for the death of a player on his team.
Gilpin's parents have filed a lawsuit against Stinson and his coaching staff. The case has generated national attention and strong emotions in Louisville.
Unfortunately, heat-related deaths connected to August football practices are not uncommon. The mainstream media has addressed the issue, and academic researchers in Alabama have studied it. During my newspaper days, I covered the funeral of a University of Alabama defensive tackle who died during a practice in the mid 1980s.
Lawsuits, against coaches, trainers, school officials, are to be expected in cases like these. But to charge the coach with a crime? That has the smell of grandstanding on the part of David Stengel, the Jefferson County Commonwealth attorney who is handling the case.
The reckless homicide statute from the Kentucky Code is short and to the point. I'm sure the full statute and the case law provide more details about the elements of the crime.
Even if the prosecution is successful at the trial level, our research indicates that reckless-homicide convictions often do not hold up on appeal.
In a 2001 Kentucky case, a father was convicted of reckless homicide based partly on his failure to obey the state's seatbelt-restraint law in an accident that caused the death of his daughter. The conviction was overturned.
In a 2007 Kentucky case, a man was convicted of reckless homicide based partly on the fact that his vehicle had worn tires when he was involved in an accident that led to a death. The conviction was overturned.
State of mind is a critical component in this crime. And Kentucky statute states in pertinent part:
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
The heat index on the day in question was reported to be 94, which means the temperature probably was in the high 80s. That's not excessively hot, and it's hard to see how a coach conducting football practice in such weather would have a state of mind that could justify a criminal indictment. Did Stinson exhibit a "gross deviation from the standard of care" that a reasonable person would observe? I don't see it, and I don't understand how a prosecutor could see it?
I'm sure more information will be coming out on this case. But for now, the prosecutor's actions smell like those of Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse rape case.
Victims of Sexual Harassment Receive Added Protection
Here's a case that will make you ask: "Why did this have to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before what should have been an obvious standard was settled law?"
Believe it or not, an employee who voiced complaints about a supervisor in a sexual-harassment case had no protection against being dismissed or demoted. Protection did exist for an employee who made discrimination complaints. But an employee who was interviewed as part of an investigation was vulnerable to being fired or demoted.
A 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Monday changed that. The case involves a woman who was fired after she agreed to be interviewed by a human-resources officer as part of a sexual-harassment investigation. The officer asked if she had witnessed inappropriate behavior, and the woman said she had seen a male supervisor grab his crotch and make crude comments to several women.
The woman now will be able to sue on grounds that she was fired in retaliation for speaking candidly in the sexual-harassment investigation. It's mind-boggling that the right to sue under such conditions was granted only four days ago.
Cheerleading Becomes a Contact Sport
High-school cheerleading is a contact sport, and its participants cannot be sued for accidentally causing injuries, according to a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The court ruled that a former cheerleader cannot sue a teammate who failed to stop her fall while she was practicing a stunt. The court also said the cheerleader cannot sue her school district.
Brittany Noffke fell backwards off the shoulders of another cheerleader and suffered a serious head injury. She sued a male teammate who was supposed to be her spotter but failed to catch her.
Noffke's attorney argued that contact sports should include only aggressive sports such as football and hockey. But the court found that contact sports include any sport that includes "physical contact between persons."
This brought back frightening memories for your humble blogger. I was covering a college basketball game in the early 1980s when a cheerleader fell backward off a pyramid. A single male teammate was the spotter, but he wasn't looking and failed to catch her. She crashed to the floor, about 15 to 20 feet from where I was sitting. Thankfully, I was looking down and didn't see the accident. But I still remember the sickening thud of the young woman hitting the floor. Remarkably, she was shaken but not badly hurt. Even after she was examined, I believe doctors found that she did not even have a concussion. Being in good shape, and hitting the floor in the best possible position, probably saved her from a catastrophic injury or death.
I'm still amazed that cheerleaders are allowed to do some of the dangerous stunts they try. Whatever happened to "rah, rah, sis, boom bah?"
A Quarterback and the World's Dumbest Criminals
It's Super Bowl week, so we need to conclude with a legal case involving football.
This one comes from Donovan McNabb, the star quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles who has an off-season home in Chandler, Arizona. When McNabb's Eagles were about to play the Arizona Cardinals in the NFL playoffs, a couple of Arizona fans decided to have a little fun with the opposing QB.
First, the fans hung a Cardinals flag in one of McNabb's trees. McNabb laughed it off and even left the flag hanging.
The fans returned and left a cardboard box in McNabb's driveway, with "Go Cards" written on one side and "Beat Philly" on the other. McNabb thought that was funny, too.
But the quarterback stopped laughing when he went outside one morning, smelled diesel fuel, and realized someone had burned Cardinals cheers into his lawn, causing about $2,000 in damage.
Here's the great part: Police checked the box that had been left on McNabb's driveway and found an address. That led them to 37-year-old Chandler resident Rex Perkins, who later admitted to the pranks. Perkins helpfully admitted that a co-worker, 28-year-old Ryan Hanlon also was involved.
Memo to stupid criminals: Don't leave your address at the crime scene.
Some of our favorite stories here at Legal Schnauzer involve the incredibly dumb things people do while committing crimes. Who is the world's dumbest criminal? Well, the Arizona brainiacs will have to go a ways to top this guy:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
UAB's President Wastes Money As She Asks For More
UAB's Carol Garrison is doing something that university presidents spend a lot of time doing--asking taxpayers and legislators for more money.
Garrison recently addressed Birmingham-area legislators and urged them to take it easy on UAB when they consider budget cuts forced by the ongoing Bush recession.
But legislators might want to ask Garrison a few questions next time they see her coming with her hand out. And citizens, whose state and federal tax dollars support UAB, might want to ask Garrison the same questions.
One question is this: What are you doing with the money you already have? Answer: Garrison is wasting sizable chunks of it.
Poor human-resources practices that lead to needless legal actions are one way that UAB wastes money. We recently outlined some of the employment-related legal actions that almost certainly could have been avoided. We are researching other such cases. A few cases, which either are pending or have recently been settled, include:
* School of Business faculty member Susan Key;
* School of Engineering faculty member Rosalia Scripa;
* Department of History faculty member Horace Huntley.
We're not talking about malcontents or incompetents here. Scripa and Huntley have been at UAB for 30-plus years. Key has been there about 20 years. I have studied the case files, and it seems clear that litigation could have been avoided in all three cases.
As we have noted a couple of times, several medical trainees from India are taking, or considering, legal action against UAB because of problems in the school's Huntsville program. Much more is coming on that story here at Legal Schnauzer.
Then we have my case, which might be the biggest waste of time and funds of all. UAB literally fired me for doing my job. And like Key, Scripa, and Huntley, I was not a Johnny-come-lately; I had been at UAB for 19 years.
Evidence is overwhelming that I was fired because my personal blog, which I wrote on my own time, made some Alabama Republicans uncomfortable. And that's because I was writing accurately about their unsavory activities. As Scott Horton of Harper's recently wrote, UAB's attempts to explain this case can only be described as Orwellian.
Here's a question that Democratic legislators should be asking Garrison: Why is a UAB employee who expresses liberal/progressive ideas on his personal blog fired, even though he wrote the blog on his own time? And why are UAB employees who have used state-owned equipment to send anti-gay and racist messages still employed?
Actually, legislators and taxpayers of all persuasions should be asking Garrison hard questions. What's next? Is UAB going to start firing employees who practice certain religions on their own time? Will employees who subscribe to certain magazines or check out certain books be fired? Will employees risk their jobs if they join certain civic or social organizations?
Carol Garrison is president of a large institution, one that is happy to take tax dollars from people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, and political persuasions. As such, she has an obligation under state and federal law to ensure that her organization does not discriminate.
Evidence is mounting that she is failing miserably in that regard.
In short, Carol Garrison is president of a public institution, which belongs to everyone. Isn't it time she started acting like someone who understands what that role means?
Garrison recently addressed Birmingham-area legislators and urged them to take it easy on UAB when they consider budget cuts forced by the ongoing Bush recession.
But legislators might want to ask Garrison a few questions next time they see her coming with her hand out. And citizens, whose state and federal tax dollars support UAB, might want to ask Garrison the same questions.
One question is this: What are you doing with the money you already have? Answer: Garrison is wasting sizable chunks of it.
Poor human-resources practices that lead to needless legal actions are one way that UAB wastes money. We recently outlined some of the employment-related legal actions that almost certainly could have been avoided. We are researching other such cases. A few cases, which either are pending or have recently been settled, include:
* School of Business faculty member Susan Key;
* School of Engineering faculty member Rosalia Scripa;
* Department of History faculty member Horace Huntley.
We're not talking about malcontents or incompetents here. Scripa and Huntley have been at UAB for 30-plus years. Key has been there about 20 years. I have studied the case files, and it seems clear that litigation could have been avoided in all three cases.
As we have noted a couple of times, several medical trainees from India are taking, or considering, legal action against UAB because of problems in the school's Huntsville program. Much more is coming on that story here at Legal Schnauzer.
Then we have my case, which might be the biggest waste of time and funds of all. UAB literally fired me for doing my job. And like Key, Scripa, and Huntley, I was not a Johnny-come-lately; I had been at UAB for 19 years.
Evidence is overwhelming that I was fired because my personal blog, which I wrote on my own time, made some Alabama Republicans uncomfortable. And that's because I was writing accurately about their unsavory activities. As Scott Horton of Harper's recently wrote, UAB's attempts to explain this case can only be described as Orwellian.
Here's a question that Democratic legislators should be asking Garrison: Why is a UAB employee who expresses liberal/progressive ideas on his personal blog fired, even though he wrote the blog on his own time? And why are UAB employees who have used state-owned equipment to send anti-gay and racist messages still employed?
Actually, legislators and taxpayers of all persuasions should be asking Garrison hard questions. What's next? Is UAB going to start firing employees who practice certain religions on their own time? Will employees who subscribe to certain magazines or check out certain books be fired? Will employees risk their jobs if they join certain civic or social organizations?
Carol Garrison is president of a large institution, one that is happy to take tax dollars from people of all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, and political persuasions. As such, she has an obligation under state and federal law to ensure that her organization does not discriminate.
Evidence is mounting that she is failing miserably in that regard.
In short, Carol Garrison is president of a public institution, which belongs to everyone. Isn't it time she started acting like someone who understands what that role means?
Pets Lose Their Homes in Bush Recession
George W. Bush was a lousy president for humans, but he might have been an even worse president for pets.
Alabama animal shelters report that a growing number of people are dropping off pets that they no longer can afford, thanks to the recession brought on by Bush's wrongheaded economic policies.
A spokesman for the Greater Birmingham Humane Society (GBHS) pointed to several dogs that were brought in after their owners went through foreclosures.
Even more pets are being brought in from owners who are struggling to pay for their rental housing.
The GBHS said that in 2007 about 7 percent of people who surrendered pets listed money-related issues--"couldn't afford normal care" or "couldn't afford pet deposit at apartment complex"--as the reason. That number jumped to 16 percent in 2008.
The director of a shelter in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, said her facility is packed. "I've been doing this for 15 years, and I don't remember a January where we haven't had a cage."
In Montgomery, shelters have seen a significant spike in pet surrenders. Says one director: "The No. 1 reason is 'can't afford.'"
By the way, the statement about Bush's "wrongheaded economic policies" is not just a careless slap at W from a progressive blogger. Some conservatives would have you believe that this recession is a "downturn in the business cycle," that nothing could have been done to prevent it. But the foreclosures, bankruptcies, layoffs, business failures, and financial fraud are a direct consequence of Bush's economic policies. Consider a few economic trends that worsened under Bush:
* Income disparity--Way too much of our national wealth is in the hands of too few people. This is largely a result of Bush's tax cuts favoring the wealthiest Americans. This inevitably causes our economy to bog down. That's what is happening now;
* Deregulation--What happens when no one is watching the hen house? The fox wanders in and helps himself. This contributed greatly to the collapse of numerous Wall Street titans;
* Speculation--Republicans claim to be against gambling with chips and such. But they are all for gambling with risky financial instruments. A GOP-fueled culture of speculation led to the mortgage crisis;
* Erosion of Workers' Rights--GOP policies consistently favor executives over workers, managers over people who actually do things or make things. But spending by executives and managers is not enough to drive our economy. We need a strong middle class to drive the economy, and most middle-class folks are wage earners. When their wages stagnate, or they see their jobs being threatened, they cut back on spending. And that results in "ghost malls" and other retail nightmares.
This was all predictable, but Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 did not bother educating themselves about our economic history. Those who want to avoid making the same mistake again should read The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips.
I've touted Phillips' work several times on this blog. In fact, I've called Rich and Poor perhaps the most important public-affairs book of the past 50 years. The book is getting to be about 18 years old now, but its message is as powerful today as it was when it came out--just before Bill Clinton was elected president in the early 1990s and had to bail us out of a mess created by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush. Now, Barack Obama is trying to save us from an even bigger economic mess, this one caused by the second George Bush. When will we ever learn that electing Bushes and their brethren is not a good idea?
If you want to understand why we are in our current economic fix, I encourage you to check out Kevin Phillips' work. His criticism of GOP economic policies is compelling because he used to be one of them. Phillips served in the Nixon administration and remembers a time when at least some Republicans cared about regular folks and the greater good. Those days were ushered out with the "Reagan Revolution," and the GOP has been swirling down the toilet ever since.
Many Republicans now hate Phillips, but he is hardly a wild-eyed liberal (whatever that is). In fact, Phillips identifies himself as an independent. More importantly, Phillips is a clear-eyed historian and analyst who has repeatedly warned us about the danger of the "supply-side" economics that has come to dominate conservative thought over the past 25 to 30 years.
This economic crisis was not an accident or a case of bad timing for W. His own policies caused it, and more Americans should have known this was coming.
Unfortunately, we humans aren't the only ones paying a stiff price. Our animal friends are suffering, too.
Alabama animal shelters report that a growing number of people are dropping off pets that they no longer can afford, thanks to the recession brought on by Bush's wrongheaded economic policies.
A spokesman for the Greater Birmingham Humane Society (GBHS) pointed to several dogs that were brought in after their owners went through foreclosures.
Even more pets are being brought in from owners who are struggling to pay for their rental housing.
The GBHS said that in 2007 about 7 percent of people who surrendered pets listed money-related issues--"couldn't afford normal care" or "couldn't afford pet deposit at apartment complex"--as the reason. That number jumped to 16 percent in 2008.
The director of a shelter in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, said her facility is packed. "I've been doing this for 15 years, and I don't remember a January where we haven't had a cage."
In Montgomery, shelters have seen a significant spike in pet surrenders. Says one director: "The No. 1 reason is 'can't afford.'"
By the way, the statement about Bush's "wrongheaded economic policies" is not just a careless slap at W from a progressive blogger. Some conservatives would have you believe that this recession is a "downturn in the business cycle," that nothing could have been done to prevent it. But the foreclosures, bankruptcies, layoffs, business failures, and financial fraud are a direct consequence of Bush's economic policies. Consider a few economic trends that worsened under Bush:
* Income disparity--Way too much of our national wealth is in the hands of too few people. This is largely a result of Bush's tax cuts favoring the wealthiest Americans. This inevitably causes our economy to bog down. That's what is happening now;
* Deregulation--What happens when no one is watching the hen house? The fox wanders in and helps himself. This contributed greatly to the collapse of numerous Wall Street titans;
* Speculation--Republicans claim to be against gambling with chips and such. But they are all for gambling with risky financial instruments. A GOP-fueled culture of speculation led to the mortgage crisis;
* Erosion of Workers' Rights--GOP policies consistently favor executives over workers, managers over people who actually do things or make things. But spending by executives and managers is not enough to drive our economy. We need a strong middle class to drive the economy, and most middle-class folks are wage earners. When their wages stagnate, or they see their jobs being threatened, they cut back on spending. And that results in "ghost malls" and other retail nightmares.
This was all predictable, but Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 did not bother educating themselves about our economic history. Those who want to avoid making the same mistake again should read The Politics of Rich and Poor by Kevin Phillips.
I've touted Phillips' work several times on this blog. In fact, I've called Rich and Poor perhaps the most important public-affairs book of the past 50 years. The book is getting to be about 18 years old now, but its message is as powerful today as it was when it came out--just before Bill Clinton was elected president in the early 1990s and had to bail us out of a mess created by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush. Now, Barack Obama is trying to save us from an even bigger economic mess, this one caused by the second George Bush. When will we ever learn that electing Bushes and their brethren is not a good idea?
If you want to understand why we are in our current economic fix, I encourage you to check out Kevin Phillips' work. His criticism of GOP economic policies is compelling because he used to be one of them. Phillips served in the Nixon administration and remembers a time when at least some Republicans cared about regular folks and the greater good. Those days were ushered out with the "Reagan Revolution," and the GOP has been swirling down the toilet ever since.
Many Republicans now hate Phillips, but he is hardly a wild-eyed liberal (whatever that is). In fact, Phillips identifies himself as an independent. More importantly, Phillips is a clear-eyed historian and analyst who has repeatedly warned us about the danger of the "supply-side" economics that has come to dominate conservative thought over the past 25 to 30 years.
This economic crisis was not an accident or a case of bad timing for W. His own policies caused it, and more Americans should have known this was coming.
Unfortunately, we humans aren't the only ones paying a stiff price. Our animal friends are suffering, too.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Alabama Reaction to the Rove Subpoena
News that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has issued a second subpoena to former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove continues to reverberate around the country.
The story particularly resonates here in Alabama, which has been "Ground Zero" for corruption in the Bush Justice Department. Alabama attained its prominent status in the DOJ story for two reasons:
* Rove built his national reputation from working on Alabama state-court races in the 1990s, helping turn the state's appellate courts from Democratic to Republican control. Also, Rove and his close associate Bill Canary helped select "loyal Bushies" Alice Martin and Leura Canary as U.S. attorneys in Birmingham and Montgomery, respectively.
* The case of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman is perhaps the best-known example of an apparent political prosecution under Bush.
Rove rebuffed a subpoena last May, and the new order compels him to appear for questioning at 10 a.m. on February 2 at the Rayburn House Office Building. Some legal experts have suggested that Barack Obama's executive order last week regarding presidential records could make it easier for citizens and lawmakers to gather information about possible criminal activity in the Bush administration.
Siegelman had a strong reaction to news that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the Judiciary Committee, seems to be following through on his promise to investigate possible wrongdoing by Rove and others:
Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of Karl Rove gives hope to those who want to know the extent of Karl Rove's abuse of power and his misuse of the Department of Justice as a way to win elections.
Chairman Conyers' action gives meaning to the change that has been ushered in by the election of President Obama.
I am sure that I speak for millions of U. S. citizens when I say that I am grateful for Mr. Conyers' determination to seek the truth.
Those who abused their power must be held accountable otherwise their misuse of power will be more likely to happen again. Our democracy has been threatened by the use of the Department of Justice as a political weapon. Chairman Conyers' action will serve to protect our democracy and restore people's faith that no man is above the law.
Glynn Wilson has an excellent overview of Alabama reaction at Locust Fork World News. Wilson's piece includes thoughts from Jill Simpson, a central figure in the Siegelman case:
North Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, who came forward as a whistle-blower last summer and provided the key evidence for starting an investigation showing Siegelman’s case was political, said she was happy to hear about the subpoena.
“Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham jail on April 16, 1963, said in a letter: ‘An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I am glad that John Conyers understands what Dr. King meant, because it is important for our country that no man be above the law.”
And the fact is, she said: “An injustice occurred in the summer when Mr. Rove was allowed to thumb his nose at a Congressional subpoena. It has been a threat to justice ever since.”
Maybe now, she said, “Mr. Rove will raise his right hand and swear to God to tell the truth — as any normal citizen is required to do when facing a subpoena. It is my hope that justice is restored to the justice system in this country.”
What could be the legal consequences of Rove ignoring a second Congressional subpoena? Scott Horton, of Harper's, examines that question at his No Comment blog.
The story particularly resonates here in Alabama, which has been "Ground Zero" for corruption in the Bush Justice Department. Alabama attained its prominent status in the DOJ story for two reasons:
* Rove built his national reputation from working on Alabama state-court races in the 1990s, helping turn the state's appellate courts from Democratic to Republican control. Also, Rove and his close associate Bill Canary helped select "loyal Bushies" Alice Martin and Leura Canary as U.S. attorneys in Birmingham and Montgomery, respectively.
* The case of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman is perhaps the best-known example of an apparent political prosecution under Bush.
Rove rebuffed a subpoena last May, and the new order compels him to appear for questioning at 10 a.m. on February 2 at the Rayburn House Office Building. Some legal experts have suggested that Barack Obama's executive order last week regarding presidential records could make it easier for citizens and lawmakers to gather information about possible criminal activity in the Bush administration.
Siegelman had a strong reaction to news that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), chair of the Judiciary Committee, seems to be following through on his promise to investigate possible wrongdoing by Rove and others:
Chairman Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of Karl Rove gives hope to those who want to know the extent of Karl Rove's abuse of power and his misuse of the Department of Justice as a way to win elections.
Chairman Conyers' action gives meaning to the change that has been ushered in by the election of President Obama.
I am sure that I speak for millions of U. S. citizens when I say that I am grateful for Mr. Conyers' determination to seek the truth.
Those who abused their power must be held accountable otherwise their misuse of power will be more likely to happen again. Our democracy has been threatened by the use of the Department of Justice as a political weapon. Chairman Conyers' action will serve to protect our democracy and restore people's faith that no man is above the law.
Glynn Wilson has an excellent overview of Alabama reaction at Locust Fork World News. Wilson's piece includes thoughts from Jill Simpson, a central figure in the Siegelman case:
North Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, who came forward as a whistle-blower last summer and provided the key evidence for starting an investigation showing Siegelman’s case was political, said she was happy to hear about the subpoena.
“Martin Luther King Jr. in the Birmingham jail on April 16, 1963, said in a letter: ‘An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I am glad that John Conyers understands what Dr. King meant, because it is important for our country that no man be above the law.”
And the fact is, she said: “An injustice occurred in the summer when Mr. Rove was allowed to thumb his nose at a Congressional subpoena. It has been a threat to justice ever since.”
Maybe now, she said, “Mr. Rove will raise his right hand and swear to God to tell the truth — as any normal citizen is required to do when facing a subpoena. It is my hope that justice is restored to the justice system in this country.”
What could be the legal consequences of Rove ignoring a second Congressional subpoena? Scott Horton, of Harper's, examines that question at his No Comment blog.
Small Alabama Town Stands Up for Sammy the Cat
One of the unfortunate byproducts of this blog is that we sometimes give the impression that Alabama is an utter hellhole.
That's a shame because I actually like many things about my adopted home state. No one forced me to come here 30-plus years ago, and no one has forced me to stay, so obviously I feel Alabama has quite a bit to recommend it.
Our justice system might be a cesspool, and our leaders can be a spineless, feckless bunch, but everyday Alabamians tend to be pretty fine folks--even many of the ones who disagree with me politically, which is most of them. Sometimes, small acts of kindness to the "least of these" say an awful lot about a people. Several citizens in the small Alabama town of Notasulga recently committed such an act, and they had a good time doing it.
Notasulga is a town of about 1,000 residents in east central Alabama, not far from the Opelika-Auburn area. The town gained national attention recently when a controversy erupted over Sammy the Cat, a local orange tabby who made a habit of hanging out at the local post office.
Sammy lives about a block from the post office, but he likes to meander over to the postal facility and stretch out in a sunny sport on a table inside. Residents enjoy loving on him and treating him like a regular postal employee.
But someone with too much time on her hands complained, saying that Sammy did not belong in the facility because he did not pay federal taxes. When a sign went up that Sammy no longer would be allowed in the building because of the complaint, about 15 Notasulgans came to the aide of their feline friend.
They started a media campaign and enlisted the help of one of Alabama's most famous citizens, former Auburn University football coach Pat Dye, who lives in the area. The group decided that the best solution was to get Sammy his own post-office box. That would mean he had reason to be in the post office.
Sammy's fans from around the country have responded. In a recent five-day period, he received 68 pieces of mail and two packages.
So the Notasulga post office is a fun, peaceful place again. And Sammy is there most every day to greet his growing band of admirers. A 10-year-old tabby has found happiness and affection in rural Alabama--more evidence that our state can't be all bad.
Here's the television story that turned Sammy into an international star:
Sammy's story touched our hearts here at Legal Schnauzer. Our blog is inspired by, and devoted to the memory of, Murphy, our much-loved miniature schnauzer from 1993 to 2004. But our house now is home to two Tonkinese kitty kats, a brother and sister named Baxter and Chloe. No one could ever replace Murphy in our hearts, but Baxter and Chloe have been true blessings. They give our home its soul--sort of what Sammy seems to do for the Notasulga post office. And like Sammy, they know the value of a good sunny spot to lay in.
Here's a video we did a few months back, featuring Baxter and Chloe:
That's a shame because I actually like many things about my adopted home state. No one forced me to come here 30-plus years ago, and no one has forced me to stay, so obviously I feel Alabama has quite a bit to recommend it.
Our justice system might be a cesspool, and our leaders can be a spineless, feckless bunch, but everyday Alabamians tend to be pretty fine folks--even many of the ones who disagree with me politically, which is most of them. Sometimes, small acts of kindness to the "least of these" say an awful lot about a people. Several citizens in the small Alabama town of Notasulga recently committed such an act, and they had a good time doing it.
Notasulga is a town of about 1,000 residents in east central Alabama, not far from the Opelika-Auburn area. The town gained national attention recently when a controversy erupted over Sammy the Cat, a local orange tabby who made a habit of hanging out at the local post office.
Sammy lives about a block from the post office, but he likes to meander over to the postal facility and stretch out in a sunny sport on a table inside. Residents enjoy loving on him and treating him like a regular postal employee.
But someone with too much time on her hands complained, saying that Sammy did not belong in the facility because he did not pay federal taxes. When a sign went up that Sammy no longer would be allowed in the building because of the complaint, about 15 Notasulgans came to the aide of their feline friend.
They started a media campaign and enlisted the help of one of Alabama's most famous citizens, former Auburn University football coach Pat Dye, who lives in the area. The group decided that the best solution was to get Sammy his own post-office box. That would mean he had reason to be in the post office.
Sammy's fans from around the country have responded. In a recent five-day period, he received 68 pieces of mail and two packages.
So the Notasulga post office is a fun, peaceful place again. And Sammy is there most every day to greet his growing band of admirers. A 10-year-old tabby has found happiness and affection in rural Alabama--more evidence that our state can't be all bad.
Here's the television story that turned Sammy into an international star:
Sammy's story touched our hearts here at Legal Schnauzer. Our blog is inspired by, and devoted to the memory of, Murphy, our much-loved miniature schnauzer from 1993 to 2004. But our house now is home to two Tonkinese kitty kats, a brother and sister named Baxter and Chloe. No one could ever replace Murphy in our hearts, but Baxter and Chloe have been true blessings. They give our home its soul--sort of what Sammy seems to do for the Notasulga post office. And like Sammy, they know the value of a good sunny spot to lay in.
Here's a video we did a few months back, featuring Baxter and Chloe:
Monday, January 26, 2009
Alice Martin's Last Stand
We have reported on Alice Martin's efforts to stay on as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under a Barack Obama administration.
Now we have a report that Martin, a Bush appointee, is refusing to give up her post. The Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) writes that Martin intends to force the Obama administration to fire her.
This is not a surprise to regular Alice Martin watchers. Her reign has long been about drama and politics, not rules, protocol, or justice. Apparently, Queen Alice's last act will be to play the martyr for the cause of "justice" under Bush.
WMR provides important background on Martin, particularly her role in the prosecutions of former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman:
On February 12, 2008, WMR reported: "Perhaps no one in the Siegelman affair is more corrupt than the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Alice H. Martin. Martin has been accused of providing false evidence against Siegelman in his trial. Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican, was reportedly prosecuted by Martin for corruption because White would not testify against Siegelman and former Health South chairman Richard Scrushy. Martin tried to compel White to present false evidence against Siegelman in his trial.
Now we have a report that Martin, a Bush appointee, is refusing to give up her post. The Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) writes that Martin intends to force the Obama administration to fire her.
This is not a surprise to regular Alice Martin watchers. Her reign has long been about drama and politics, not rules, protocol, or justice. Apparently, Queen Alice's last act will be to play the martyr for the cause of "justice" under Bush.
WMR provides important background on Martin, particularly her role in the prosecutions of former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman:
On February 12, 2008, WMR reported: "Perhaps no one in the Siegelman affair is more corrupt than the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama Alice H. Martin. Martin has been accused of providing false evidence against Siegelman in his trial. Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White, a Republican, was reportedly prosecuted by Martin for corruption because White would not testify against Siegelman and former Health South chairman Richard Scrushy. Martin tried to compel White to present false evidence against Siegelman in his trial.
WMR also notes Martin's curious methods for choosing the cases she pursues. She went after former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy and others in a corporate financial fraud case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Law. Martin, by the way, failed to secure a conviction against Scrushy in a case where many observers thought evidence against the CEO was overwhelming.
But WMR points out that Martin was not always so interested in pursuing cases of possible financial wrongdoing. In fact, she conveniently ignored a major bankruptcy case that took place right under her nose--literally:
Martin Industries, a manufacturer of grills, gas heaters, and hearths, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Decatur, Alabama on December 27, 2002. Martin Industries was eventually bought by a Canadian company, Monessen Hearth Systems Company.
Although Martin Industries had amassed a reported $63 million in debt, Martin and her 44 lawyers and 104 assistants, including those who liaise with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FBI, did not see fit to investigate what caused the massive debt in the firm pursuant to the provision of Sarbox.
Why would Alice Martin not be interested in that bankruptcy case. WMR has the answer:
Perhaps it is because Martin is married to Louis J. Martin II, a vice president of Martin Industries who retired at the age of 48 in 2003 after the firm declared bankruptcy.
How convenient. Martin's husband helps get a company into $63 million worth of do-d0, and the feds don't bother checking into possible financial irregularities.
Wayne Madsen's reporting goes to a point we have raised repeatedly here at Legal Schnauzer: Corruption in the Bush Justice Department is not just about who does get prosecuted; it also is about who does not get prosecuted.
If you are a corrupt Republican judge in Alabama state courts, with ties to loyal Bushies, you can butcher the law without fear. If you are married to a loyal Bushie--in this case, Alice Martin herself--you don't have to worry about anyone checking into your curious financial practices.
If Martin wants the Obama team to fire her, that should be no problem. There almost certainly are plenty of grounds for firing her, beyond the mere fact that she is a Bush appointee.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Are Alabama GOPers Nervous About Obama's Executive Order?
A number of experts are saying that Barack Obama's executive order last week on presidential records could be a key first step toward unlocking information about possible criminal activity in the Bush administration.
Obama's order, some observers are saying, is making certain Republicans very nervous. If that's the case, several of those Republicans are likely to be in Alabama.
What does the Obama executive order mean? Neil Eggleston, a White House counsel in the Clinton administration, told TPM Muckraker that the order appears to have been issued with ongoing cases in mind. These could include efforts to obtain records regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys and political prosecutions in the Bush Justice Department:
At its heart, said Eggleston, Obama's order is about "who gets to assert executive privilege." It says that former presidents can claim such privilege, but they have no automatic ability to prevent the release of their records if the current administration deems it to be in the national interest. . . .
In a sense, said Eggleston, it's a directive to the National Archivist. "It says: 'Archivist -- if Bush calls up and says don't release certain papers, don't listen to what he says, listen to what I say.'"
How concerned are Republicans about the order? Within minutes of its release, they announced that they would hold up the confirmation of attorney-general nominee Eric Holder for at least a week.
Daily Kos diarist "dengre" is an authority on the Jack Abramoff scandal, and he said the confirmation of Holder, plus the Obama executive order, could shine significant light on the Abramoff case and its many tentacles--which spread deeply into Alabama and Mississippi.
Speaking of Alabama, "dengre" notes that a Holder confirmation, on top of the Obama executive order, could lead to the truth about apparent political prosecutions, such as the one involving former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
What if Holder is confirmed, and he is able to use the Obama executive order to unearth documents about possible criminal activity connected to the Bush administration? Who are some of the Alabama Republicans who might find this news distressing?
The list is lengthy, and it includes some of our central characters at Legal Schnauzer:
* Gov. Bob Riley, whose campaign was found to have received $13 million in Mississippi Choctaw gambling money from Abramoff;
* Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary and Rob Riley (Bob Riley's son), who according to sworn testimony from whistleblower Jill Simpson, were involved in a conspiracy to arrange a bogus prosecution of Siegelman;
* U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary (Bill Canary's wife), who both initiated prosecutions against Siegelman that appear to have been politically motivated;
* GOP "consultant" Dax Swatek who served as campaign manager both for Alice Martin and Bob Riley and has documented ties to Abramoff. For good measure, Dax Swatek is the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" character in our Legal Schnauzer story. His fingerprints are everywhere on this blog, mainly because his father, William E. Swatek, is the corrupt Alabama lawyer who filed the bogus lawsuit against me that started my legal sojourn. I started this blog in order to expose the dirty deeds of Bill Swatek and corrupt GOP judges in Alabama state courts. As a result, Alabama authorities threatened to seize my home and did place an unlawful sheriff's deed on it. Also, evidence clearly shows that someone pressured UAB to fire me because of my blog--which I wrote on my own time, with my own resources, and it had nothing to do with UAB.
Was Dax Swatek involved in my unlawful termination at UAB? Does he, at the very least, know who is behind it? We will be examining those questions closely in the days and weeks ahead.
Meanwhile, perhaps Eric Holder will be giving Dax and his GOP cohorts a case of tighty whities.
Obama's order, some observers are saying, is making certain Republicans very nervous. If that's the case, several of those Republicans are likely to be in Alabama.
What does the Obama executive order mean? Neil Eggleston, a White House counsel in the Clinton administration, told TPM Muckraker that the order appears to have been issued with ongoing cases in mind. These could include efforts to obtain records regarding the firings of U.S. attorneys and political prosecutions in the Bush Justice Department:
At its heart, said Eggleston, Obama's order is about "who gets to assert executive privilege." It says that former presidents can claim such privilege, but they have no automatic ability to prevent the release of their records if the current administration deems it to be in the national interest. . . .
In a sense, said Eggleston, it's a directive to the National Archivist. "It says: 'Archivist -- if Bush calls up and says don't release certain papers, don't listen to what he says, listen to what I say.'"
How concerned are Republicans about the order? Within minutes of its release, they announced that they would hold up the confirmation of attorney-general nominee Eric Holder for at least a week.
Daily Kos diarist "dengre" is an authority on the Jack Abramoff scandal, and he said the confirmation of Holder, plus the Obama executive order, could shine significant light on the Abramoff case and its many tentacles--which spread deeply into Alabama and Mississippi.
Speaking of Alabama, "dengre" notes that a Holder confirmation, on top of the Obama executive order, could lead to the truth about apparent political prosecutions, such as the one involving former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
What if Holder is confirmed, and he is able to use the Obama executive order to unearth documents about possible criminal activity connected to the Bush administration? Who are some of the Alabama Republicans who might find this news distressing?
The list is lengthy, and it includes some of our central characters at Legal Schnauzer:
* Gov. Bob Riley, whose campaign was found to have received $13 million in Mississippi Choctaw gambling money from Abramoff;
* Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary and Rob Riley (Bob Riley's son), who according to sworn testimony from whistleblower Jill Simpson, were involved in a conspiracy to arrange a bogus prosecution of Siegelman;
* U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary (Bill Canary's wife), who both initiated prosecutions against Siegelman that appear to have been politically motivated;
* GOP "consultant" Dax Swatek who served as campaign manager both for Alice Martin and Bob Riley and has documented ties to Abramoff. For good measure, Dax Swatek is the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" character in our Legal Schnauzer story. His fingerprints are everywhere on this blog, mainly because his father, William E. Swatek, is the corrupt Alabama lawyer who filed the bogus lawsuit against me that started my legal sojourn. I started this blog in order to expose the dirty deeds of Bill Swatek and corrupt GOP judges in Alabama state courts. As a result, Alabama authorities threatened to seize my home and did place an unlawful sheriff's deed on it. Also, evidence clearly shows that someone pressured UAB to fire me because of my blog--which I wrote on my own time, with my own resources, and it had nothing to do with UAB.
Was Dax Swatek involved in my unlawful termination at UAB? Does he, at the very least, know who is behind it? We will be examining those questions closely in the days and weeks ahead.
Meanwhile, perhaps Eric Holder will be giving Dax and his GOP cohorts a case of tighty whities.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Why I'm P----d Off At Artur Davis
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) has long tried to align himself with Barack Obama. So it is ironic that Davis' thoughtless comments in a book about Obama might have derailed any hopes the congressman had of being elected Alabama's governor in 2010.
Quotes in Gwen Ifill's The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama reveal Davis to be a calculating politician who cares more about his career arc than matters of right and wrong. And they indicate that Davis' high-profile service on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee was done mostly for show rather than from a genuine desire to get to the bottom of the apparent politicization of the U.S. Justice Department under George W. Bush.
Perhaps most disturbing is the indication that Davis isn't remotely interested in ensuring that wrongdoers in the Bush administration are held accountable.
As someone who has suffered greatly because of Republican goons associated with the Bush DOJ, I find Davis' words patently offensive. And from where I sit, it appears that Davis has spent so much time in the rarefied air of Washington, D.C., that he's lost all sense of how public corruption harms real people--not to mention our very democracy.
It's hard to determine which of Davis' statements is most offensive. But here are two that jump out to me:
* He expects most Alabamians to ignore the Siegelman "controversy"--Let's see, Congressman, let's consider other issues Alabamians are likely to ignore: global warming, war crimes, gun violence, Middle East unrest, income disparity, growing rates of obesity and infant mortality, regressive taxation, an antiquated and racist constitution, insufficient funding of basic state services . . . we could go on and on. But you get the idea; Alabamians ignore a lot of issues. Does that mean none of them are worthy of your attention? Have you ever heard of leadership, of trying to education the public about issues that should be important to them? And by the way, the Siegelman case is not a "controversy." The alleged transaction between Siegelman and Richard Scrushy was not a bribe under the law, the judge gave the jury unlawful instructions, and the whole charade was orchestrated by Karl Rove, Bill Canary and other GOP goons to imprison a Democrat they could not beat at the ballot box. Evidence, public documents, and sworn statements show that there is nothing "controversial" about the Siegelman case; he was railroaded, simple as that. The only controversy is whether congressmen like you are going to make a serious attempt to get at the truth.
* He is counting on the Siegelman case to "fade away" well before 2010--Is Davis serious? The Siegelman case is the best known example of political prosecution, but it is hardly the only one. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania are among many others. And that doesn't even get into the Bush administration's firings of nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons. The Siegelman case is part of a much larger criminal pattern that cannot possibly be resolved well before 2010. Is your solution to public wrongs to hope they "fade away," Congressman? Should Americans hope that memories of Watergate fade away? Should Jews let memories of the Holocaust fade away? Was Martin Luther King driven by a desire to see that wrongs committed against blacks would "fade away?" Your shallowness and self-centeredness is sickening at a time when Barack Obama is trying to bring real change to America, to appeal to our better natures, to hold government and individuals accountable. You apparently just appeal to what is convenient and expedient--for you.
By the way, what's with this statement that you "barely know" Don Siegelman? Are you so desperate to win favor with white conservative voters that you will sell out one of the state's most popular Democrats? Don't think that's a smart track toward gaining your party's nomination for governor.
And what does it matter that you "barely know" Don Siegelman? How is that relevant? Crimes committed by Bush officials only matter if the victim is someone you know well?
I imagine you don't know Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi at all. But prosecutors under the direction of Bush goon Alice Martin intentionally ruined his prosperous business with a bogus investigation, apparently because Mr. Latifi is of Iranian descent and a supporter of the Democratic Party. Does the pain Mr. Latifi has suffered matter to you? What about his employees who have been put out of work because of Alice Martin? Do they matter?
You certainly don't know me and my wife, Mrs. Schnauzer. But it might be interesting for you to meet with us, so we could show you what we've experienced from our efforts to expose corruption in Alabama state courts and tie it in with the larger Bush DOJ story. Here are just a few things we could show you:
* A copy of the case file in which a neighbor with a lengthy criminal record filed a lawsuit against me that was so bogus it had to be dismissed in a few months time. The file would show you how Republican judges in Shelby County repeatedly made unlawful rulings to keep the case going, costing us and taxpayers thousands of dollars.
* A copy of the disciplinary history of William E. Swatek, the attorney who filed the bogus lawsuit. Swatek has a 30-year history of unethical actions, including a suspension of his license, but Alabama judges protect him like fine china. Why? Because his son, Dax Swatek, is a GOP "consultant" with ties to Bill Canary and Karl Rove.
* A copy of the bogus sheriff's deed Bill Swatek had placed on our house in an effort to stop me from blogging about GOP corruption in Alabama.
* Copies of numerous anonymous threats I've received on my blog, including one specifically threatening my job at UAB.
* Documents that I was unlawfully terminated at UAB, and it was driven by pressure from Alabama GOP powerbrokers.
* A copy of our credit history before these legal problems began and copies of the charming communications we now receive from third-party debt buyers because our lives' savings have been essentially stolen by corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama.
This is just a small portion of what we could show you. It would illustrate what can happen to real people when they stand up to the corrupt Bushies who have turned our justice system into a political weapon.
But you probably aren't interested, are you? Your weak attempt at an explanation in today's Birmingham News falls terribly flat with me. You say you want to avoid any confusion over your views on "an important matter." If the matter is so important, why do you want it to fade away?
I agree that Ifill's book is "insightful"--very insightful on what you are really all about.
Don Siegelman has repeatedly said his case is not just about him. It is about a broken justice system that can harm any citizen. "If they can do this to me, as former governor of the state, they can do it to you," Siegelman has said.
That's not just a theoretical statement here at Legal Schnauzer. We know from firsthand experience that Siegelman is right on target.
So Congressman, what about the regular people whose lives have been brought to the edge of ruin by a corrupt Justice Department? Do they matter to you? Or do you hope we will fade away?
Do you have the spine required to actually lead the people of Alabama? Doesn't look like it at this point.
Here's an idea: If you get tired of serving in Congress and can't earn the governorship, why don't you try to become president of UAB. The university's current leaders take their directions from the Bill Canary/Bob Riley/Alice Martin axis of evil.
Heck, the University of Alabama System's chancellor, Malcolm Portera, is a prominent member of Canary's Business Council of Alabama. Based on the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, Canary has turned the BCA into little more than a criminal syndicate. But does that concern Portera? Nah.
UAB's leaders have proven they have no conscience, and your statements to Gwen Ifill indicate you don't have much of a conscience either. You should fit right in with the UAB crowd.
Quotes in Gwen Ifill's The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama reveal Davis to be a calculating politician who cares more about his career arc than matters of right and wrong. And they indicate that Davis' high-profile service on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee was done mostly for show rather than from a genuine desire to get to the bottom of the apparent politicization of the U.S. Justice Department under George W. Bush.
Perhaps most disturbing is the indication that Davis isn't remotely interested in ensuring that wrongdoers in the Bush administration are held accountable.
As someone who has suffered greatly because of Republican goons associated with the Bush DOJ, I find Davis' words patently offensive. And from where I sit, it appears that Davis has spent so much time in the rarefied air of Washington, D.C., that he's lost all sense of how public corruption harms real people--not to mention our very democracy.
It's hard to determine which of Davis' statements is most offensive. But here are two that jump out to me:
* He expects most Alabamians to ignore the Siegelman "controversy"--Let's see, Congressman, let's consider other issues Alabamians are likely to ignore: global warming, war crimes, gun violence, Middle East unrest, income disparity, growing rates of obesity and infant mortality, regressive taxation, an antiquated and racist constitution, insufficient funding of basic state services . . . we could go on and on. But you get the idea; Alabamians ignore a lot of issues. Does that mean none of them are worthy of your attention? Have you ever heard of leadership, of trying to education the public about issues that should be important to them? And by the way, the Siegelman case is not a "controversy." The alleged transaction between Siegelman and Richard Scrushy was not a bribe under the law, the judge gave the jury unlawful instructions, and the whole charade was orchestrated by Karl Rove, Bill Canary and other GOP goons to imprison a Democrat they could not beat at the ballot box. Evidence, public documents, and sworn statements show that there is nothing "controversial" about the Siegelman case; he was railroaded, simple as that. The only controversy is whether congressmen like you are going to make a serious attempt to get at the truth.
* He is counting on the Siegelman case to "fade away" well before 2010--Is Davis serious? The Siegelman case is the best known example of political prosecution, but it is hardly the only one. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania are among many others. And that doesn't even get into the Bush administration's firings of nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons. The Siegelman case is part of a much larger criminal pattern that cannot possibly be resolved well before 2010. Is your solution to public wrongs to hope they "fade away," Congressman? Should Americans hope that memories of Watergate fade away? Should Jews let memories of the Holocaust fade away? Was Martin Luther King driven by a desire to see that wrongs committed against blacks would "fade away?" Your shallowness and self-centeredness is sickening at a time when Barack Obama is trying to bring real change to America, to appeal to our better natures, to hold government and individuals accountable. You apparently just appeal to what is convenient and expedient--for you.
By the way, what's with this statement that you "barely know" Don Siegelman? Are you so desperate to win favor with white conservative voters that you will sell out one of the state's most popular Democrats? Don't think that's a smart track toward gaining your party's nomination for governor.
And what does it matter that you "barely know" Don Siegelman? How is that relevant? Crimes committed by Bush officials only matter if the victim is someone you know well?
I imagine you don't know Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi at all. But prosecutors under the direction of Bush goon Alice Martin intentionally ruined his prosperous business with a bogus investigation, apparently because Mr. Latifi is of Iranian descent and a supporter of the Democratic Party. Does the pain Mr. Latifi has suffered matter to you? What about his employees who have been put out of work because of Alice Martin? Do they matter?
You certainly don't know me and my wife, Mrs. Schnauzer. But it might be interesting for you to meet with us, so we could show you what we've experienced from our efforts to expose corruption in Alabama state courts and tie it in with the larger Bush DOJ story. Here are just a few things we could show you:
* A copy of the case file in which a neighbor with a lengthy criminal record filed a lawsuit against me that was so bogus it had to be dismissed in a few months time. The file would show you how Republican judges in Shelby County repeatedly made unlawful rulings to keep the case going, costing us and taxpayers thousands of dollars.
* A copy of the disciplinary history of William E. Swatek, the attorney who filed the bogus lawsuit. Swatek has a 30-year history of unethical actions, including a suspension of his license, but Alabama judges protect him like fine china. Why? Because his son, Dax Swatek, is a GOP "consultant" with ties to Bill Canary and Karl Rove.
* A copy of the bogus sheriff's deed Bill Swatek had placed on our house in an effort to stop me from blogging about GOP corruption in Alabama.
* Copies of numerous anonymous threats I've received on my blog, including one specifically threatening my job at UAB.
* Documents that I was unlawfully terminated at UAB, and it was driven by pressure from Alabama GOP powerbrokers.
* A copy of our credit history before these legal problems began and copies of the charming communications we now receive from third-party debt buyers because our lives' savings have been essentially stolen by corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama.
This is just a small portion of what we could show you. It would illustrate what can happen to real people when they stand up to the corrupt Bushies who have turned our justice system into a political weapon.
But you probably aren't interested, are you? Your weak attempt at an explanation in today's Birmingham News falls terribly flat with me. You say you want to avoid any confusion over your views on "an important matter." If the matter is so important, why do you want it to fade away?
I agree that Ifill's book is "insightful"--very insightful on what you are really all about.
Don Siegelman has repeatedly said his case is not just about him. It is about a broken justice system that can harm any citizen. "If they can do this to me, as former governor of the state, they can do it to you," Siegelman has said.
That's not just a theoretical statement here at Legal Schnauzer. We know from firsthand experience that Siegelman is right on target.
So Congressman, what about the regular people whose lives have been brought to the edge of ruin by a corrupt Justice Department? Do they matter to you? Or do you hope we will fade away?
Do you have the spine required to actually lead the people of Alabama? Doesn't look like it at this point.
Here's an idea: If you get tired of serving in Congress and can't earn the governorship, why don't you try to become president of UAB. The university's current leaders take their directions from the Bill Canary/Bob Riley/Alice Martin axis of evil.
Heck, the University of Alabama System's chancellor, Malcolm Portera, is a prominent member of Canary's Business Council of Alabama. Based on the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, Canary has turned the BCA into little more than a criminal syndicate. But does that concern Portera? Nah.
UAB's leaders have proven they have no conscience, and your statements to Gwen Ifill indicate you don't have much of a conscience either. You should fit right in with the UAB crowd.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Does Artur Davis Care More About Politics Than Justice?
Some disturbing comments from U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) come to light today, raising this question: Does Davis really care about getting to the bottom of corruption in the Bush Justice Department?
A number of Alabama Democrats have raised questions about Davis' commitment to ensuring that justice is done in the Don Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions under Bush. Critics also have pointed out that Davis has taken money from business interests in an apparent effort to seek favor with white voters for a possible run at the governor's office in 2010.
Davis' comments, published in Gwen Ifill's new book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, add fuel to charges that he is less a man of principle and more a political opportunist.
According to Ifill, Davis seems concerned that the Siegelman case could harm his chances at running for governor, apparently because it would anger white, pro-business voters. Davis says he expects most Alabamians to ignore the Siegelman case, and he is "counting on it to fade away well before 2010."
Fade away? Doesn't exactly sound like a guy who is determined to see that justice is done and wrongdoers in the Bush DOJ are held accountable does it?
Davis claims he had no choice but to support a congressional inquiry into the Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions. As for Siegelman himself, Davis says, "Barely know him, barely know him."
Is Davis presenting a profile in courage here? Not hardly.
Alabama blogger and cyber journalist Glynn Wilson has raised questions about Davis' commitment to progressive ideas and the cause of justice. Davis' comments in the Ifill book indicate that Wilson is onto something.
Consider these stinging words from a Wilson post at the Locust Fork Journal in December 2008:
Some Democrats say Davis had to be “dragged kicking and screaming” into the (Siegelman) investigation, and to get a green light from Alabama Power Company to do it. Davis said the committee did ask for a contempt citation against Karl Rove, but he blamed it on “the leadership” in the House for not scheduling a vote in the full Congress. He said there would be time in the next Congress to continue the investigation, as indicated by the Senate Judiciary Committee press secretary in a recent story. But he would not give a clear indication he is pushing the issue.
“Look, I think everybody — except The Birmingham News – knew there was a taint and a cloud of suspicion around the Siegelman prosecution all along,” Davis said. He said “it will be up to the Eleventh U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta to decide the fate of Siegelman and Scrushy,” although he indicated the court’s decision could influence Congress in its investigation.
For his lack of a clear stance on that, and the recent information that has come to light about his close ties to Bill and Leura Canary in Montgomery, Davis has angered many of Siegelman’s supporters. And now charges are flying that Davis actually protected both Bill Canary, the head of the conservative Business Council of Alabama, and his wife Leura, the U.S. attorney who brought charges against Siegelman in Montgomery, by not pushing for them to be called or subpoenaed to testify before the committee in Washington. Attorneys across the state are still talking about the allegation that Davis is trying to figure out a way to help keep Canary on as U.S. attorney in Montgomery, even though Davis recently denied it on a left-wing political blog rather than offer direct answers to our questions.
Financial disclosure forms show that Davis has taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions form the Canarys over the years, far more than other Democrats. An analysis of his campaign contributions also reveals that only 8 percent of his money comes from Alabama, while much of it comes from New York and the lobby associated with the PAC advocating for the State of Israel.
A number of Alabama Democrats have raised questions about Davis' commitment to ensuring that justice is done in the Don Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions under Bush. Critics also have pointed out that Davis has taken money from business interests in an apparent effort to seek favor with white voters for a possible run at the governor's office in 2010.
Davis' comments, published in Gwen Ifill's new book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, add fuel to charges that he is less a man of principle and more a political opportunist.
According to Ifill, Davis seems concerned that the Siegelman case could harm his chances at running for governor, apparently because it would anger white, pro-business voters. Davis says he expects most Alabamians to ignore the Siegelman case, and he is "counting on it to fade away well before 2010."
Fade away? Doesn't exactly sound like a guy who is determined to see that justice is done and wrongdoers in the Bush DOJ are held accountable does it?
Davis claims he had no choice but to support a congressional inquiry into the Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions. As for Siegelman himself, Davis says, "Barely know him, barely know him."
Is Davis presenting a profile in courage here? Not hardly.
Alabama blogger and cyber journalist Glynn Wilson has raised questions about Davis' commitment to progressive ideas and the cause of justice. Davis' comments in the Ifill book indicate that Wilson is onto something.
Consider these stinging words from a Wilson post at the Locust Fork Journal in December 2008:
Some Democrats say Davis had to be “dragged kicking and screaming” into the (Siegelman) investigation, and to get a green light from Alabama Power Company to do it. Davis said the committee did ask for a contempt citation against Karl Rove, but he blamed it on “the leadership” in the House for not scheduling a vote in the full Congress. He said there would be time in the next Congress to continue the investigation, as indicated by the Senate Judiciary Committee press secretary in a recent story. But he would not give a clear indication he is pushing the issue.
“Look, I think everybody — except The Birmingham News – knew there was a taint and a cloud of suspicion around the Siegelman prosecution all along,” Davis said. He said “it will be up to the Eleventh U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Atlanta to decide the fate of Siegelman and Scrushy,” although he indicated the court’s decision could influence Congress in its investigation.
For his lack of a clear stance on that, and the recent information that has come to light about his close ties to Bill and Leura Canary in Montgomery, Davis has angered many of Siegelman’s supporters. And now charges are flying that Davis actually protected both Bill Canary, the head of the conservative Business Council of Alabama, and his wife Leura, the U.S. attorney who brought charges against Siegelman in Montgomery, by not pushing for them to be called or subpoenaed to testify before the committee in Washington. Attorneys across the state are still talking about the allegation that Davis is trying to figure out a way to help keep Canary on as U.S. attorney in Montgomery, even though Davis recently denied it on a left-wing political blog rather than offer direct answers to our questions.
Financial disclosure forms show that Davis has taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions form the Canarys over the years, far more than other Democrats. An analysis of his campaign contributions also reveals that only 8 percent of his money comes from Alabama, while much of it comes from New York and the lobby associated with the PAC advocating for the State of Israel.
Davis fired back on some of these charges at Left in Alabama. But his comments in Ifill's book leave us with these questions: Does Artur Davis really stand for something, other than seeking business support so he can become governor of Alabama? Were his actions on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee intentionally limited and intended for show?
One thing is certain: With his comments in Ifill's book, Davis has seriously alienated a number of progressives, liberals, and Siegelman supporters in Alabama. That alienation is chronicled in a Glynn Wilson post this afternoon at Locust Fork Journal.
Davis seems to have positioned himself as the "Barack Obama of Alabama." And many progressives have held high hopes for him. But more and more, he seems like a mushy middle-of-the-roader who is eager to kiss up to the business and political interests who have turned Alabama into a corrupt cesspool.
Perhaps Artur Davis needs to give some thought to whose side he really is on--and what he really believes.Did Alice Martin Win a Case and Lose Her Mind?
Alabama State Sen. E.B. McClain and the Rev. Samuel Pettagrue each were convicted on corruption charges yesterday in federal court in Birmingham.
But the big story of the day was a comment from Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, a Bush appointee, and the lead prosecutor in the case.
"This sends a very strong message that these kinds of cases will be dealt with (through) tough prosecutions," Martin said after the verdict was announced. "We look forward to trying to clean up the Alabama Senate."
Martin's comment is curious on several levels. As we have reported on a couple of occasions, she apparently has no intention of submitting her resignation, as is customary for U.S. attorneys when presidential administration's change hands. And Scott Horton reported at The Daily Beast that Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has joined Martin in trying to stay on during a Barack Obama administration.
Martin's statement about trying "to clean up the Alabama Senate" indicates that she plans to be in office for quite some time. Has no one told Martin that she is a Bush appointee, and the Bush administration ended on Tuesday? Is Martin delusional or have she and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (D-AL) figured out a way to hoodwink the Obama crowd into keeping Martin on for another year or more?
Here's another question raised by Martin's quote: Has she suddenly obtained jurisdiction over all of Alabama? Last time I checked, Alabama has three U.S. attorneys-- in a Northern District, Middle District, and Southern District. Only a portion of Alabama state senators reside in Martin's district--I'm guessing roughly a third of them. So how is Martin going to clean out the State Senate on her own?
Such a plan would require cooperation from the other two U.S. attorneys. And that raises this question: If such a statewide plan exists, who put it together? Who has the authority to develop a strategy to clean up the Alabama Senate? If Martin & Co. are interested in cleaning up state government, why is only the legislative branch in their cross hairs? What about the executive and judicial branches?
Oh wait, those branches are controlled by Republicans.
What about McClain and Pettagrue? It's possible they are scoundrels who got what they deserved. But regardless of how strong the evidence might have been against them, it seems clear they will have strong grounds for appeal.
As we noted in a recent post, there are hazards to having federal prosecutors with questionable ethics. Martin is under investigation by multiple federal agencies. What if it is found that she indeed targeted Democratic officials for political prosecutions? What if she faces professional sanctions, such as disbarment? What if she is found to have participated in a criminal conspiracy?
This would mean the McClain/Pettagrue case was one of several tainted prosecutions in Martin's district, and it would give them strong grounds for having the verdict overturned.
While we're at it, let's compare the apparent wrongdoing involving McClain and Pettagrue to possible wrongdoing committed by Martin. McClain and Pettagrue were convicted for engaging in a bribery scheme involving about $300,000. At least two investigations by Martin--one involving former Governor Don Siegelman and one involving Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi--have already been found to be bogus in courts of law.
How many hundreds of thousands of dollars--more likely millions--have been wasted on such investigations under Martin? Who really is cheating the taxpayer here?
One final point: From my experience with corrupt Republicans, I've learned that they are stupid crooks. They don't even make decent attempts to hide their tracks. For example, Alice Martin pretty much admits in her quotes after the McClain trial that she has targeted the Alabama Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. And she hints that this is a statewide,
coordinated effort. Whoever is behind that almost certainly is using the U.S. Justice Department in an unlawful manner, for political purposes.
So while trumpeting her conviction of E.B. McClain, Alice Martin reveals an awful lot about herself.
But the big story of the day was a comment from Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, a Bush appointee, and the lead prosecutor in the case.
"This sends a very strong message that these kinds of cases will be dealt with (through) tough prosecutions," Martin said after the verdict was announced. "We look forward to trying to clean up the Alabama Senate."
Martin's comment is curious on several levels. As we have reported on a couple of occasions, she apparently has no intention of submitting her resignation, as is customary for U.S. attorneys when presidential administration's change hands. And Scott Horton reported at The Daily Beast that Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has joined Martin in trying to stay on during a Barack Obama administration.
Martin's statement about trying "to clean up the Alabama Senate" indicates that she plans to be in office for quite some time. Has no one told Martin that she is a Bush appointee, and the Bush administration ended on Tuesday? Is Martin delusional or have she and U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (D-AL) figured out a way to hoodwink the Obama crowd into keeping Martin on for another year or more?
Here's another question raised by Martin's quote: Has she suddenly obtained jurisdiction over all of Alabama? Last time I checked, Alabama has three U.S. attorneys-- in a Northern District, Middle District, and Southern District. Only a portion of Alabama state senators reside in Martin's district--I'm guessing roughly a third of them. So how is Martin going to clean out the State Senate on her own?
Such a plan would require cooperation from the other two U.S. attorneys. And that raises this question: If such a statewide plan exists, who put it together? Who has the authority to develop a strategy to clean up the Alabama Senate? If Martin & Co. are interested in cleaning up state government, why is only the legislative branch in their cross hairs? What about the executive and judicial branches?
Oh wait, those branches are controlled by Republicans.
What about McClain and Pettagrue? It's possible they are scoundrels who got what they deserved. But regardless of how strong the evidence might have been against them, it seems clear they will have strong grounds for appeal.
As we noted in a recent post, there are hazards to having federal prosecutors with questionable ethics. Martin is under investigation by multiple federal agencies. What if it is found that she indeed targeted Democratic officials for political prosecutions? What if she faces professional sanctions, such as disbarment? What if she is found to have participated in a criminal conspiracy?
This would mean the McClain/Pettagrue case was one of several tainted prosecutions in Martin's district, and it would give them strong grounds for having the verdict overturned.
While we're at it, let's compare the apparent wrongdoing involving McClain and Pettagrue to possible wrongdoing committed by Martin. McClain and Pettagrue were convicted for engaging in a bribery scheme involving about $300,000. At least two investigations by Martin--one involving former Governor Don Siegelman and one involving Huntsville businessman Alex Latifi--have already been found to be bogus in courts of law.
How many hundreds of thousands of dollars--more likely millions--have been wasted on such investigations under Martin? Who really is cheating the taxpayer here?
One final point: From my experience with corrupt Republicans, I've learned that they are stupid crooks. They don't even make decent attempts to hide their tracks. For example, Alice Martin pretty much admits in her quotes after the McClain trial that she has targeted the Alabama Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. And she hints that this is a statewide,
coordinated effort. Whoever is behind that almost certainly is using the U.S. Justice Department in an unlawful manner, for political purposes.
So while trumpeting her conviction of E.B. McClain, Alice Martin reveals an awful lot about herself.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Bushies Who Came to Dinner--And Wouldn't Leave
We recently reported about U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and her efforts to stay on under the Barack Obama administration so she can lead prosecutions against Democratic evildoers in her Alabama district.
Now we learn that Martin is not the only Bush prosecutor who is clinging to the reigns of power for dear life. Scott Horton, of The Daily Beast, reports that Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan also is refusing to leave office.
Buchanan is borrowing a page from the Martin playbook, arguing that her district around Pittsburgh is so beset with crooked Democrats that she has to stay on to clean out the vermin.
Traditionally, U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and those who are on board turn in their resignations when administrations change hands. Word of that tradition apparently never reached Martin and Buchanan. Reports Horton:
U.S. attorneys Buchanan and Martin appear girded to make a last stand like Japanese soldiers who never got word that the war was over.
Now we learn that Martin is not the only Bush prosecutor who is clinging to the reigns of power for dear life. Scott Horton, of The Daily Beast, reports that Pennsylvania U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan also is refusing to leave office.
Buchanan is borrowing a page from the Martin playbook, arguing that her district around Pittsburgh is so beset with crooked Democrats that she has to stay on to clean out the vermin.
Traditionally, U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and those who are on board turn in their resignations when administrations change hands. Word of that tradition apparently never reached Martin and Buchanan. Reports Horton:
U.S. attorneys Buchanan and Martin appear girded to make a last stand like Japanese soldiers who never got word that the war was over.
I don't normally laugh when reading about corrupt Bush appointees. But that line made me guffaw. Horton reports that last month Buchanan released a letter stating that she had no intention of submitting her resignation.
So what gives with Buchanan? Horton clues us in:
An ideologically committed Federalist Society member, Buchanan is close to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who actively promoted her as U.S. attorney. Following her appointment in 2001, Buchanan quickly gained the favor and approval of the White House. In the key period of 2004-05, while groundwork was laid for what later became the U.S. attorney's scandal, Buchanan served as director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the key position at Justice that oversaw all the 94 U.S. attorneys. A later internal Justice Department probe, in which Buchanan figures prominently, highlights the role played by that office in Karl Rove’s plan to sack U.S. attorneys.
Buchanan is best known for two cases. One involved the prosecution of Tommy Chong, of Cheech and Chong fame, because of a company founded and run by his son. Never mind that Chong had no criminal record and his activities were not considered criminal by many legal experts. The case was the subject of a popular 2005 documentary titled a/k/a Tommy Chong.
The second case involved Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the country's most prominent medical examiners and a frequent guest on news shows. The case against Wecht involves, among other things, allegations that he used his office phone and fax machine for personal matters. We're not making this up, folks!
Wecht's first trial ended in a hung jury, and Buchanan cites the need to prosecute him again as one reason for staying on.
As for Martin, Horton notes her thirst for political-corruption cases--as long as the targets are Democrats. Some of her most high-profile cases involve Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, state representative Sue Schmitz, and state senator E.B. McClain. "She is reported to be preparing charges against as many as a dozen other Democratic members of the state legislature," Horton reports.
This would appear to dovetail nicely with the Alabama Republican Party's stated plans to take over the state legislature in 2010. But the clock seems to have struck midnight on Queen Alice's plan to rid Alabama of people who might be a little bit liberal. So many Democrats, so little time!
As you might expect from a loyal Bushie, Martin appears to be playing politics up to the last minute--and beyond:
Martin previously coveted an appointment as a federal judge, but her efforts fell flat, largely as a result of mounting questions over her prosecutorial record. With the new administration approaching, she made clear her desire to hold on to her post as U.S. attorney for another year of prosecutions. Her Kafkaesque argument: she is targeting corrupt Democratic politicians and investigating others. Therefore, her removal under these circumstances and replacement by an Obama appointee would be “unseemly.” Martin has enlisted the support of Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a member of the Judiciary Committee, in her bid to become a holdover. Alabama Democrats, however, led by Cong. Artur Davis do not cotton to Martin’s scheme. They recently sent the Obama transition team a slate of recommendations, focusing on candidates with strong federal prosecutorial experience and a minimum of political baggage.
Like the true believers in a misguided crusade, Martin and Buchanan are hunkering down for one final battle:
Buchanan and Martin seem to be bucking for a fight. Do they want to be fired? So far, it looks like they’re daring Obama to fire them. The fireworks may last beyond Inauguration Day.
If the Obama crowd is reluctant to pull the switch on these two, I'm guessing they will find no shortage of volunteers willing to do it for them. In fact, I know of a certain Legal Schnauzer who would battle for a spot near the front of the line.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Barack Obama and the Audacity of Hoops
As Americans watched the inauguration today of our 44th president, many probably wondered: "What is this guy all about?"
The sense of mystery is heightened by the fact that Barack Obama has a peculiar name, and he is our first African-American president.
So what is Barack Obama all about? Many words already have been written on that subject. And many more undoubtedly will be written in the months and years ahead.
But my favorite article about the "essence" of our new president can be found in, of all places, the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated. "The Audacity of Hoops," by longtime SI staff writer Alexander Wolff, is a superb piece of reporting and analysis, mixing personal and national history, psychology, sociology, geography, politics, and, yes, sports--in this case, Obama's long fascination with basketball.
Basketball has played a central role in Obama's development, and Craig Robinson has held a front-row seat. Robinson is Michelle Obama's older brother and our new president's brother-in-law. He also has some serious hoops "cred." The 6-6 Robinson was a two-time Ivy League Player of the Year at Princeton University and played professionally in Europe. He was head coach at Brown University before taking over at Oregon State last April.
What has basketball meant to Obama. The sport, Robinson says, is why Obama is "sitting where he's sitting."
Here's how Wolff puts it:
The game provided space in which the young Obama explored his identity as an African-American. He won a reputation as a consensus builder while playing recreationally in college and law school. A pickup game with Robinson did nothing less than confirm Obama as a worthy suitor to his wife-to-be. In Chicago, basketball helped him connect with the South Siders he worked with as a community organizer and with the circle of professionals who would help launch his political career. He began to scratch out notes for his 2004 Democratic Convention speech, the one that loosed his career from the D league of state politics, while in a hotel room watching the NBA on TNT.
As for the two reddest states Obama flipped in the '08 general election, Indiana and North Carolina, each narrowly chose him after he made a basketball lover's case to basketball-loving people.
And here is Obama in pickup action on the campaign trail in Indiana:
The sense of mystery is heightened by the fact that Barack Obama has a peculiar name, and he is our first African-American president.
So what is Barack Obama all about? Many words already have been written on that subject. And many more undoubtedly will be written in the months and years ahead.
But my favorite article about the "essence" of our new president can be found in, of all places, the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated. "The Audacity of Hoops," by longtime SI staff writer Alexander Wolff, is a superb piece of reporting and analysis, mixing personal and national history, psychology, sociology, geography, politics, and, yes, sports--in this case, Obama's long fascination with basketball.
Basketball has played a central role in Obama's development, and Craig Robinson has held a front-row seat. Robinson is Michelle Obama's older brother and our new president's brother-in-law. He also has some serious hoops "cred." The 6-6 Robinson was a two-time Ivy League Player of the Year at Princeton University and played professionally in Europe. He was head coach at Brown University before taking over at Oregon State last April.
What has basketball meant to Obama. The sport, Robinson says, is why Obama is "sitting where he's sitting."
Here's how Wolff puts it:
The game provided space in which the young Obama explored his identity as an African-American. He won a reputation as a consensus builder while playing recreationally in college and law school. A pickup game with Robinson did nothing less than confirm Obama as a worthy suitor to his wife-to-be. In Chicago, basketball helped him connect with the South Siders he worked with as a community organizer and with the circle of professionals who would help launch his political career. He began to scratch out notes for his 2004 Democratic Convention speech, the one that loosed his career from the D league of state politics, while in a hotel room watching the NBA on TNT.
As for the two reddest states Obama flipped in the '08 general election, Indiana and North Carolina, each narrowly chose him after he made a basketball lover's case to basketball-loving people.
All of this has special resonance here at Legal Schnauzer. Regular readers know that I am a sports fan and a former sportswriter. Basketball is, by far, my favorite team sport. In my mind, basketball is the greatest team sport ever invented, in part because it's the only one I can think of where every player, at some point, is going to have to apply every skill. Basketball has positions but no specialists. You might be a 7-foot center, but at some point you are going to have to handle the ball. You might be a 5-5 point guard, but at some point you are going to have to battle for rebounds under the hoop.
Basketball is perhaps our most democratic sport. No wonder Obama was drawn to it.
Like Obama, I had a modest high-school "career." He was a reserve on a 1979 state-championship team at Punahou School in Hawaii. I played four years of high-school ball, the last three at Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri. For much of that time, my fanny was firmly planted on the bench. During my two-year varsity career, I started six games, and those came only because a couple of guys got kicked off the team. My high-water mark was a 14-point outing against Jefferson City in 1974. When I did crack the scoreboard, my normal range was four to eight points.
Perhaps my greatest hoops accomplishment was scoring the first two baskets in Kickapoo High School history. I spent my freshman year at Glendale High School, and then was rezoned when our city's new school was built. Our first game was in November 1971 at Fort Smith Southside High School in Arkansas. As a sophomore, I was on the junior varsity, and we played before the varsity game that night.
For some reason, Southside left me wide open in the right corner on two of our first trips down the floor, and I hit both shots. Southside decided to guard me after that, and I didn't score again the rest of the game. In fact, I didn't start again the rest of that season.
To tell the whole story, my name probably is not in the Kickapoo High School record books. When folks think of the first basket in school history, they probably think of the varsity. And I think that basket was made by a fellow named Kirk May, who I think was a good enough athlete to play a little football at Duke University.
But chronologically speaking, the first two hoops in Kickapoo history belong to your very own Legal Schnauzer. Some might say I haven't accomplished a whole lot since that night, but that distinction will stay with me forever.
(Probably a more important distinction is that I went to the same high school as Brad Pitt. Brad is a 1982 Kickapoo grad, and both of my younger brothers knew him fairly well--or at least they claim they did. Brad might have had romances with Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Anniston. But I still have my historic two baskets, and I cling to them for dear life.)
While I treasure my time in organized basketball, my favorite memories are of countless pickup games--playing on driveways with neighborhood kids, playing on playgrounds or local gyms with high-school chums, playing in campus gyms with dorm friends in college, getting together on Saturday mornings with coworkers.
Obama, too, seems to cherish his times in "pickup" games. Wolff writes expertly about the social nature of pick-up basketball--and what Obama might have drawn from the game:
Pickup ballplayers don't talk as much as golfers during a round, but they more quickly reach judgments about temperament and collaborative aptitude. And there's the emotional containment that ballers learn to bring to the court, even if only to ensure that no one can sneak up behind you to see emotions... you didn't want them to see. Asked the boxers-versus-briefs question, Obama gave the pitch-perfect pickup baller's reply: "I don't answer those humiliating questions, but whichever one it is, I look good in 'em."
Organized basketball, particularly in high school, is an exercise in submission to social control. Pickup ball, by contrast, involves collective governance and constant conflict resolution. It is, to borrow Sarah Palin's phrase, community organizing in which everyone has "actual responsibilities." For all its associations with inner-city pathologies, pickup ball harks back to a traditional time, when kids weren't squired to playdates or stashed with third parties but made their way to the park on their own, picked teams and -- as Obama did -- grew up along the way.I, too, did a lot of growing up in pickup basketball games. And I learned that the give and take of playground hoops can teach a lot about right and wrong.
So what is our new president really like? I think Craig Robinson makes an important point:
"There's an ethical undertone in pickup that people miss," Robinson says. "The game has to be played fairly or it breaks down. You practice an honor code, making your own calls and giving them up. If Barack travels, he'll give it up, not sneak it by you. You play with hundreds of guys who'd never do that. It all gets back to how you can tell a guy's character on the court."
Obama's character now is playing out on a world stage. But when it comes to the "crunch time" of politics, remember that Obama already has experienced crunch time on the basketball court. And it shaped who he is.
Want to check out the future president in action? Here he is, making a layup and missing a free throw, in that 1979 Hawaii state championship game:
And here is Obama in pickup action on the campaign trail in Indiana:
Monday, January 19, 2009
Coach's Sex Life Takes Center Stage in Assault Case
Lawsuits are piling up in the assault case of University of Mississippi men's basketball coach Andy Kennedy. Even Kennedy's wife, Kimber, has joined the fray, making the couple's sex life--or lack thereof--an issue.
Andy Kennedy took the case into the civil realm by filing a defamation lawsuit against Mohamed Jiddou, the cab driver who claimed Kennedy assaulted him around 1 a.m. in mid December on a downtown Cincinnati street. For good measure, Kennedy also sued Michael Strother, a valet who backed up Jiddou's version of events.
Jiddou returned fire late last week by asking that Kennedy's lawsuit be dismissed and countersuing Kennedy for assault, ethnic intimidation, and filing of a frivolous lawsuit. My guess is that Strother also will file a countersuit any day.
The most intriguing entrant in the lawsuit fray is Kimber Kennedy, the coach's wife. She filed a loss-of-consortium lawsuit against Jiddou and Strother, claiming their statements regarding the criminal case have so distracted the coach that his "performance" at home has, ahem, suffered.
Kimber Kennedy's lawsuit has been a gift from heaven for headline writers and Web-site commenters. "Coach's Wife Sues, Claiming Lack of Playing Time" trumpets one headline. "Andy Kennedy's Wife has Lost That Loving Feeling" blares another.
One or two sites have run photos of Kimber Kennedy and raised the question: How could things possibly be so bad that he could lose interest in her? Suffice to say that Mrs. Kennedy is easy on the eyes.
At this point, perhaps I should state that our interest in the Kennedy case arises partly from the fact that I know a number of the central characters, including the coach himself. Andy Kennedy and two members of his staff are alumni of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer.
Kimber Kennedy, I believe, also has a degree from UAB, and she was a regular at Blazer games during Andy's playing days and a stint as an assistant coach. As numerous Web commenters have noted, she is an attractive woman, to put it mildly.
Andy Kennedy has known a lot of success on the basketball court, but let's say he is a major overachiever in the wife department. As a red-blooded American guy, I can think of quite a few adjectives to describe Kimber Kennedy and "scorching" is one of them.
In fact, I was telling Mrs. Schnauzer the other day about the loss-of-consortium lawsuit, and she was less than enthralled. "Why don't you tell me again how hot Kimber is," she said. "I didn't the get the idea the first 47 times you mentioned it."
Mrs. Schnauzer has a good sense of humor, thank God. Without that, I would have had a skillet firmly implanted in my cranium a long time ago.
Aside from the fact that Mrs. Kennedy looks good--did I mention that she's hot?--this case raises a number of interesting issues for us here at Legal Schnauzer. I like Andy Kennedy and have pulled for him in his coaching career. I've interviewed him numerous times and always found him to be engaging and thoughtful. But from where I sit, it appears the coach has screwed up big time.
A source with strong connections in college athletics tells me that Ole Miss officials had warned Kennedy about his drinking. I don't think it's so much a matter of Kennedy being a drunk. But he apparently had developed a habit of meeting friends for drinks after home games, and the sessions would sometimes become quite loud and boisterous. Oxford, Mississippi, is a small college town, and word had gotten back to administrators that Kennedy's behavior didn't look good.
The Kennedy case hits close to home for me, on several levels. I was the victim of a crime and then faced a bogus lawsuit because I sought to have it prosecuted. I also was the victim of an assault, and I know that is not a pleasant experience.
From where I sit, it appears the cab driver simply was trying to do his job and wound up with major legal headaches because of it. Likewise, Mrs. Schnauzer and I were trying to protect our property rights and wound up with legal headaches that eventually led to me losing my job at UAB.
Perhaps you can understand why my sympathies lie with the cab driver here. Andy Kennedy has shown a lot of promise as a basketball coach, and it would be unfortunate to see his career derailed by this incident. But I suspect the coach knows he's got a serious problem on his hands.
My guess is that the Kimber Kennedy lawsuit is an attempt at damage control.
A Cincinnati judge last week set a trial date of April 20 in the criminal case. But I feel certain Kennedy wants to make sure there never is a criminal trial. That's probably why he filed the lawsuit against Jiddou and Strother. The goal, I suspect, is to get the case into the civil arena and try to pay Jiddou and Strother enough settlement money that they will ask for the criminal case to be dropped. If that happens, Cincinnati prosecutors probably will go along with it and drop criminal charges.
So why the Kimber Kennedy lawsuit? Well, I'm not a lawyer--and I welcome insight from anyone who is a lawyer--but here's what I think is happening: Andy Kennedy knows that if a civil case is settled in his name, that might hurt him with future employers. And if he did ignore warnings from superiors about drinking, he might know that his job is in grave danger at Ole Miss.
If Kennedy suspects that he will be looking for another job come spring 2009, his wife's lawsuit might be geared toward helping keep his record clean for potential employers. For example, I'm guessing that Jiddou and Strother now will be forced to countersue Kimber Kennedy. That means that any settlement could be made in her name, and the Kennedys lawyer might insist that both the criminal and civil cases against Andy be dropped.
The lawyer probably made sure that Kimber Kennedy had liability insurance that would cover a settlement in her name. Without such coverage, the Kennedys would have to pay out of pocket, which might be worth it to save his coaching career.
Experience has taught me that lawsuits rarely are about truth and justice. They might start out that way, but they usually evolve into struggles about money, power, public relations, and positioning.
That's what appears to be happening in the Kennedy case. I wouldn't be surprised if Ole Miss has a new basketball coach in 2009-10. But if Kimber Kennedy helps her husband clear his name criminally and civilly, he can reach a better settlement with the school and improve his chances at getting another coaching job.
Meanwhile, Jiddou and Strother should get a nice chunk of change for their troubles. From where I sit, they deserve it.
Andy Kennedy took the case into the civil realm by filing a defamation lawsuit against Mohamed Jiddou, the cab driver who claimed Kennedy assaulted him around 1 a.m. in mid December on a downtown Cincinnati street. For good measure, Kennedy also sued Michael Strother, a valet who backed up Jiddou's version of events.
Jiddou returned fire late last week by asking that Kennedy's lawsuit be dismissed and countersuing Kennedy for assault, ethnic intimidation, and filing of a frivolous lawsuit. My guess is that Strother also will file a countersuit any day.
The most intriguing entrant in the lawsuit fray is Kimber Kennedy, the coach's wife. She filed a loss-of-consortium lawsuit against Jiddou and Strother, claiming their statements regarding the criminal case have so distracted the coach that his "performance" at home has, ahem, suffered.
Kimber Kennedy's lawsuit has been a gift from heaven for headline writers and Web-site commenters. "Coach's Wife Sues, Claiming Lack of Playing Time" trumpets one headline. "Andy Kennedy's Wife has Lost That Loving Feeling" blares another.
One or two sites have run photos of Kimber Kennedy and raised the question: How could things possibly be so bad that he could lose interest in her? Suffice to say that Mrs. Kennedy is easy on the eyes.
At this point, perhaps I should state that our interest in the Kennedy case arises partly from the fact that I know a number of the central characters, including the coach himself. Andy Kennedy and two members of his staff are alumni of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer.
Kimber Kennedy, I believe, also has a degree from UAB, and she was a regular at Blazer games during Andy's playing days and a stint as an assistant coach. As numerous Web commenters have noted, she is an attractive woman, to put it mildly.
Andy Kennedy has known a lot of success on the basketball court, but let's say he is a major overachiever in the wife department. As a red-blooded American guy, I can think of quite a few adjectives to describe Kimber Kennedy and "scorching" is one of them.
In fact, I was telling Mrs. Schnauzer the other day about the loss-of-consortium lawsuit, and she was less than enthralled. "Why don't you tell me again how hot Kimber is," she said. "I didn't the get the idea the first 47 times you mentioned it."
Mrs. Schnauzer has a good sense of humor, thank God. Without that, I would have had a skillet firmly implanted in my cranium a long time ago.
Aside from the fact that Mrs. Kennedy looks good--did I mention that she's hot?--this case raises a number of interesting issues for us here at Legal Schnauzer. I like Andy Kennedy and have pulled for him in his coaching career. I've interviewed him numerous times and always found him to be engaging and thoughtful. But from where I sit, it appears the coach has screwed up big time.
A source with strong connections in college athletics tells me that Ole Miss officials had warned Kennedy about his drinking. I don't think it's so much a matter of Kennedy being a drunk. But he apparently had developed a habit of meeting friends for drinks after home games, and the sessions would sometimes become quite loud and boisterous. Oxford, Mississippi, is a small college town, and word had gotten back to administrators that Kennedy's behavior didn't look good.
The Kennedy case hits close to home for me, on several levels. I was the victim of a crime and then faced a bogus lawsuit because I sought to have it prosecuted. I also was the victim of an assault, and I know that is not a pleasant experience.
From where I sit, it appears the cab driver simply was trying to do his job and wound up with major legal headaches because of it. Likewise, Mrs. Schnauzer and I were trying to protect our property rights and wound up with legal headaches that eventually led to me losing my job at UAB.
Perhaps you can understand why my sympathies lie with the cab driver here. Andy Kennedy has shown a lot of promise as a basketball coach, and it would be unfortunate to see his career derailed by this incident. But I suspect the coach knows he's got a serious problem on his hands.
My guess is that the Kimber Kennedy lawsuit is an attempt at damage control.
A Cincinnati judge last week set a trial date of April 20 in the criminal case. But I feel certain Kennedy wants to make sure there never is a criminal trial. That's probably why he filed the lawsuit against Jiddou and Strother. The goal, I suspect, is to get the case into the civil arena and try to pay Jiddou and Strother enough settlement money that they will ask for the criminal case to be dropped. If that happens, Cincinnati prosecutors probably will go along with it and drop criminal charges.
So why the Kimber Kennedy lawsuit? Well, I'm not a lawyer--and I welcome insight from anyone who is a lawyer--but here's what I think is happening: Andy Kennedy knows that if a civil case is settled in his name, that might hurt him with future employers. And if he did ignore warnings from superiors about drinking, he might know that his job is in grave danger at Ole Miss.
If Kennedy suspects that he will be looking for another job come spring 2009, his wife's lawsuit might be geared toward helping keep his record clean for potential employers. For example, I'm guessing that Jiddou and Strother now will be forced to countersue Kimber Kennedy. That means that any settlement could be made in her name, and the Kennedys lawyer might insist that both the criminal and civil cases against Andy be dropped.
The lawyer probably made sure that Kimber Kennedy had liability insurance that would cover a settlement in her name. Without such coverage, the Kennedys would have to pay out of pocket, which might be worth it to save his coaching career.
Experience has taught me that lawsuits rarely are about truth and justice. They might start out that way, but they usually evolve into struggles about money, power, public relations, and positioning.
That's what appears to be happening in the Kennedy case. I wouldn't be surprised if Ole Miss has a new basketball coach in 2009-10. But if Kimber Kennedy helps her husband clear his name criminally and civilly, he can reach a better settlement with the school and improve his chances at getting another coaching job.
Meanwhile, Jiddou and Strother should get a nice chunk of change for their troubles. From where I sit, they deserve it.
Heroes On the Hudson--And the Rest of the Story
News reports have been filled in recent days with stories about US Airways pilot Chesley Sullenberger and his heroic landing of a passenger jet on the Hudson River, saving the lives of all 155 people on board.
But the mainstream media has not focused on the backstory of these remarkable events. So let's take a behind-the-scenes look at what allowed the "Miracle on the Hudson" to take place.
The blog emptywheel expertly pointed out that almost all of the heroes in this story are union members. Ironic, isn't it, in an age when union membership is in steep decline and a certain political party routinely bashes unions in its campaign rhetoric.
Perhaps the next time we hear a round of union bashing, we should consider these points from emptywheel:
The pilots, the flight attendants, the air-traffic controllers, the ferry workers, the cops and firefighters . . . all were union members. In fact, the splendid headline on the post said it all: "This Miracle Brought to You By America's Unions."
And emptywheel notes just two of the Congressmen, including our very own Richard Shelby of Alabama, who have made a career from bashing unions:
Bob Corker and Richard Shelby like to claim that unions are a failed business model. But I haven't heard much about Bob Corker and Richard Shelby saving 155 people's lives.
In a similar vein, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow had a thought-provoking report about the "Miracle on the Hudson." In fact, Maddow's key point was that these heroic actions were not necessarily a miracle at all. They came about because of people who had been trained, because of competence, and regulation, and investment in infrastructures and safety systems that are designed to react in times of peril.
Maddow's guest was Stephen Flynn, homeland-security expert and author of The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation, a book about the need to fortify our nation's security.
You can check out the Maddow piece below. It is excellent viewing.
But the mainstream media has not focused on the backstory of these remarkable events. So let's take a behind-the-scenes look at what allowed the "Miracle on the Hudson" to take place.
The blog emptywheel expertly pointed out that almost all of the heroes in this story are union members. Ironic, isn't it, in an age when union membership is in steep decline and a certain political party routinely bashes unions in its campaign rhetoric.
Perhaps the next time we hear a round of union bashing, we should consider these points from emptywheel:
The pilots, the flight attendants, the air-traffic controllers, the ferry workers, the cops and firefighters . . . all were union members. In fact, the splendid headline on the post said it all: "This Miracle Brought to You By America's Unions."
And emptywheel notes just two of the Congressmen, including our very own Richard Shelby of Alabama, who have made a career from bashing unions:
Bob Corker and Richard Shelby like to claim that unions are a failed business model. But I haven't heard much about Bob Corker and Richard Shelby saving 155 people's lives.
In a similar vein, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow had a thought-provoking report about the "Miracle on the Hudson." In fact, Maddow's key point was that these heroic actions were not necessarily a miracle at all. They came about because of people who had been trained, because of competence, and regulation, and investment in infrastructures and safety systems that are designed to react in times of peril.
Maddow's guest was Stephen Flynn, homeland-security expert and author of The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation, a book about the need to fortify our nation's security.
You can check out the Maddow piece below. It is excellent viewing.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Why We Must Hold The Bush Crowd Accountable
President-Elect Barack Obama and attorney general-designate Eric Holder both have indicated in the past week that they are not anxious to investigate and prosecute possible crimes committed by members of the George W. Bush administration.
But three of our most eloquent voices on matters of justice say Obama and Holder are sending the wrong signals, particularly for an administration that purports to be about change. More importantly, they will be neglecting their duties if they let Bush & Co. get away with crimes.
Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley put it beautifully in an interview with Keith Olbermann on Friday night about the Holder confirmation hearings.
"Mr. Holder seems to be trying to find an exit where he won't have to apply the law to the former president," Turley said.
Turley was speaking primarily about war crimes, but his words could apply to any number of other possible misdeeds committed by members of the Bush administration. "This is one of the most transformative moments in our history," Turley said. "If we do nothing in the face of now-confirmed war crimes, they won't be Bush crimes; they'll be our crimes. . . . It becomes our shame."
Both Obama and Holder have said that no one is above the law. But they also seem to be saying that this is an inconvenient time to be looking into war crimes and other wrongdoing by the Bush administration. "War crimes are always inconvenient," Turley said. "If you say no one is above the law, you have to apply the law. . . . If you don't prosecute this president, it means some people are above the law."
Here is the complete Turley interview:
Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor at Harper's magazine, echoes Turley's sentiments in a piece titled "An Epitaph for the Bush Years." Comparing the Bush administration to a criminal enterprise, Horton writes:
What is the message to be carved over this massive cesspool of a failed presidency? I turn to Augustine, the early church father whose writings represent the first effort by a Christian theologian to come to grips with the duties of civil governance. "If it does not do justice," he writes in the City of God, "what is the government but a great criminal enterprise?" That fits the Bush Administration perfectly, for it shows its key failing and it serves as admonishment to the government that follows him.
Horton draws again on Augustine to drive home a critical point about the past eight years, focusing on the political prosecutions of the Bush years:
This provides one of the more spectacular demonstrations of Augustine's notion in modern American history, namely, when justice and the fidelity to law that manifests it is cast aside, political actors begin to behave increasingly like a band of thugs. That the Justice Department should emerge as the beating heart of a criminal enterprise is shocking, but that fact becomes more and more apparent with each successive disclosure.
Still more horrible are the political prosecutions brought abusing the good name of the United States. Today in the final hundred hours of the age of Bush, America has political prisoners—men like Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield, and for a while, Don Siegelman, locked away and silenced because they constituted a political threat to the Bush team, or simply because they held political offices that Karl Rove coveted. Rove steered these cases. Political prosecutions occurred in Alabama and Mississippi, in Michigan, and Pennsylvania; politically perverted investigations occurred in New York and elsewhere. And U.S. attorneys who failed to understand that the criminal justice process was now no more than a partisan weapon in the hands of Karl Rove quickly were dismissed.
What to do with the Bush crowd now? We should listen to Horton carefully--as should Obama and Holder:
Is it time now to "move on" and forget the Bush years? We must move on, but in so doing, our first steps start with remembrance. We must correct the mistakes and injustices of the past, and we must chart the damage which has been done. This week House Judiciary Chair John Conyers released a 486-page report entitled "Reining in the Imperial Presidency." Conyers hits just the right note:
"I understand that many feel we should just move on. They worry that addressing these actions by the Bush Administration will divert precious energy from the serious challenges facing our nation. I understand the power of that impulse. Indeed, I want to move on as well — there are so many things that I would rather work on than further review of Bush's presidency. But in my view it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman takes Obama to task for his statement that we need to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."
Krugman notes that at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years—in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated:
Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years? One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?
Then Krugman cuts to the heart of what this means for Obama--and our country:
If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again. Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable.
So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that's not a decision he has the right to make.
But three of our most eloquent voices on matters of justice say Obama and Holder are sending the wrong signals, particularly for an administration that purports to be about change. More importantly, they will be neglecting their duties if they let Bush & Co. get away with crimes.
Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley put it beautifully in an interview with Keith Olbermann on Friday night about the Holder confirmation hearings.
"Mr. Holder seems to be trying to find an exit where he won't have to apply the law to the former president," Turley said.
Turley was speaking primarily about war crimes, but his words could apply to any number of other possible misdeeds committed by members of the Bush administration. "This is one of the most transformative moments in our history," Turley said. "If we do nothing in the face of now-confirmed war crimes, they won't be Bush crimes; they'll be our crimes. . . . It becomes our shame."
Both Obama and Holder have said that no one is above the law. But they also seem to be saying that this is an inconvenient time to be looking into war crimes and other wrongdoing by the Bush administration. "War crimes are always inconvenient," Turley said. "If you say no one is above the law, you have to apply the law. . . . If you don't prosecute this president, it means some people are above the law."
Here is the complete Turley interview:
Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor at Harper's magazine, echoes Turley's sentiments in a piece titled "An Epitaph for the Bush Years." Comparing the Bush administration to a criminal enterprise, Horton writes:
What is the message to be carved over this massive cesspool of a failed presidency? I turn to Augustine, the early church father whose writings represent the first effort by a Christian theologian to come to grips with the duties of civil governance. "If it does not do justice," he writes in the City of God, "what is the government but a great criminal enterprise?" That fits the Bush Administration perfectly, for it shows its key failing and it serves as admonishment to the government that follows him.
Horton draws again on Augustine to drive home a critical point about the past eight years, focusing on the political prosecutions of the Bush years:
This provides one of the more spectacular demonstrations of Augustine's notion in modern American history, namely, when justice and the fidelity to law that manifests it is cast aside, political actors begin to behave increasingly like a band of thugs. That the Justice Department should emerge as the beating heart of a criminal enterprise is shocking, but that fact becomes more and more apparent with each successive disclosure.
Still more horrible are the political prosecutions brought abusing the good name of the United States. Today in the final hundred hours of the age of Bush, America has political prisoners—men like Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield, and for a while, Don Siegelman, locked away and silenced because they constituted a political threat to the Bush team, or simply because they held political offices that Karl Rove coveted. Rove steered these cases. Political prosecutions occurred in Alabama and Mississippi, in Michigan, and Pennsylvania; politically perverted investigations occurred in New York and elsewhere. And U.S. attorneys who failed to understand that the criminal justice process was now no more than a partisan weapon in the hands of Karl Rove quickly were dismissed.
What to do with the Bush crowd now? We should listen to Horton carefully--as should Obama and Holder:
Is it time now to "move on" and forget the Bush years? We must move on, but in so doing, our first steps start with remembrance. We must correct the mistakes and injustices of the past, and we must chart the damage which has been done. This week House Judiciary Chair John Conyers released a 486-page report entitled "Reining in the Imperial Presidency." Conyers hits just the right note:
"I understand that many feel we should just move on. They worry that addressing these actions by the Bush Administration will divert precious energy from the serious challenges facing our nation. I understand the power of that impulse. Indeed, I want to move on as well — there are so many things that I would rather work on than further review of Bush's presidency. But in my view it would not be responsible to start our journey forward without first knowing exactly where we are."
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman takes Obama to task for his statement that we need to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."
Krugman notes that at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years—in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated:
Why, then, shouldn't we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years? One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't there be some penalty for the Bush administration's politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we're told that we don't have to dwell on past abuses, because we won't repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration's political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won't do it all over again, given the chance?
Then Krugman cuts to the heart of what this means for Obama--and our country:
If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again. Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable.
So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that's not a decision he has the right to make.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Are Alabama Democrats Playing Politics With Prosecutors?
At least one Alabama Democratic Party nominee for U.S. attorney would be no better than her Republican predecessor, according to a source inside the Department of Justice.
A state Democratic Party advisory council this week recommended Anna Clark Morris as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The Middle District, under the George W. Bush administration, was headed by Leura Canary, and her office handled the prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman.
Morris is an assistant U.S. attorney in the Montgomery-based office, with almost 11 years of experience as a federal prosecutor. She is the daughter of Alexander City trial attorney Larry Morris, a major Democratic Party contributor.
The appointment of Anna Clark Morris would be "disastrous," a Department of Justice source told Legal Schnauzer.
"She currently works in the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office, where she is heavily invested in the culture of gossip, support-staff abuses, and maintaining the status quo," the source said. "An appointment of Clark Morris as U.S. attorney would be disastrous--four more years of the same."
The Alabama Democratic Party advisory council is one of two groups making recommendations for key federal positions to the incoming Barack Obama administration. U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) heads a second group that has made recommendations, and the two groups' findings differ substantially.
The Democratic Party council touted Joyce White Vance for the Birmingham-based Northern District position and Barrown Lankster for the Mobile-based Southern District. Vance has been an assistant U.S. attorney in Birmingham since 1991 and has been chief of the appellate division since 2005. Lankster is a former district attorney in Demopolis.
Davis' group also recommended Vance in the Northern District. But it went with Michel Nicrosi in the Middle District and Vicki Davis (no relation to Artur Davis) in the Southern District. Nicrosi is a former U.S. attorney from Daphne, now in private practice. Davis is an assistant U.S. attorney in the Mobile office.
An appointment of Clark Morris would smack of the kind of partisan politics that resulted in Leura Canary's appointment, our source said. Canary was appointed after she and her husband, Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary, made substantial contributions to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party.
Our source also noted the irony of Democrats pushing Clark Morris to lead an office that prosecuted Siegelman for an alleged "pay to play" scheme involving a political appointment in exchange for campaign support.
A Clark Morris appointment would look like a "classic quid pro quo," the source said, "what federal prosecutors call 'white-collar crime' or 'corruption,' yet when it involves a DOJ insider, it is perfectly fine. Am I missing something here?"
What kind of person should serve as a federal prosecutor in Alabama? The source gives an example.
Christa D. Deegan, who had 16 years as a federal prosecutor in Cleveland, Ohio, moved to the Montgomery office in March 2007. "She was an excellent prosecutor, a mover and a shaker, very competent--too competent for such a mediocre office," the source says. "More importantly, she conducted herself in a professional manner and worked very hard. She immediately opposed the hostile work environment, refused to participate in the afternoon gossip sessions, and refused to conform to the toxic culture of the office."
After about seven months on the job, Deegan was fired because she "didn't fit in." Said our source: "She was replaced by Clark Morris, who was more than willing to conform, even embrace the culture."
Deegan now is Ohio's director of industrial relations, where she took over an office that was plagued with allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. Deegan has vowed to restore staff morale in the Ohio agency. "Except for her experience in Montgomery, Alabama, she has a spotless record for competency, ethical conduct, and professionalism," the source said.
We wondered in an earlier post if U.S. attorneys should have substantial experience outside the districts where they will serve. For example, we noted that two leading candidates to lead the Birmingham office--Vance and Jim Sturdivant--have deep social and professional ties in Birmingham. Can they possibly have the kind of objectivity needed in a federal prosecutor?
Deegan sounds like the kind of person Alabama needs to be attracting, not running off.
And let's hope someone takes a second look at the Clark Morris recommendation.
A state Democratic Party advisory council this week recommended Anna Clark Morris as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The Middle District, under the George W. Bush administration, was headed by Leura Canary, and her office handled the prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman.
Morris is an assistant U.S. attorney in the Montgomery-based office, with almost 11 years of experience as a federal prosecutor. She is the daughter of Alexander City trial attorney Larry Morris, a major Democratic Party contributor.
The appointment of Anna Clark Morris would be "disastrous," a Department of Justice source told Legal Schnauzer.
"She currently works in the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office, where she is heavily invested in the culture of gossip, support-staff abuses, and maintaining the status quo," the source said. "An appointment of Clark Morris as U.S. attorney would be disastrous--four more years of the same."
The Alabama Democratic Party advisory council is one of two groups making recommendations for key federal positions to the incoming Barack Obama administration. U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) heads a second group that has made recommendations, and the two groups' findings differ substantially.
The Democratic Party council touted Joyce White Vance for the Birmingham-based Northern District position and Barrown Lankster for the Mobile-based Southern District. Vance has been an assistant U.S. attorney in Birmingham since 1991 and has been chief of the appellate division since 2005. Lankster is a former district attorney in Demopolis.
Davis' group also recommended Vance in the Northern District. But it went with Michel Nicrosi in the Middle District and Vicki Davis (no relation to Artur Davis) in the Southern District. Nicrosi is a former U.S. attorney from Daphne, now in private practice. Davis is an assistant U.S. attorney in the Mobile office.
An appointment of Clark Morris would smack of the kind of partisan politics that resulted in Leura Canary's appointment, our source said. Canary was appointed after she and her husband, Business Council of Alabama head Bill Canary, made substantial contributions to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party.
Our source also noted the irony of Democrats pushing Clark Morris to lead an office that prosecuted Siegelman for an alleged "pay to play" scheme involving a political appointment in exchange for campaign support.
A Clark Morris appointment would look like a "classic quid pro quo," the source said, "what federal prosecutors call 'white-collar crime' or 'corruption,' yet when it involves a DOJ insider, it is perfectly fine. Am I missing something here?"
What kind of person should serve as a federal prosecutor in Alabama? The source gives an example.
Christa D. Deegan, who had 16 years as a federal prosecutor in Cleveland, Ohio, moved to the Montgomery office in March 2007. "She was an excellent prosecutor, a mover and a shaker, very competent--too competent for such a mediocre office," the source says. "More importantly, she conducted herself in a professional manner and worked very hard. She immediately opposed the hostile work environment, refused to participate in the afternoon gossip sessions, and refused to conform to the toxic culture of the office."
After about seven months on the job, Deegan was fired because she "didn't fit in." Said our source: "She was replaced by Clark Morris, who was more than willing to conform, even embrace the culture."
Deegan now is Ohio's director of industrial relations, where she took over an office that was plagued with allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. Deegan has vowed to restore staff morale in the Ohio agency. "Except for her experience in Montgomery, Alabama, she has a spotless record for competency, ethical conduct, and professionalism," the source said.
We wondered in an earlier post if U.S. attorneys should have substantial experience outside the districts where they will serve. For example, we noted that two leading candidates to lead the Birmingham office--Vance and Jim Sturdivant--have deep social and professional ties in Birmingham. Can they possibly have the kind of objectivity needed in a federal prosecutor?
Deegan sounds like the kind of person Alabama needs to be attracting, not running off.
And let's hope someone takes a second look at the Clark Morris recommendation.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
UAB Can't Even Do Basketball Right Anymore
Two of the top high school basketball prospects in the nation will take the court tonight in Birmingham at UAB's Bartow Arena.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, the event serves as a reminder that UAB can't even handle its signature sport properly anymore. And responsibility for that should fall at the feet of President Carol Garrison.
Tonight's Old Spice Basketball Showcase features LeFlore High School of Mobile, Alabama, vs. South Atlanta High School. LeFlore is led by 6-10, 250-pound DeMarcus Cousins, and South Atlanta counters with 6-9, 220-pound Derrick Favors.
Both are among the top college prospects in the country, and both figure to have promising futures in the National Basketball Association.
But DeMarcus Cousins has unwittingly come to personify the lack of leadership at UAB these days.
Last February, during his junior year in high school, Cousins publicly committed to UAB. He became the most high-profile prospect to ever say he wanted to play for the Blazers.
But there was a catch: Cousins didn't say he wanted to attend UAB and play for the Blazers. He said he was committing to Mike Davis, UAB's head coach.
When it came time to actually sign a national letter of intent (NLI) last November, Cousins said he wanted written assurances that UAB would release him from the letter if Davis were to leave the school. When UAB failed to give Cousins a written "out" on the NLI, Cousins refused to sign with the school. Two other recruits who had pledged to UAB, apparently intent on playing with Cousins, refused to sign.
The players still could sign with UAB in the spring 2009 signing period. Or they could wait till fall 2009 and just show up at the school, without signing an NLI. But UAB would have no assurances until the last moment about the makeup of its roster.
The bottom line? UAB's recruiting class, which once looked like one of the best in the nation, now appears to be imploding. Cousins recently said that he is considering Memphis, Kansas State, Wake Forest, North Carolina State, and Washington as his top five schools. He said he still could wind up at UAB.
Brian Mackin, UAB's athletics director, said he would grant Cousins a release if Davis were to leave. But the school has not put that in writing, and Cousins isn't biting.
So, how did UAB get into this fix? Let's count the ways:
* When Mike Anderson left UAB three years ago to become head coach at Missouri, UAB turned to Davis, an Alabama native who had just left the prestigious head coaching job at Indiana. The move seemed to make sense at the time. But there appears to be one problem: Davis doesn't want to be at UAB very long. A source tells Legal Schnauzer that Davis has made it known that he wants to be the next coach at the University of Alabama, his alma mater. Alabama coach Mark Gottfried has been under fire for the past year or so, but for now, there is no opening on the Tuscaloosa campus. And given that Davis' own team isn't playing well lately, it's hard to see why UA would want him. Our source also says Davis spends very little time on the UAB campus, usually arriving at the office just before practice is to begin in the afternoon. That lack of oversight might help explain why several players either flunked out or left the program recently, leaving UAB with only six scholarship players. Four of those players are seniors, and with the recruiting class in question, one can only wonder what UAB's program will look like next year.
* UAB is a member of the NCAA, the elite tier of sports-playing universities. The school pays a fee each year for NCAA membership and pledges to abide by NCAA rules. A lot of folks think the NCAA has some unfair rules, but schools have to live with them anyway. And one rule is this: A prospective student-athlete signs with the school, not a coach. And the rules state that a coaching change is not grounds for releasing the student-athlete from an NLI. The rules also state that a provision, like the one Cousins wants, cannot be added to the NLI.
* While the NCAA rules might seem unfair and one-sided, favoring the university, it's important to keep this in mind: While the coach often is a key factor in a recruit's decision, it's the school that pays the freight. The school pays for the recruiting process, pays for the scholarship and associated costs, pays for training facilities, food, travel expenses, and more. If Mike Davis were to leave UAB, and DeMarcus Cousins followed him out the door, the university would be left with a lot of expenses and nothing to show for it.
If Carol Garrison had a clue about how to run an athletics program, here is what she would have done: She would have sat down with Davis and said, "Mike, we are members of the NCAA, and we live by NCAA rules. If a recruit says he wants to play for you but does not want to attend UAB, we rescind the scholarship offer. We give scholarships only to student-athletes who want to be at UAB, regardless of who the coach is. And by the way, quit telling people you are angling for a better job and set regular office hours like the rest of us."
If Cousins had still announced that he wanted to play for Davis, UAB could have issued a statement saying, "We appreciate Mr. Cousins' confidence in our coach, but we will only offer him a scholarship if he is willing to abide by NCAA rules and sign with UAB."
Here's what's sad about this: Gene Bartow left UCLA, basketball's most storied program, to come to UAB and start an athletics program from nothing in 1977. Bartow stayed as coach and/or athletics director for 23 years, turning down numerous opportunities at more high-profile schools.
Now, the university has a coach who apparently wants out--and he hasn't even been at UAB three years. Worse, the coach seems to be using his relationship with a top recruit as a bargaining chip to get what he perceives to be a better job.
As long as seniors Robert Vaden, Lawrence Kinnard, Paul Delaney III, and Channing Toney are around, UAB figures to be competitive. But once they leave after this season, who knows what UAB will look like next year? Davis is supposed to be a master recruiter, but his roster for 2009-10 looks awfully thin at the moment.
People who care about UAB should be asking Carol Garrison a lot of hard questions, and one of them is this: Who hired this basketball coach and why doesn't he understand basic NCAA rules?
Here at Legal Schnauzer, the event serves as a reminder that UAB can't even handle its signature sport properly anymore. And responsibility for that should fall at the feet of President Carol Garrison.
Tonight's Old Spice Basketball Showcase features LeFlore High School of Mobile, Alabama, vs. South Atlanta High School. LeFlore is led by 6-10, 250-pound DeMarcus Cousins, and South Atlanta counters with 6-9, 220-pound Derrick Favors.
Both are among the top college prospects in the country, and both figure to have promising futures in the National Basketball Association.
But DeMarcus Cousins has unwittingly come to personify the lack of leadership at UAB these days.
Last February, during his junior year in high school, Cousins publicly committed to UAB. He became the most high-profile prospect to ever say he wanted to play for the Blazers.
But there was a catch: Cousins didn't say he wanted to attend UAB and play for the Blazers. He said he was committing to Mike Davis, UAB's head coach.
When it came time to actually sign a national letter of intent (NLI) last November, Cousins said he wanted written assurances that UAB would release him from the letter if Davis were to leave the school. When UAB failed to give Cousins a written "out" on the NLI, Cousins refused to sign with the school. Two other recruits who had pledged to UAB, apparently intent on playing with Cousins, refused to sign.
The players still could sign with UAB in the spring 2009 signing period. Or they could wait till fall 2009 and just show up at the school, without signing an NLI. But UAB would have no assurances until the last moment about the makeup of its roster.
The bottom line? UAB's recruiting class, which once looked like one of the best in the nation, now appears to be imploding. Cousins recently said that he is considering Memphis, Kansas State, Wake Forest, North Carolina State, and Washington as his top five schools. He said he still could wind up at UAB.
Brian Mackin, UAB's athletics director, said he would grant Cousins a release if Davis were to leave. But the school has not put that in writing, and Cousins isn't biting.
So, how did UAB get into this fix? Let's count the ways:
* When Mike Anderson left UAB three years ago to become head coach at Missouri, UAB turned to Davis, an Alabama native who had just left the prestigious head coaching job at Indiana. The move seemed to make sense at the time. But there appears to be one problem: Davis doesn't want to be at UAB very long. A source tells Legal Schnauzer that Davis has made it known that he wants to be the next coach at the University of Alabama, his alma mater. Alabama coach Mark Gottfried has been under fire for the past year or so, but for now, there is no opening on the Tuscaloosa campus. And given that Davis' own team isn't playing well lately, it's hard to see why UA would want him. Our source also says Davis spends very little time on the UAB campus, usually arriving at the office just before practice is to begin in the afternoon. That lack of oversight might help explain why several players either flunked out or left the program recently, leaving UAB with only six scholarship players. Four of those players are seniors, and with the recruiting class in question, one can only wonder what UAB's program will look like next year.
* UAB is a member of the NCAA, the elite tier of sports-playing universities. The school pays a fee each year for NCAA membership and pledges to abide by NCAA rules. A lot of folks think the NCAA has some unfair rules, but schools have to live with them anyway. And one rule is this: A prospective student-athlete signs with the school, not a coach. And the rules state that a coaching change is not grounds for releasing the student-athlete from an NLI. The rules also state that a provision, like the one Cousins wants, cannot be added to the NLI.
* While the NCAA rules might seem unfair and one-sided, favoring the university, it's important to keep this in mind: While the coach often is a key factor in a recruit's decision, it's the school that pays the freight. The school pays for the recruiting process, pays for the scholarship and associated costs, pays for training facilities, food, travel expenses, and more. If Mike Davis were to leave UAB, and DeMarcus Cousins followed him out the door, the university would be left with a lot of expenses and nothing to show for it.
If Carol Garrison had a clue about how to run an athletics program, here is what she would have done: She would have sat down with Davis and said, "Mike, we are members of the NCAA, and we live by NCAA rules. If a recruit says he wants to play for you but does not want to attend UAB, we rescind the scholarship offer. We give scholarships only to student-athletes who want to be at UAB, regardless of who the coach is. And by the way, quit telling people you are angling for a better job and set regular office hours like the rest of us."
If Cousins had still announced that he wanted to play for Davis, UAB could have issued a statement saying, "We appreciate Mr. Cousins' confidence in our coach, but we will only offer him a scholarship if he is willing to abide by NCAA rules and sign with UAB."
Here's what's sad about this: Gene Bartow left UCLA, basketball's most storied program, to come to UAB and start an athletics program from nothing in 1977. Bartow stayed as coach and/or athletics director for 23 years, turning down numerous opportunities at more high-profile schools.
Now, the university has a coach who apparently wants out--and he hasn't even been at UAB three years. Worse, the coach seems to be using his relationship with a top recruit as a bargaining chip to get what he perceives to be a better job.
As long as seniors Robert Vaden, Lawrence Kinnard, Paul Delaney III, and Channing Toney are around, UAB figures to be competitive. But once they leave after this season, who knows what UAB will look like next year? Davis is supposed to be a master recruiter, but his roster for 2009-10 looks awfully thin at the moment.
People who care about UAB should be asking Carol Garrison a lot of hard questions, and one of them is this: Who hired this basketball coach and why doesn't he understand basic NCAA rules?
Online Porn and its Many Ramifications in the Workplace
When we posted recently about the rising incidence of online porn in the workplace, we had no thoughts of doing a followup article.
After all, online porn seemed to be a titillating (sorry for the bad pun) but one-dimensional subject.
A little research indicates we were wrong about that. Porn in the workplace presents a number of issues--technological, legal, psychological--that we had not thought of.
One of the most comprehensive articles on the subject is "Technology Makes Porn Easier to Access at Work," by reporter Stephanie Armour at USA Today.
Armour reports that the proliferation of portable electronic devices--laptop computers, cell phones, Blackberrys, etc.--has made online porn more common in the workplace. And it has made it more difficult for employers to manage the problem.
About 65 percent of American employers use software to block inappropriate Web sites in the workplace. But portable devices, even ones owned by companies, can help get around such blocks. And employers are concerned about facing lawsuits from workers who say they are offended by the presence of porn at work.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought several lawsuits against businesses on behalf of workers who said they felt harassed at work because of online porn. One of the best known cases involved First Mutual, a mortgage company in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Another involved Sierra Aluminum.
On the other side of the legal spectrum is James Pacenza, a former IBM employee. Pacenza sued the company after being fired for visiting an adult chat group while at work. Pacenza, a Vietnam veteran, claimed his firing was discriminatory because he visited the site in order to reduce symptoms from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
You can view some of the legal documents in the Pacenza case here.
USA Today reports that the problem of porn in the workplace is not likely to go away soon:
Researchers and psychologists who study Internet users' behavior say those who view online porn at work are doing so because they get a rush out of taking risks, engage in self-delusional beliefs that they won't get caught and, in some cases, suffer from addictive behaviors.
The rising use of mobile devices such as video phones could exacerbate the problem, they say.
"This dilemma is going to get much worse, given the capacity of handheld, electronic devices to download porn," says Carleton Kendrick, a psychotherapist in Millis, Mass. "That will eliminate an employer's opportunity to check which workers have been going to porn sites on company computers."
After all, online porn seemed to be a titillating (sorry for the bad pun) but one-dimensional subject.
A little research indicates we were wrong about that. Porn in the workplace presents a number of issues--technological, legal, psychological--that we had not thought of.
One of the most comprehensive articles on the subject is "Technology Makes Porn Easier to Access at Work," by reporter Stephanie Armour at USA Today.
Armour reports that the proliferation of portable electronic devices--laptop computers, cell phones, Blackberrys, etc.--has made online porn more common in the workplace. And it has made it more difficult for employers to manage the problem.
About 65 percent of American employers use software to block inappropriate Web sites in the workplace. But portable devices, even ones owned by companies, can help get around such blocks. And employers are concerned about facing lawsuits from workers who say they are offended by the presence of porn at work.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought several lawsuits against businesses on behalf of workers who said they felt harassed at work because of online porn. One of the best known cases involved First Mutual, a mortgage company in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Another involved Sierra Aluminum.
On the other side of the legal spectrum is James Pacenza, a former IBM employee. Pacenza sued the company after being fired for visiting an adult chat group while at work. Pacenza, a Vietnam veteran, claimed his firing was discriminatory because he visited the site in order to reduce symptoms from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
You can view some of the legal documents in the Pacenza case here.
USA Today reports that the problem of porn in the workplace is not likely to go away soon:
Researchers and psychologists who study Internet users' behavior say those who view online porn at work are doing so because they get a rush out of taking risks, engage in self-delusional beliefs that they won't get caught and, in some cases, suffer from addictive behaviors.
The rising use of mobile devices such as video phones could exacerbate the problem, they say.
"This dilemma is going to get much worse, given the capacity of handheld, electronic devices to download porn," says Carleton Kendrick, a psychotherapist in Millis, Mass. "That will eliminate an employer's opportunity to check which workers have been going to porn sites on company computers."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Universities And Other Scoundrels Reach Late Deals With Bushies
As the Bush Administration comes to a merciful close, corporate fraudsters are scrambling to reach last-minutes settlements before the Obama crowd takes over.
Fraudsters trying to cut sweetheart deals are not limited to business types. Universities also are trying to get in on the action, which seems appropriate because we've already reported on a case here in Birmingham where a university received a light wrist slap for widespread research fraud.
Turns out my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), was ahead of the game when it cut a stunningly favorable deal with the Bush Justice Department in 2005.
Among those waiting until the last minute, according to a report by Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post, is Yale University.
Yale recently agreed to pay $7.6 million to settle claims that its researchers overbilled on federally funded research grant. The Associated Press article mentions similar settlements have been reached at other institutions, including Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, University of Connecticut, and UAB.
That list only scratches the surface of the problem. Other institutions that have had problems with research fraud include Harvard, University of Chicago, Duke, Stanford, University of Washington, University of Mississippi, University of Minnesota, University of Texas, New York University and . . . well, you get the idea; the problem is widespread.
Here is a question I have yet to see asked in the mainstream media: Do the settlements reached in these cases reflect the actual amount of fraud involved? In other words, does the punishment fit the crime?
Based on my research of the UAB case, the answers are a resounding no and no.
As we noted in a recent post, one of two whistleblowers in the UAB case alleged the total fraud at the Birmingham campus over a 10-year period reached at least $300 million and went perhaps as high as $600 million. And this whistleblower, Thomas Gober, had reason to know what he was talking about. He was UAB's research compliance officer, and he is a specialist in forensic accounting. In fact, he has served as a government witness in a number of major business-fraud cases.
How were taxpayers served by UAB's leadership and the lax Bush Justice Department, which was busy prosecuting people like Don Siegelman for crimes they did not commit?
Well, let's take a conservative estimate and say UAB actually committed $300 million of research fraud. In its settlement, the university paid the government $3.39 million.
So if my math is correct, UAB paid roughly 1/100th of the fraud it actually committed. And if Gober's higher estimates were correct, the university got away with an even more grotesque case of "financial murder."
No wonder UAB President Carol Garrison characterized the settlement as a "very positive outcome."
Was it a positive outcome for taxpayers? Does Carol Garrison care about blatant mismanagement of your federal tax dollars? What about other university presidents and corporate titans who are getting sweetheart deals from the Bush administration?
On an issue that hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer, do you think it's possible that Carol Garrison felt like she "owed one" to Alice Martin for signing off on this sweetheart deal for UAB? And could Garrison have returned the favor by "firing" a certain UAB employee who was writing uncomfortable truths about Martin and other loyal Bushies on his personal blog?
Here is an even more important question: Why are American taxpayers unaware of how badly they are being cheated by universities and corporations? Why has the mainstream media not reported on this story?
One reason, I suspect, is that whistleblower cases usually are sealed early on. My guess is that many of the cases never are unsealed, and under settlement agreements, participants are sworn to confidentiality.
I only obtained key documents in the UAB case because, at some point, it was unsealed. And even then, I had to do some extra searching because the whistleblower complaints were not available on the public computers at the federal courthouse in Birmingham. I had to ask clerks for hard copies, which were stored in file folders. I suspect it was not an accident that the documents were hard to find.
There is hope for taxpayers. Under the settlement agreement in the UAB case, the government can reopen the case at any time, initiating a civil, administrative, or criminal investigation. This is the proverbial gun that Alice Martin has had cocked at UAB's head for three-plus years now.
Settlement agreements in other cases probably contain similar language. I would suggest that an Obama Justice Department should revisit these corporate and academic fraud cases and make sure the perpetrators are punished in a way that is commensurate with their misdeeds.
Meanwhile, you might not read "the rest of the story" about academic research fraud in the mainstream press. But you will be reading the whole story of the UAB case here at Legal Schnauzer.
Fraudsters trying to cut sweetheart deals are not limited to business types. Universities also are trying to get in on the action, which seems appropriate because we've already reported on a case here in Birmingham where a university received a light wrist slap for widespread research fraud.
Turns out my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), was ahead of the game when it cut a stunningly favorable deal with the Bush Justice Department in 2005.
Among those waiting until the last minute, according to a report by Carrie Johnson of the Washington Post, is Yale University.
Yale recently agreed to pay $7.6 million to settle claims that its researchers overbilled on federally funded research grant. The Associated Press article mentions similar settlements have been reached at other institutions, including Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, University of Connecticut, and UAB.
That list only scratches the surface of the problem. Other institutions that have had problems with research fraud include Harvard, University of Chicago, Duke, Stanford, University of Washington, University of Mississippi, University of Minnesota, University of Texas, New York University and . . . well, you get the idea; the problem is widespread.
Here is a question I have yet to see asked in the mainstream media: Do the settlements reached in these cases reflect the actual amount of fraud involved? In other words, does the punishment fit the crime?
Based on my research of the UAB case, the answers are a resounding no and no.
As we noted in a recent post, one of two whistleblowers in the UAB case alleged the total fraud at the Birmingham campus over a 10-year period reached at least $300 million and went perhaps as high as $600 million. And this whistleblower, Thomas Gober, had reason to know what he was talking about. He was UAB's research compliance officer, and he is a specialist in forensic accounting. In fact, he has served as a government witness in a number of major business-fraud cases.
How were taxpayers served by UAB's leadership and the lax Bush Justice Department, which was busy prosecuting people like Don Siegelman for crimes they did not commit?
Well, let's take a conservative estimate and say UAB actually committed $300 million of research fraud. In its settlement, the university paid the government $3.39 million.
So if my math is correct, UAB paid roughly 1/100th of the fraud it actually committed. And if Gober's higher estimates were correct, the university got away with an even more grotesque case of "financial murder."
No wonder UAB President Carol Garrison characterized the settlement as a "very positive outcome."
Was it a positive outcome for taxpayers? Does Carol Garrison care about blatant mismanagement of your federal tax dollars? What about other university presidents and corporate titans who are getting sweetheart deals from the Bush administration?
On an issue that hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer, do you think it's possible that Carol Garrison felt like she "owed one" to Alice Martin for signing off on this sweetheart deal for UAB? And could Garrison have returned the favor by "firing" a certain UAB employee who was writing uncomfortable truths about Martin and other loyal Bushies on his personal blog?
Here is an even more important question: Why are American taxpayers unaware of how badly they are being cheated by universities and corporations? Why has the mainstream media not reported on this story?
One reason, I suspect, is that whistleblower cases usually are sealed early on. My guess is that many of the cases never are unsealed, and under settlement agreements, participants are sworn to confidentiality.
I only obtained key documents in the UAB case because, at some point, it was unsealed. And even then, I had to do some extra searching because the whistleblower complaints were not available on the public computers at the federal courthouse in Birmingham. I had to ask clerks for hard copies, which were stored in file folders. I suspect it was not an accident that the documents were hard to find.
There is hope for taxpayers. Under the settlement agreement in the UAB case, the government can reopen the case at any time, initiating a civil, administrative, or criminal investigation. This is the proverbial gun that Alice Martin has had cocked at UAB's head for three-plus years now.
Settlement agreements in other cases probably contain similar language. I would suggest that an Obama Justice Department should revisit these corporate and academic fraud cases and make sure the perpetrators are punished in a way that is commensurate with their misdeeds.
Meanwhile, you might not read "the rest of the story" about academic research fraud in the mainstream press. But you will be reading the whole story of the UAB case here at Legal Schnauzer.
Hoover Hoopsters Score With National Commercial
Perhaps the niftiest television commercial in current rotation is this 15-second gem from Hampton Inns:
The kids who made the video are from Hoover, a Birmingham suburb. And the shot you see in the commercial actually happened. This has nothing to do with schnauzers or anything legal, but we thought it was pretty cool. Wonder if these guys ever play real basketball. Maybe they should give it a try.
Turns out the Hoover kids made a whole bunch of improbable shots, and caught them on video. You can check them out below. The shot used in the commercial starts at the 48-second mark. Who says America's youth aren't creative?
The kids who made the video are from Hoover, a Birmingham suburb. And the shot you see in the commercial actually happened. This has nothing to do with schnauzers or anything legal, but we thought it was pretty cool. Wonder if these guys ever play real basketball. Maybe they should give it a try.
Turns out the Hoover kids made a whole bunch of improbable shots, and caught them on video. You can check them out below. The shot used in the commercial starts at the 48-second mark. Who says America's youth aren't creative?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Alice Martin: A World-Class Phony On Health-Care Fraud
Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, recently made quite a production of a guilty plea in a Medicare fraud case.
The case involved Shelby County businesswoman Marie Weller King, who pled guilty of defrauding Medicare of $724,000. King received a sentence of 18 months in federal prison, and her husband William King will be sentenced in January for his role in the scheme.
The case came about after a whistleblower in an outside auditing firm examined the Kings' books and found something amiss.
In her usual unctious way, Martin said: "King's sentence reflects that persons who create false documents, knowing that those documents will be used in a health-care fraud scheme, will be pursued and prosecuted for their crimes."
Is Martin telling the truth? Not on your life.
The Kings obviously do not have political connections. Because our research team at Legal Schnauzer has uncovered at least two cases where folks with political connections received pretty much a free pass on health-care fraud.
And who gave the free passes? Why, none other than Alice Martin.
One of the cases involved someone very close to Alabama Governor Bob Riley. And we are talking verrrrry close. Do you think this association had anything to do with Alice Martin's decision not to pursue a whistleblower's allegations of health-care fraud?
Hmmm.
The second case involves my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and we already have made references to that case. But many more details are to come.
The crux of the UAB case? The university was penalized roughly $3 million for a fraud scheme that one whistleblower estimated totaled more than $300 million. And the whistleblower should know what he was talking about. He is a forensic accountant and served as UAB's research compliance director.
End result? UAB was punished for only a fraction of the fraud it allegedly committed.
And guess what? Someone verrry high up in the chain of command in the University of Alabama System, of which UAB is a part, just happens to have an association with Bill Canary and the Business Council of Alabama. And Canary, of course, is largely responsible for Alice Martin's placement in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Do you think that connection had anything to do with UAB's slap on the wrist? (And come to think of it, do you think this connection had anything to do with my termination at UAB?)
Let's take a close look at the Justice Department's press release about the Kings' guilty plea. In the last paragraph, it says the public is encouraged to contact law enforcement if they have information about health-care fraud.
Oh, really?
Well, we've uncovered three whistleblowers who came forward in two separate cases. In one case, Alice Martin's office did almost nothing. In the other, it has done absolutely nothing.
And we will tell you all about it here at Legal Schnauzer.
The real message from Alice Martin? Don't bother coming forward if the fraudsters have the right political connections.
The case involved Shelby County businesswoman Marie Weller King, who pled guilty of defrauding Medicare of $724,000. King received a sentence of 18 months in federal prison, and her husband William King will be sentenced in January for his role in the scheme.
The case came about after a whistleblower in an outside auditing firm examined the Kings' books and found something amiss.
In her usual unctious way, Martin said: "King's sentence reflects that persons who create false documents, knowing that those documents will be used in a health-care fraud scheme, will be pursued and prosecuted for their crimes."
Is Martin telling the truth? Not on your life.
The Kings obviously do not have political connections. Because our research team at Legal Schnauzer has uncovered at least two cases where folks with political connections received pretty much a free pass on health-care fraud.
And who gave the free passes? Why, none other than Alice Martin.
One of the cases involved someone very close to Alabama Governor Bob Riley. And we are talking verrrrry close. Do you think this association had anything to do with Alice Martin's decision not to pursue a whistleblower's allegations of health-care fraud?
Hmmm.
The second case involves my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and we already have made references to that case. But many more details are to come.
The crux of the UAB case? The university was penalized roughly $3 million for a fraud scheme that one whistleblower estimated totaled more than $300 million. And the whistleblower should know what he was talking about. He is a forensic accountant and served as UAB's research compliance director.
End result? UAB was punished for only a fraction of the fraud it allegedly committed.
And guess what? Someone verrry high up in the chain of command in the University of Alabama System, of which UAB is a part, just happens to have an association with Bill Canary and the Business Council of Alabama. And Canary, of course, is largely responsible for Alice Martin's placement in the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Do you think that connection had anything to do with UAB's slap on the wrist? (And come to think of it, do you think this connection had anything to do with my termination at UAB?)
Let's take a close look at the Justice Department's press release about the Kings' guilty plea. In the last paragraph, it says the public is encouraged to contact law enforcement if they have information about health-care fraud.
Oh, really?
Well, we've uncovered three whistleblowers who came forward in two separate cases. In one case, Alice Martin's office did almost nothing. In the other, it has done absolutely nothing.
And we will tell you all about it here at Legal Schnauzer.
The real message from Alice Martin? Don't bother coming forward if the fraudsters have the right political connections.
Who Really is Ruining Capitalism?
I believe it was the great writer and critic H.L. Mencken who said he would gladly embrace Christianity if it weren't for all of the Christians.
In a similar spirit, Auburn University history professor Wayne Flynt makes a compelling argument that no one harms modern capitalism like capitalists.
Flynt, in an op-ed piece titled "The Capitalists Threaten Capitalism," argues that the history that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s almost repeated itself in the eight-year reign of George W. Bush.
Flynt focuses on Duncan U. Fletcher, a U.S. senator from Florida who led the effort to reshape the country's banking system not long after Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933.
One of Fletcher's first acts was to hire Ferdinand Pecora as chief counsel of the Banking Committee and instruct him to conduct a wide-ranging investigation of private banks and investment houses.
Pecora's two-year probe produced findings that laid bare the corruption that was rampant in the U.S. banking system. Fletcher was so appalled that he hauled some of the nation's barons of finance, including J.P. Morgan and John J. Raskob, before his committee. Writes Flynt:
Their testimony infuriated ordinary citizens. J.P. Morgan, reputedly the richest man in America, paid no income taxes from 1930 until 1933. To avoid taxes, financiers sold stock to near relatives at low prices, declared a loss on their income taxes, then repurchased it at the sale price. Banks and investment houses cultivated unsavory relations with cooperative politicians. Only personal friends of Morgan, most of them officials of the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were allowed to invest in his investment banks.
Notice the reference to the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the sleaze that caused massive financial woe. Does that sound familiar? It does to Flynt:
Fast-forward to 2008, when the prevailing business structure included derivatives, subprime mortgages, bundling, Ponzi schemes and golden parachutes for failing CEOs. As Americans are gradually learning more and more about such practices, their reactions are not much different from public response to the Pecora investigation, though the names are different: Jeff Skilling of Enron; Richard Scrushy and a succession of CFOs at HealthSouth; Bernard Madoff, former chair of NASDAQ and accused swindler of perhaps $50 billion; Christopher Cox, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who admits the SEC ignored complaints about Madoff for a decade and did not provide vigorous oversight or aggressive enforcement of regulations; various CEOs who dismissed workers while drawing huge salaries and bonuses even as their corporations lost money.
Such chicanery, Flynt says, helps explain the November 2008 election results. And it presents a lesson that Americans should heed:
Of course, few put any faith in the now-failed policies of socialism that became fashionable in the 1930s. But the past few years have furnished us a useful education in the excesses of capitalism as well: its greed, avarice, hubris, overstretching, manipulation of credit, insider-trading, wire-pulling, politician-buying and influence-peddling. As a famous balladeer sang during the 1930s, some people rob you with a gun, and some with a fountain pen (make that a computer these days).
In a similar spirit, Auburn University history professor Wayne Flynt makes a compelling argument that no one harms modern capitalism like capitalists.
Flynt, in an op-ed piece titled "The Capitalists Threaten Capitalism," argues that the history that led to the Great Depression in the 1930s almost repeated itself in the eight-year reign of George W. Bush.
Flynt focuses on Duncan U. Fletcher, a U.S. senator from Florida who led the effort to reshape the country's banking system not long after Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933.
One of Fletcher's first acts was to hire Ferdinand Pecora as chief counsel of the Banking Committee and instruct him to conduct a wide-ranging investigation of private banks and investment houses.
Pecora's two-year probe produced findings that laid bare the corruption that was rampant in the U.S. banking system. Fletcher was so appalled that he hauled some of the nation's barons of finance, including J.P. Morgan and John J. Raskob, before his committee. Writes Flynt:
Their testimony infuriated ordinary citizens. J.P. Morgan, reputedly the richest man in America, paid no income taxes from 1930 until 1933. To avoid taxes, financiers sold stock to near relatives at low prices, declared a loss on their income taxes, then repurchased it at the sale price. Banks and investment houses cultivated unsavory relations with cooperative politicians. Only personal friends of Morgan, most of them officials of the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were allowed to invest in his investment banks.
Notice the reference to the Republican Party and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the sleaze that caused massive financial woe. Does that sound familiar? It does to Flynt:
Fast-forward to 2008, when the prevailing business structure included derivatives, subprime mortgages, bundling, Ponzi schemes and golden parachutes for failing CEOs. As Americans are gradually learning more and more about such practices, their reactions are not much different from public response to the Pecora investigation, though the names are different: Jeff Skilling of Enron; Richard Scrushy and a succession of CFOs at HealthSouth; Bernard Madoff, former chair of NASDAQ and accused swindler of perhaps $50 billion; Christopher Cox, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission who admits the SEC ignored complaints about Madoff for a decade and did not provide vigorous oversight or aggressive enforcement of regulations; various CEOs who dismissed workers while drawing huge salaries and bonuses even as their corporations lost money.
Such chicanery, Flynt says, helps explain the November 2008 election results. And it presents a lesson that Americans should heed:
Of course, few put any faith in the now-failed policies of socialism that became fashionable in the 1930s. But the past few years have furnished us a useful education in the excesses of capitalism as well: its greed, avarice, hubris, overstretching, manipulation of credit, insider-trading, wire-pulling, politician-buying and influence-peddling. As a famous balladeer sang during the 1930s, some people rob you with a gun, and some with a fountain pen (make that a computer these days).
Wayne Flynt is a true Alabama treasure. You might not equate Alabama with world-class social science, but Flynt belongs in any discussion about the nation's foremost historians. He is perhaps best known for his book Poor But Proud: Alabama's Poor Whites, which received the Lillian Smith Award.
Flynt's most recent op-ed piece leaves us with this question: Will Americans finally understand who truly threatens their way of life? The rise of one of the most insipid characters in American political history might not be a good sign. But Flynt remains ever hopeful:
Perhaps Joe the Plumber was worrying about the wrong problem during the campaign. When pondering the future of capitalism, Joe probably has less to fear from the alleged radicalism, socialism and liberalism of Barack Obama than he does from the avaricious predators who directed America's economy for the past few decades.Monday, January 12, 2009
The Abramoff Trail: Is Siegelman Prosecutor Trying to Cover the Tracks?
Alabama federal prosecutor Leura Canary evidently would not recognize a conflict of interest if it smacked her in the head with a 2 X 4. Her stubbornness is again on display in a case that is reminiscent of the Don Siegelman prosecution.
It all apparently stems from Canary's desire to protect Alabama Governor Bob Riley from an ugly trail that leads to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Folks who have followed the Siegelman case know that Canary's myriad conflicts and her curious "recusal" became key issues on appeal.
The same issues are being raised against Canary in another Montgomery case, this one involving insurance executive John W. Goff.
The Montgomery Independent reports that Goff's attorneys are seeking to have his federal indictment dismissed because of bad-faith prosecution.
One motion seeks to have the case against Goff dismissed. Another seeks to have the case removed from all prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama.
Goff's case is set for trial in February. Thomas Gallion, one of Goff's attorneys, recently removed himself from the case, a signal that he plans to testify as a witness on Goff's behalf. Here is an article about the latest in the Goff case:
Gallion To Testify for Goff (PDF)
Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, supposedly recused herself from the Siegelman case. But, in an apparent violation of normal Justice Department procedure, it was assigned to one of her subordinates, Louis Franklin.
Tamarah Grimes, a whistleblower from inside the Justice Department, has provided documents indicating that Canary remained involved with the Siegelman case, even after she had claimed to have recused herself.
The Goff prosecution only began after he had filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they had conspired to ruin one of his insurance businesses. Riley is a close associate of Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama and Leura Canary's husband.
Bill Canary also is the man identified by Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson as saying "his girls" (Leura Canary and fellow Bush prosecutor Alice Martin) would "take care" of Siegelman. Bill Canary, according to Simpson, said he had worked out the plans to get Siegelman with someone named Karl, an apparent reference to Bush advisor Karl Rove.
Goff's attorneys argue in their motions that the criminal indictment is an effort to re-litigate a civil case that was settled in arbitration in 2004. At that time, 59 of 60 charges against Goff in an administrative complaint were dismissed. Goff pled guilty to one charge and paid a $10,000 fine.
Only after Goff filed a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others did the criminal prosecution begin.
Goff's lawsuit includes allegations that the governor and his son, Rob Riley, wrongfully laundered Mississippi casino money into Bob Riley's 2002 campaign against Siegelman, using Riley's connections to Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, has reported that Bob Riley was desperate to stop the Goff lawsuit from entering the discovery stage and sought Leura Canary's help in making it "go away." The indictment against Goff came not long after that.
The Goff dismissal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff dismissal motion (PDF)
The Goff recusal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff recusal motion (PDF)
It all apparently stems from Canary's desire to protect Alabama Governor Bob Riley from an ugly trail that leads to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Folks who have followed the Siegelman case know that Canary's myriad conflicts and her curious "recusal" became key issues on appeal.
The same issues are being raised against Canary in another Montgomery case, this one involving insurance executive John W. Goff.
The Montgomery Independent reports that Goff's attorneys are seeking to have his federal indictment dismissed because of bad-faith prosecution.
One motion seeks to have the case against Goff dismissed. Another seeks to have the case removed from all prosecutors in the Middle District of Alabama.
Goff's case is set for trial in February. Thomas Gallion, one of Goff's attorneys, recently removed himself from the case, a signal that he plans to testify as a witness on Goff's behalf. Here is an article about the latest in the Goff case:
Gallion To Testify for Goff (PDF)
Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, supposedly recused herself from the Siegelman case. But, in an apparent violation of normal Justice Department procedure, it was assigned to one of her subordinates, Louis Franklin.
Tamarah Grimes, a whistleblower from inside the Justice Department, has provided documents indicating that Canary remained involved with the Siegelman case, even after she had claimed to have recused herself.
The Goff prosecution only began after he had filed a lawsuit against Alabama Governor Bob Riley and others, claiming they had conspired to ruin one of his insurance businesses. Riley is a close associate of Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama and Leura Canary's husband.
Bill Canary also is the man identified by Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson as saying "his girls" (Leura Canary and fellow Bush prosecutor Alice Martin) would "take care" of Siegelman. Bill Canary, according to Simpson, said he had worked out the plans to get Siegelman with someone named Karl, an apparent reference to Bush advisor Karl Rove.
Goff's attorneys argue in their motions that the criminal indictment is an effort to re-litigate a civil case that was settled in arbitration in 2004. At that time, 59 of 60 charges against Goff in an administrative complaint were dismissed. Goff pled guilty to one charge and paid a $10,000 fine.
Only after Goff filed a lawsuit against Bob Riley and others did the criminal prosecution begin.
Goff's lawsuit includes allegations that the governor and his son, Rob Riley, wrongfully laundered Mississippi casino money into Bob Riley's 2002 campaign against Siegelman, using Riley's connections to Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, has reported that Bob Riley was desperate to stop the Goff lawsuit from entering the discovery stage and sought Leura Canary's help in making it "go away." The indictment against Goff came not long after that.
The Goff dismissal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff dismissal motion (PDF)
The Goff recusal motion can be viewed here:
John W. Goff recusal motion (PDF)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Birmingham and a Revolution Frozen in Time
Los Angeles Times reporter Peter H. King recently visited Birmingham and wrote a poignant piece about the state of our city as the United States is poised to inaugurate its first black president.
The headline writer captured the mood of the city perfectly: "In Birmingham, Ala., revolution is frozen in time."
The article is part of a series about the national mindset as we approach the presidential inauguration. King has visited a number of cities, including New Orleans; Midland, Texas; Cairo, Illinois; and Birmingham.
As someone who grew up in the Midwest but has lived in Birmingham for 30-plus years, I find King's article both touching and insightful. And, in a way, it is troubling because progress truly is frozen in Birmingham as we enter 2009.
King focuses on Kelly Ingram Park, the epicenter of our nation's struggle with race in 1963. King rightly notes that it is like no other municipal green in America:
It is a place where children go to stare down sculptures of snarling police dogs, a place where older visitors who know the park's history go to remember and, more recently, to reflect on the distance traveled between what happened here 45 years ago and what will happen in Washington in less than three weeks.
"It all connects," Henry Biggs, a 55-year-old native of Birmingham was saying the other day as he stood at the edge of the park. "This point to that point, it all connects."
Named for a World War I hero, this 4-acre park was at the center of clashes in the spring of 1963 between police and protesters determined to roll back the city's Jim Crow laws -- a struggle that brought infamy to this Southern steel town and ignited the civil rights movement.
King hints at both Birmingham's progress and its promise. But those of us who live here, and pay attention to public events, know there are powerful forces still aligned against change.
Our African-American mayor and several associates have been indicted on federal charges involving an alleged pay-for-play scheme.
While the charges against Mayor Larry Langford are troubling, perhaps even more alarming are the actions of the federal prosecutor who brought the case. Republican appointee Alice Martin has a history of targeting people who have dark skin or are Democrats--or both. Some of her cases have been so weak and blatantly political that she is being investigated by multiple government agencies.
But still, the local daily newspaper cheers her on, even though a prominent expert on legal affairs has called her perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.
Even at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), once the city's most shining example of forward thinking, ugly forces appear to target those who don't fit the white/male/monied/Republican profile that still holds sway over much of the state.
A writer for a national magazine labels UAB's recent behavior "Orwellian" and marvels at the university's willingness to tolerate bigoted and racist speech while apparently taking steps to silence progressive voices.
As one of those progressive voices targeted at UAB, I hope King will make a return visit to our city in the coming months. The forces for change and the forces for stasis will be clashing in the Age of Obama. It's a story with national implications.
The headline writer captured the mood of the city perfectly: "In Birmingham, Ala., revolution is frozen in time."
The article is part of a series about the national mindset as we approach the presidential inauguration. King has visited a number of cities, including New Orleans; Midland, Texas; Cairo, Illinois; and Birmingham.
As someone who grew up in the Midwest but has lived in Birmingham for 30-plus years, I find King's article both touching and insightful. And, in a way, it is troubling because progress truly is frozen in Birmingham as we enter 2009.
King focuses on Kelly Ingram Park, the epicenter of our nation's struggle with race in 1963. King rightly notes that it is like no other municipal green in America:
It is a place where children go to stare down sculptures of snarling police dogs, a place where older visitors who know the park's history go to remember and, more recently, to reflect on the distance traveled between what happened here 45 years ago and what will happen in Washington in less than three weeks.
"It all connects," Henry Biggs, a 55-year-old native of Birmingham was saying the other day as he stood at the edge of the park. "This point to that point, it all connects."
Named for a World War I hero, this 4-acre park was at the center of clashes in the spring of 1963 between police and protesters determined to roll back the city's Jim Crow laws -- a struggle that brought infamy to this Southern steel town and ignited the civil rights movement.
King hints at both Birmingham's progress and its promise. But those of us who live here, and pay attention to public events, know there are powerful forces still aligned against change.
Our African-American mayor and several associates have been indicted on federal charges involving an alleged pay-for-play scheme.
While the charges against Mayor Larry Langford are troubling, perhaps even more alarming are the actions of the federal prosecutor who brought the case. Republican appointee Alice Martin has a history of targeting people who have dark skin or are Democrats--or both. Some of her cases have been so weak and blatantly political that she is being investigated by multiple government agencies.
But still, the local daily newspaper cheers her on, even though a prominent expert on legal affairs has called her perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.
Even at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), once the city's most shining example of forward thinking, ugly forces appear to target those who don't fit the white/male/monied/Republican profile that still holds sway over much of the state.
A writer for a national magazine labels UAB's recent behavior "Orwellian" and marvels at the university's willingness to tolerate bigoted and racist speech while apparently taking steps to silence progressive voices.
As one of those progressive voices targeted at UAB, I hope King will make a return visit to our city in the coming months. The forces for change and the forces for stasis will be clashing in the Age of Obama. It's a story with national implications.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Florida's Head Gator Should Have Been At UAB
The University of Florida defeated Oklahoma 24-14 last night to win the national championship of college football. It was the Gators' second title in three years, and Coach Urban Meyer is the toast of the college-football world.
But the man who really deserves credit for Florida's success on the gridiron is university president Bernard Machen. And Bernard Machen should have been the president at my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
As we noted in a recent post, UAB has been experiencing a crisis of leadership that dates to Charles A. McCallum's resignation as president in 1993. With the exception of Paul Hardin, a retired University of North Carolina chancellor who served as interim president at UAB in 1997, the Birmingham campus has seen a series of wretched presidents, topped off by the current lapdog, Carol Garrison.
UAB has suffered through 15-plus years of lousy leadership because of a string of stupendously bad decisions by the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And the worst of those decisions was the failure to hire Bernard Machen.
First, some background about the University of Alabama System: The three-campus system is run by a board and chancellor's office that are based in Tuscaloosa. The "mother campus" (Roll Tide Roll!) is in Tuscaloosa, with a campus in Birmingham (once known mainly for its hospital and medical center) and a campus in Huntsville (once known mainly for its science and technology programs).
UAB and UAH have evolved into comprehensive urban universities, and UAB even has Division-I athletics and a football team (Go Blazers!). But it's a poorly kept secret that most of the board members know little, and care less, about the Birmingham and Huntsville campuses. With two or three exceptions at any one time, the board members have thoroughly crimson blood.
That might help explain why the board has done such a horrific job of hiring presidents for UAB, even though the university and its biomedical-research enterprise are the keys to Alabama's economic future. In fact, UAB brings in more research funding than the University of Alabama and Auburn University combined.
But the UA Board of Trustees evidently cannot be bothered to hire an actual leader for the state's largest employer, in the state's largest city.
UAB's decline started with the failure to hire Bernard Machen. And yours truly had a front-row seat for the sideshow. Follow me through this travelogue of incompetence in higher education.
McCallum resigned as UAB president in 1993, apparently fed up with grief he was receiving from the board for approving the formation of a football program in Birmingham.
J. Claude Bennett, a Birmingham native who was widely respected for his leadership of UAB's Department of Medicine (the largest academic department in the state), seemed to be a logical choice as president. But Bennett proved to be a flop in that position. He appointed a number of administrators who could charitably be called "hatchetmen," promoting widespread unrest on the campus. Someone finally pointed out that Bennett was using state employees to work at his personal residence--Oops--and so he was quietly shown the door.
Hardin, a lawyer by training, did a splendid job as interim president in 1997, and my understanding is that many influential folks begged him to stay on. But he was getting up in years and did not want to be a full-time college administrator anymore.
So UAB conducted a national search that came down to two candidates--W. Ann Reynolds, chancellor of City University of New York (CUNY) and Bernard Machen, provost at the University of Michigan.
The choice seemed clearcut. Reynolds had an impressive resume, but she also had a history of causing uproars on several campuses. Word was that she had gone through something like 18 secretaries in a short time at CUNY. I later heard from a trusted source in human resources at UAB that those stories were true, give or take a secretary or two.
Meanwhile, Machen appeared to be a perfect fit. He is a dentist by training, and UAB has one of the top dental schools in the country. UAB has a tradition of strong dentist/leaders. Both McCallum and Joseph Volker, UAB's first president, rose to the top spot through the School of Dentistry.
Machen reportedly had family in the South, and that made the UAB job particularly attractive to him. In the Publications Office, where I worked, word was that it was a done deal--Machen would be UAB's new president. We were so sure of it that we did not even attend Reynolds' public interview session with the board. I was right there on the front row for the Machen session, sure I was hearing from our next president.
But in a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the UA board hired Reynolds. How could this decision get screwed up so badly? Here's what a trusted source told me:
Michigan was going through a tumultuous stretch at the time, and Machen had been pretty much holding the campus together, handling two or three jobs over several months. The UAB interviews were in the spring, and when board members asked Machen when he could start, he made the mistake of being honest. Machen reportedly said the heavy workload at Michigan had left him tired, and he would like to take some time to recharge his batteries before starting at UAB. Plus, he had a number of loose ends to tie up at Ann Arbor. Machen suggested that he start at UAB in the fall, around the time the school year started.
When asked the same question, Reynolds said she could start right away. In fact, she couldn't wait to get to UAB. Of course that was because, according to reports at the time, she was about to be ousted at CUNY.
According to my source, board members said something like, "This guy from Michigan sounds worn out. We need this energetic gal from New York."
And so Ann Reynolds was hired as president of UAB. Perhaps the only worse personnel decision of the past 25 years was the "election" of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
What was the fallout of the Reynolds hire? After running through umpteen secretaries at UAB, alienating large chunks of the campus community, and allowing research fraud to become rampant, she was finally shown the door. As a parting gift, she sued the UA System for gender and age discrimination.
And Machen? He went on to serve with distinction as president of the University of Utah for six years. While in Salt Lake City, Machen hired a football coach named Urban Meyer who turned the Utes into a national power. In fact, in a bit of delicious irony, Utah recently kicked Alabama's butt in the 2009 Sugar Bowl.
Machen became Florida's president in 2004 and promptly hired Meyer to lead the Gators. Two national championships later, things look pretty rosy in Gainesville.
Let's make one important point: I'm a sports guy, and I've written professionally about sports for 30-plus year. I maintain a keen interest in UAB's sports program, even though the university screwed me out of my job.
But even I know that Bernard Machen's status as a university president is not based on football championships. It's based on academics and leadership, and Machen has a sterling reputation in both areas. Student applications and research grants have risen steadily at Florida, and Machen oversaw similar growth at Utah. The only bad thing I can find about him is that he endorsed John McCain for president. Ugh!
As for UAB, it's left with a sock puppet named Carol Garrison for president. The university is awash in research fraud and HR problems, and numerous top-flight faculty members have hit the exits in recent years. University computers are being used to send bigoted and racist e-mail messages, and UAB apparently has done little about it.
But the UA board evidently has the kind of president it wants. When UAB was hiring a football coach, it wanted to hire highly regarded LSU assistant Jimbo Fisher (now head-coach-in-waiting at Florida State). Instead, the board wanted UA graduate Neil Callaway to get the job, and Garrison caved in. (By the way, I follow UAB football and happen to think the Blazers lucked out with Callaway. A former assistant at the University of Georgia, Alabama, and Auburn, I think he is doing a good job at UAB, and I like him personally.)
I suspect a similar process took place with my termination. Evidence strongly suggests that Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin did not like the contents of my blog--which UAB's own investigation showed I was writing with my own time and resources. Someone connected to Riley/Martin probably complained to someone on the board--Riley is ex oficio president of the board--and pressured Garrison to fire me without anything remotely close to just cause.
Hopefully, someone at the UAB Medical Center can perform a spine transplant on Carol Garrison someday.
As for UAB athletics, one can only wonder how much farther along Blazer sports would be if Bernard Machen had been hired as president. Heck, Urban Meyer might have been UAB's football coach.
And here's a thought: If Machen had been hired at UAB, I think he might still be here. Florida certainly is an impressive institution, but in terms of research funding, UAB does not take a backseat to many schools. Only the University of North Carolina and Duke University receive more federal research dollars in the South than UAB.
Also, Florida had an advantage in recruiting Machen away from Utah. He has roots in the South, and that probably was a factor in him leaving Utah.
But if Machen had been hired at UAB, he already would have been in the South. Would UAB have been able to fight off Florida in a bidding war for Machen's services? I think it would have been possible.
It's hard to calculate how much better off UAB would be--not to mention Birmingham and Alabama--if Bernard Machen had been hired when the UA board had the chance.
Alabama's loss is Florida's gain.
But the man who really deserves credit for Florida's success on the gridiron is university president Bernard Machen. And Bernard Machen should have been the president at my former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
As we noted in a recent post, UAB has been experiencing a crisis of leadership that dates to Charles A. McCallum's resignation as president in 1993. With the exception of Paul Hardin, a retired University of North Carolina chancellor who served as interim president at UAB in 1997, the Birmingham campus has seen a series of wretched presidents, topped off by the current lapdog, Carol Garrison.
UAB has suffered through 15-plus years of lousy leadership because of a string of stupendously bad decisions by the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. And the worst of those decisions was the failure to hire Bernard Machen.
First, some background about the University of Alabama System: The three-campus system is run by a board and chancellor's office that are based in Tuscaloosa. The "mother campus" (Roll Tide Roll!) is in Tuscaloosa, with a campus in Birmingham (once known mainly for its hospital and medical center) and a campus in Huntsville (once known mainly for its science and technology programs).
UAB and UAH have evolved into comprehensive urban universities, and UAB even has Division-I athletics and a football team (Go Blazers!). But it's a poorly kept secret that most of the board members know little, and care less, about the Birmingham and Huntsville campuses. With two or three exceptions at any one time, the board members have thoroughly crimson blood.
That might help explain why the board has done such a horrific job of hiring presidents for UAB, even though the university and its biomedical-research enterprise are the keys to Alabama's economic future. In fact, UAB brings in more research funding than the University of Alabama and Auburn University combined.
But the UA Board of Trustees evidently cannot be bothered to hire an actual leader for the state's largest employer, in the state's largest city.
UAB's decline started with the failure to hire Bernard Machen. And yours truly had a front-row seat for the sideshow. Follow me through this travelogue of incompetence in higher education.
McCallum resigned as UAB president in 1993, apparently fed up with grief he was receiving from the board for approving the formation of a football program in Birmingham.
J. Claude Bennett, a Birmingham native who was widely respected for his leadership of UAB's Department of Medicine (the largest academic department in the state), seemed to be a logical choice as president. But Bennett proved to be a flop in that position. He appointed a number of administrators who could charitably be called "hatchetmen," promoting widespread unrest on the campus. Someone finally pointed out that Bennett was using state employees to work at his personal residence--Oops--and so he was quietly shown the door.
Hardin, a lawyer by training, did a splendid job as interim president in 1997, and my understanding is that many influential folks begged him to stay on. But he was getting up in years and did not want to be a full-time college administrator anymore.
So UAB conducted a national search that came down to two candidates--W. Ann Reynolds, chancellor of City University of New York (CUNY) and Bernard Machen, provost at the University of Michigan.
The choice seemed clearcut. Reynolds had an impressive resume, but she also had a history of causing uproars on several campuses. Word was that she had gone through something like 18 secretaries in a short time at CUNY. I later heard from a trusted source in human resources at UAB that those stories were true, give or take a secretary or two.
Meanwhile, Machen appeared to be a perfect fit. He is a dentist by training, and UAB has one of the top dental schools in the country. UAB has a tradition of strong dentist/leaders. Both McCallum and Joseph Volker, UAB's first president, rose to the top spot through the School of Dentistry.
Machen reportedly had family in the South, and that made the UAB job particularly attractive to him. In the Publications Office, where I worked, word was that it was a done deal--Machen would be UAB's new president. We were so sure of it that we did not even attend Reynolds' public interview session with the board. I was right there on the front row for the Machen session, sure I was hearing from our next president.
But in a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the UA board hired Reynolds. How could this decision get screwed up so badly? Here's what a trusted source told me:
Michigan was going through a tumultuous stretch at the time, and Machen had been pretty much holding the campus together, handling two or three jobs over several months. The UAB interviews were in the spring, and when board members asked Machen when he could start, he made the mistake of being honest. Machen reportedly said the heavy workload at Michigan had left him tired, and he would like to take some time to recharge his batteries before starting at UAB. Plus, he had a number of loose ends to tie up at Ann Arbor. Machen suggested that he start at UAB in the fall, around the time the school year started.
When asked the same question, Reynolds said she could start right away. In fact, she couldn't wait to get to UAB. Of course that was because, according to reports at the time, she was about to be ousted at CUNY.
According to my source, board members said something like, "This guy from Michigan sounds worn out. We need this energetic gal from New York."
And so Ann Reynolds was hired as president of UAB. Perhaps the only worse personnel decision of the past 25 years was the "election" of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
What was the fallout of the Reynolds hire? After running through umpteen secretaries at UAB, alienating large chunks of the campus community, and allowing research fraud to become rampant, she was finally shown the door. As a parting gift, she sued the UA System for gender and age discrimination.
And Machen? He went on to serve with distinction as president of the University of Utah for six years. While in Salt Lake City, Machen hired a football coach named Urban Meyer who turned the Utes into a national power. In fact, in a bit of delicious irony, Utah recently kicked Alabama's butt in the 2009 Sugar Bowl.
Machen became Florida's president in 2004 and promptly hired Meyer to lead the Gators. Two national championships later, things look pretty rosy in Gainesville.
Let's make one important point: I'm a sports guy, and I've written professionally about sports for 30-plus year. I maintain a keen interest in UAB's sports program, even though the university screwed me out of my job.
But even I know that Bernard Machen's status as a university president is not based on football championships. It's based on academics and leadership, and Machen has a sterling reputation in both areas. Student applications and research grants have risen steadily at Florida, and Machen oversaw similar growth at Utah. The only bad thing I can find about him is that he endorsed John McCain for president. Ugh!
As for UAB, it's left with a sock puppet named Carol Garrison for president. The university is awash in research fraud and HR problems, and numerous top-flight faculty members have hit the exits in recent years. University computers are being used to send bigoted and racist e-mail messages, and UAB apparently has done little about it.
But the UA board evidently has the kind of president it wants. When UAB was hiring a football coach, it wanted to hire highly regarded LSU assistant Jimbo Fisher (now head-coach-in-waiting at Florida State). Instead, the board wanted UA graduate Neil Callaway to get the job, and Garrison caved in. (By the way, I follow UAB football and happen to think the Blazers lucked out with Callaway. A former assistant at the University of Georgia, Alabama, and Auburn, I think he is doing a good job at UAB, and I like him personally.)
I suspect a similar process took place with my termination. Evidence strongly suggests that Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin did not like the contents of my blog--which UAB's own investigation showed I was writing with my own time and resources. Someone connected to Riley/Martin probably complained to someone on the board--Riley is ex oficio president of the board--and pressured Garrison to fire me without anything remotely close to just cause.
Hopefully, someone at the UAB Medical Center can perform a spine transplant on Carol Garrison someday.
As for UAB athletics, one can only wonder how much farther along Blazer sports would be if Bernard Machen had been hired as president. Heck, Urban Meyer might have been UAB's football coach.
And here's a thought: If Machen had been hired at UAB, I think he might still be here. Florida certainly is an impressive institution, but in terms of research funding, UAB does not take a backseat to many schools. Only the University of North Carolina and Duke University receive more federal research dollars in the South than UAB.
Also, Florida had an advantage in recruiting Machen away from Utah. He has roots in the South, and that probably was a factor in him leaving Utah.
But if Machen had been hired at UAB, he already would have been in the South. Would UAB have been able to fight off Florida in a bidding war for Machen's services? I think it would have been possible.
It's hard to calculate how much better off UAB would be--not to mention Birmingham and Alabama--if Bernard Machen had been hired when the UA board had the chance.
Alabama's loss is Florida's gain.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Hazards of Having Corrupt Federal Prosecutors
About once a week since Barack Obama was elected president, The Birmingham News has run some sort of piece about the importance of continuing prosecutions initiated by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.
The most recent entreaty came from columnist John Archibald, who virtually got on his knees and begged Obama (or someone close to him) to make sure that Martin's handiwork proceeds into 2009 and beyond.
Archibald and his colleagues, in their pieces about Alabama justice in the Age of Obama, have conveniently neglected a key point: There is a downside to having ethically challenged federal prosecutors, such as Martin and fellow Bush appointee Leura Canary (Middle District of Alabama).
Both Martin and Canary have been accused of abusing their power for political purposes, and news reports indicate that both are under investigation by multiple federal agencies. These investigations probably have been whitewashes under the Bush Justice Department. But a number of sources indicate they could get serious when Obama appointees take over.
Archibald & Co. probably do not want to consider this question, but we will raise it here at Legal Schnauzer: What if the charges against Martin and Canary are true? In fact, what if investigations reveal that the truth about Martin and Canary is even worse than some of their critics allege? What if Martin and Canary wind up facing professional sanctions, such as disbarment? What if Martin and Canary are found to have participated in criminal conspiracies?
The Birmingham News seems desperate to see Martin's prosecutions proceed against certain high-profile Democrats. These defendants include Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and codefendants William Blount and Al LaPierre; Langford associate John Katapodis; Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz; Alabama Senator E.B. McClain; and more. The News appears to have a particularly strong bloodlust for Langford.
As for Canary, she is leading an effort to prosecute Montgomery insurance executive John Goff in a case that seems driven by the concerns/fears/desires of folks associated with Governor Bob Riley. The Goff prosecution started only after Goff had filed a lawsuit claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin one of his businesses.
What are some possible downsides of these cases moving forward? For simplicity's sake, let's consider the Langford case in Birmingham and the Goff case in Montgomery.
Langford, a black Democrat, was arrested in early December on corruption-related charges. It's hard to say how strong the government's case is against Langford. But given Martin's history of bringing questionable cases against Democrats and minorities, a reasonable person might wonder if political motivations are present. Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, has called Martin one of the most corrupt and crooked public officials in the country.
Goff, a former Riley supporter, has been charged with fraud and embezzlement based on a set of facts that appeared to have already been settled in an administrative-law case. The indictment of Goff seems to be payback for a lawsuit he brought against Gov. Riley.
Let's assume the government has moderately strong cases against Langford and Goff. And let's assume that both are found guilty in federal trials. What happens if subsequent investigations show that the prosecutors who initiated both cases were corrupt, that they targeted subjects for political reasons, that they violated professional standards and perhaps criminal laws?
Does that not give Langford and Goff overwhelming grounds for appeal? Couldn't that mean that any convictions would be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct? Could taxpayer dollars spent on the two trials be wasted because the prosecutors were found to have acted corruptly?
Regular readers know that I am not an attorney. And I don't pretend to be an expert on federal criminal procedure. But when Obama appointees are in place in the Justice Department, it seems they will need to ask themselves this question: Should we move forward with cases in Alabama, and elsewhere, that might have already been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct?
Put another way: Should we run the risk of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get convictions on cases that are likely to be overturned on appeal?
John Archibald and The Birmingham News crowd don't want to acknowledge it, but these are the kinds of hard questions the corrupt Bush Justice Department is leaving behind.
The most recent entreaty came from columnist John Archibald, who virtually got on his knees and begged Obama (or someone close to him) to make sure that Martin's handiwork proceeds into 2009 and beyond.
Archibald and his colleagues, in their pieces about Alabama justice in the Age of Obama, have conveniently neglected a key point: There is a downside to having ethically challenged federal prosecutors, such as Martin and fellow Bush appointee Leura Canary (Middle District of Alabama).
Both Martin and Canary have been accused of abusing their power for political purposes, and news reports indicate that both are under investigation by multiple federal agencies. These investigations probably have been whitewashes under the Bush Justice Department. But a number of sources indicate they could get serious when Obama appointees take over.
Archibald & Co. probably do not want to consider this question, but we will raise it here at Legal Schnauzer: What if the charges against Martin and Canary are true? In fact, what if investigations reveal that the truth about Martin and Canary is even worse than some of their critics allege? What if Martin and Canary wind up facing professional sanctions, such as disbarment? What if Martin and Canary are found to have participated in criminal conspiracies?
The Birmingham News seems desperate to see Martin's prosecutions proceed against certain high-profile Democrats. These defendants include Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and codefendants William Blount and Al LaPierre; Langford associate John Katapodis; Alabama Representative Sue Schmitz; Alabama Senator E.B. McClain; and more. The News appears to have a particularly strong bloodlust for Langford.
As for Canary, she is leading an effort to prosecute Montgomery insurance executive John Goff in a case that seems driven by the concerns/fears/desires of folks associated with Governor Bob Riley. The Goff prosecution started only after Goff had filed a lawsuit claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin one of his businesses.
What are some possible downsides of these cases moving forward? For simplicity's sake, let's consider the Langford case in Birmingham and the Goff case in Montgomery.
Langford, a black Democrat, was arrested in early December on corruption-related charges. It's hard to say how strong the government's case is against Langford. But given Martin's history of bringing questionable cases against Democrats and minorities, a reasonable person might wonder if political motivations are present. Scott Horton, Columbia University law professor and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine, has called Martin one of the most corrupt and crooked public officials in the country.
Goff, a former Riley supporter, has been charged with fraud and embezzlement based on a set of facts that appeared to have already been settled in an administrative-law case. The indictment of Goff seems to be payback for a lawsuit he brought against Gov. Riley.
Let's assume the government has moderately strong cases against Langford and Goff. And let's assume that both are found guilty in federal trials. What happens if subsequent investigations show that the prosecutors who initiated both cases were corrupt, that they targeted subjects for political reasons, that they violated professional standards and perhaps criminal laws?
Does that not give Langford and Goff overwhelming grounds for appeal? Couldn't that mean that any convictions would be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct? Could taxpayer dollars spent on the two trials be wasted because the prosecutors were found to have acted corruptly?
Regular readers know that I am not an attorney. And I don't pretend to be an expert on federal criminal procedure. But when Obama appointees are in place in the Justice Department, it seems they will need to ask themselves this question: Should we move forward with cases in Alabama, and elsewhere, that might have already been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct?
Put another way: Should we run the risk of wasting millions of taxpayer dollars trying to get convictions on cases that are likely to be overturned on appeal?
John Archibald and The Birmingham News crowd don't want to acknowledge it, but these are the kinds of hard questions the corrupt Bush Justice Department is leaving behind.
A Tribute To Dan Fogelberg
It's hard to live through the passing of one year into the next without thinking of Dan Fogelberg.
One of our most gifted singer-songwriters, Fogelberg was perhaps best known for "Same Old Lang Syne," a tune about a guy who runs into an old girlfriend in a grocery store on Christmas Eve. The song made it to No. 9 on the U.S. pop charts in 1980 and remains a staple around the holidays.
Fogelberg died just a little more than a year ago, on December 16, 2007, after a battle with prostate cancer. He was 56 years old.
Thanks to a string of hit singles and well-received albums, Fogelberg enjoyed major commercial success. But he seemed to fall through the musical cracks a bit. He was not as beloved as Paul Simon, James Taylor, or Carole King. He did not enjoy the mass appeal of John Denver. He was not as critically acclaimed as Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, or Jackson Browne. But I would argue that Fogelberg deserves a place in the pantheon of American singer-songwriters.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we've been thinking about Fogelberg a lot lately--I guess for several reasons. I heard "Same Old Lang Syne" over the holidays, and that prompted me to get out The Innocent Age, Fogelberg's two-disk masterpiece from 1980, and play it from start to finish several times. That served as a reminder of Fogelberg's prodigious musical skills.
Also, I've long identified with Fogelberg's backstory. He is probably most associated with California, where he recorded much of his music, and Colorado, where he lived for many years. But like me, he is a child of the Midwest; Fogelberg grew up in Peoria, Illinois. In fact, a great tune from one of his early albums is called simply "Illinois." During my University of Missouri years, I remember hearing of Fogelberg before he became known nationally with release of the hit single "Part of the Plan." Much the way REM first became a phenomenon in the Deep South, Fogelberg first became appreciated in his native region.
Finally, when you blog on a regular basis, you gain a heightened appreciation for the power of words--and those who use them well. Fogelberg was a master with words; I would argue that he was one of our best lyricists ever. Consider these lyrics from "Nexus," the opening track on The Innocent Age:
In a spiral never-ending
Are we drawn toward the source
Spinning at the mercy
Of an unrelenting force
So we stare into the emptiness
And fall beneath the weight
Circling the Nexus
In a fevered dance with fate
Here is a performance of "Nexus" from an acoustic solo concert:
Or consider the evocative lyrics of "The Reach." Fogelberg truly paints pictures with words:
It's Maine and it's autumn
The birches have just begun turning
It's life and it's dying
The lobstermen's boats come returning
With the catch of the day in their holds
And the young boys cold and complaining
The fog meets the beaches and out on the Reach
It is raining
Here is a live performance of "The Reach:"
For an Alabama flavor, here is a video of "Only the Heart May Know," a gorgeous duet that Fogelberg performed with Birmingham native Emmylou Harris:
Finally, Fogelberg makes masterful use of imagery in the lyrics to "In the Passage:"
The places dash and the faces dart
Like fishes in a dream
Hiding 'neath the murky banks
Of long forgotten streams
The lines of life are never long
When seen from end to end
The future's never coming
And the past has never been
Here's a fan's tribute to Fogelberg, set to "In the Passage." Enjoy
One of our most gifted singer-songwriters, Fogelberg was perhaps best known for "Same Old Lang Syne," a tune about a guy who runs into an old girlfriend in a grocery store on Christmas Eve. The song made it to No. 9 on the U.S. pop charts in 1980 and remains a staple around the holidays.
Fogelberg died just a little more than a year ago, on December 16, 2007, after a battle with prostate cancer. He was 56 years old.
Thanks to a string of hit singles and well-received albums, Fogelberg enjoyed major commercial success. But he seemed to fall through the musical cracks a bit. He was not as beloved as Paul Simon, James Taylor, or Carole King. He did not enjoy the mass appeal of John Denver. He was not as critically acclaimed as Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, or Jackson Browne. But I would argue that Fogelberg deserves a place in the pantheon of American singer-songwriters.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we've been thinking about Fogelberg a lot lately--I guess for several reasons. I heard "Same Old Lang Syne" over the holidays, and that prompted me to get out The Innocent Age, Fogelberg's two-disk masterpiece from 1980, and play it from start to finish several times. That served as a reminder of Fogelberg's prodigious musical skills.
Also, I've long identified with Fogelberg's backstory. He is probably most associated with California, where he recorded much of his music, and Colorado, where he lived for many years. But like me, he is a child of the Midwest; Fogelberg grew up in Peoria, Illinois. In fact, a great tune from one of his early albums is called simply "Illinois." During my University of Missouri years, I remember hearing of Fogelberg before he became known nationally with release of the hit single "Part of the Plan." Much the way REM first became a phenomenon in the Deep South, Fogelberg first became appreciated in his native region.
Finally, when you blog on a regular basis, you gain a heightened appreciation for the power of words--and those who use them well. Fogelberg was a master with words; I would argue that he was one of our best lyricists ever. Consider these lyrics from "Nexus," the opening track on The Innocent Age:
In a spiral never-ending
Are we drawn toward the source
Spinning at the mercy
Of an unrelenting force
So we stare into the emptiness
And fall beneath the weight
Circling the Nexus
In a fevered dance with fate
Here is a performance of "Nexus" from an acoustic solo concert:
Or consider the evocative lyrics of "The Reach." Fogelberg truly paints pictures with words:
It's Maine and it's autumn
The birches have just begun turning
It's life and it's dying
The lobstermen's boats come returning
With the catch of the day in their holds
And the young boys cold and complaining
The fog meets the beaches and out on the Reach
It is raining
Here is a live performance of "The Reach:"
For an Alabama flavor, here is a video of "Only the Heart May Know," a gorgeous duet that Fogelberg performed with Birmingham native Emmylou Harris:
Finally, Fogelberg makes masterful use of imagery in the lyrics to "In the Passage:"
The places dash and the faces dart
Like fishes in a dream
Hiding 'neath the murky banks
Of long forgotten streams
The lines of life are never long
When seen from end to end
The future's never coming
And the past has never been
Here's a fan's tribute to Fogelberg, set to "In the Passage." Enjoy
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Has UAB Lost Its Moral Compass?
A letter to the editor from a Birmingham architect recently caught our attention here at Legal Schnauzer.
The letter, by Kenneth Owens Jr., was titled "Appalled, but not surprised, by black UAB professor's treatment."
Owens, a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, focused on the case of Horace Huntley, a long-time UAB history professor. Huntley has sued the university, claiming discriminatory treatment based on race.
Owens goes on to note UAB's spotty record of awarding design contracts to minority firms. And he points out that none of Birmingham's six minority-owned architectural firms has received significant contracts from UAB.
A number of factors might be involved in the issues that Owens raises. But I would point primarily to a crisis of leadership at UAB that dates to Charles A. McCallum's resignation as president in 1993.
McCallum initiated a number of major programs to enhance opportunities for minorities at UAB. And Dr. Joseph Volker, generally considered the "Father of UAB," helped integrate University Hospital at a time when Birmingham was riven with racial strife.
Courageous and visionary leadership, however, appears to be a thing of the past at UAB. Consider the university's three most recent full-time presidents:
* J. Claude Bennett (1993-1996)--Considered a splendid scientist and leader of UAB's Department of Medicine, Bennett was a flop as the university's president. He resigned after it was discovered that state employees were performing work at his personal residence.
* W. Ann Reynolds (1997-2002)--The university's first female president, Reynolds came from CUNY in New York with a stellar resume and a combustible personality. She was a major source of friction on the campus and exited not long after a whistleblower revealed massive research fraud at UAB. Court documents indicate that the Reynolds administration largely ignored warnings about double and triple billing of federal research programs. As a parting gift, Reynolds filed a lawsuit against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, claiming she had been a victim of discrimination.
(Here's an interesting postscript to the Reynolds fiasco: The runnerup when she was named president was a fellow named Bernard Machen, then the provost at the University of Michigan. After being rejected by UAB, Machen became president of the University of Utah. Now, Machen is president of an institution you might have heard of in the Southeast, and he generally is considered one of the top university administrators in the country. If you are a college football fan, you certainly should be familiar with Machen. He hired Urban Meyer as coach at Utah, which recently kicked Alabama's butt in the Sugar Bowl, and then hired Meyer at the University of Florida, which kicked Alabama's butt in the SEC Championship Game. Meyer will lead the Gators against the University of Oklahoma in the national championship game tomorrow night. No wonder the UA Board of Trustees didn't want to hire Machen for the UAB campus. UAB would be kicking the Crimson Tide's butt in football!
(So why did they pick Reynolds over Machen. A source tells me that Machen made the mistake of being honest with the board. Michigan was going through a tumultuous period at the time, and Machen was essentially holding the place together, serving in two or three jobs. When UA board members asked when he could start at UAB--he generally was considered the front runner--he said he was tired from fighting battles at Michigan and would like to have a little time to recharge his batteries before starting at UAB. If I remember correctly, this was in the spring, and Machen said he would like to start around September, the start of the school year. In academic circles, that is a thoroughly reasonable request. But Reynolds said she could start right away--and why not, she was about to be ousted at CUNY. Reynolds seemed like an "eager beaver," and that's why the dolts on the UA board hired her. UAB has been headed downhill ever since.)
* Carol Garrison (2002-present)--Garrison is the first UAB alum to be named president, but it appears that had little to do with her selection. She had been provost at the University of Louisville, and she probably was chosen mainly because the UA board knew it was about to be sued by Reynolds and it wanted to hire another woman to help fight those discrimination charges. Garrison brought significant baggage with her from Louisville. Not long after her arrival at UAB, Garrison was cited in stories about unethical actions by University of Tennessee president John Shumaker. Garrison had served under Shumaker at Louisville, and the two developed a "personal relationship" that quickly became an embarrassment to UAB. An investigation of Shumaker's activities at Tennessee showed that he had used a state airplane to make personal trips to Birmingham to visit Garrison. The investigation also showed that Shumaker and Garrison had attended a conference and spent three nights together in a hotel--and Shumaker lied about it. Not only did Garrison bring personal baggage to UAB, she also apparently failed to clean up the university's problems with research fraud. A second UAB whistleblower filed a complaint with the government in 2004, two years after Garrison's arrival.
As for Kenneth Owens Jr., I think he is right to be concerned about UAB's treatment of Horace Huntley and minority-owned architectural firms. In fact, Owens and other citizens should be concerned about UAB's treatment of anyone who doesn't fit the white/male/monied Republican profile that seems to hold sway on the campus these days.
Consider the treatment of Rosalia Scripa, the first female faculty member in the School of Engineering.
Consider the fact that I was fired (after 19 years of service) for writing a progressive blog on my own time, while UAB has protected employees who have violated university policy by using state equipment to transmit bigoted and racist e-mail messages.
Now consider the fact that UAB has exalted a donor named William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, putting his family name on a new radiation oncology building. Never mind that Hazelrig has a dreadful driving record and a number of curious political and business connections to Republican powerbrokers. Hey, if you're a white Republican who can fork over $5 million, UAB thinks you are great--no matter how many times you put people's lives at risk.
Is Carol Garrison little more than a lapdog, who does the bidding of Alabama's white-elite power structure while letting a once-great university rot underneath her? Does UAB stand for anything besides "business as usual" and the power of cold, hard cash? Is it any wonder that Garrison married a wealthy retired banker named Julian Banton a few years back? Is that the only kind of world she understands or cares about?
Alabama citizens should be asking some serious questions about the "leadership" at UAB.
The letter, by Kenneth Owens Jr., was titled "Appalled, but not surprised, by black UAB professor's treatment."
Owens, a fellow of the American Institute of Architects, focused on the case of Horace Huntley, a long-time UAB history professor. Huntley has sued the university, claiming discriminatory treatment based on race.
Owens goes on to note UAB's spotty record of awarding design contracts to minority firms. And he points out that none of Birmingham's six minority-owned architectural firms has received significant contracts from UAB.
A number of factors might be involved in the issues that Owens raises. But I would point primarily to a crisis of leadership at UAB that dates to Charles A. McCallum's resignation as president in 1993.
McCallum initiated a number of major programs to enhance opportunities for minorities at UAB. And Dr. Joseph Volker, generally considered the "Father of UAB," helped integrate University Hospital at a time when Birmingham was riven with racial strife.
Courageous and visionary leadership, however, appears to be a thing of the past at UAB. Consider the university's three most recent full-time presidents:
* J. Claude Bennett (1993-1996)--Considered a splendid scientist and leader of UAB's Department of Medicine, Bennett was a flop as the university's president. He resigned after it was discovered that state employees were performing work at his personal residence.
* W. Ann Reynolds (1997-2002)--The university's first female president, Reynolds came from CUNY in New York with a stellar resume and a combustible personality. She was a major source of friction on the campus and exited not long after a whistleblower revealed massive research fraud at UAB. Court documents indicate that the Reynolds administration largely ignored warnings about double and triple billing of federal research programs. As a parting gift, Reynolds filed a lawsuit against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, claiming she had been a victim of discrimination.
(Here's an interesting postscript to the Reynolds fiasco: The runnerup when she was named president was a fellow named Bernard Machen, then the provost at the University of Michigan. After being rejected by UAB, Machen became president of the University of Utah. Now, Machen is president of an institution you might have heard of in the Southeast, and he generally is considered one of the top university administrators in the country. If you are a college football fan, you certainly should be familiar with Machen. He hired Urban Meyer as coach at Utah, which recently kicked Alabama's butt in the Sugar Bowl, and then hired Meyer at the University of Florida, which kicked Alabama's butt in the SEC Championship Game. Meyer will lead the Gators against the University of Oklahoma in the national championship game tomorrow night. No wonder the UA Board of Trustees didn't want to hire Machen for the UAB campus. UAB would be kicking the Crimson Tide's butt in football!
(So why did they pick Reynolds over Machen. A source tells me that Machen made the mistake of being honest with the board. Michigan was going through a tumultuous period at the time, and Machen was essentially holding the place together, serving in two or three jobs. When UA board members asked when he could start at UAB--he generally was considered the front runner--he said he was tired from fighting battles at Michigan and would like to have a little time to recharge his batteries before starting at UAB. If I remember correctly, this was in the spring, and Machen said he would like to start around September, the start of the school year. In academic circles, that is a thoroughly reasonable request. But Reynolds said she could start right away--and why not, she was about to be ousted at CUNY. Reynolds seemed like an "eager beaver," and that's why the dolts on the UA board hired her. UAB has been headed downhill ever since.)
* Carol Garrison (2002-present)--Garrison is the first UAB alum to be named president, but it appears that had little to do with her selection. She had been provost at the University of Louisville, and she probably was chosen mainly because the UA board knew it was about to be sued by Reynolds and it wanted to hire another woman to help fight those discrimination charges. Garrison brought significant baggage with her from Louisville. Not long after her arrival at UAB, Garrison was cited in stories about unethical actions by University of Tennessee president John Shumaker. Garrison had served under Shumaker at Louisville, and the two developed a "personal relationship" that quickly became an embarrassment to UAB. An investigation of Shumaker's activities at Tennessee showed that he had used a state airplane to make personal trips to Birmingham to visit Garrison. The investigation also showed that Shumaker and Garrison had attended a conference and spent three nights together in a hotel--and Shumaker lied about it. Not only did Garrison bring personal baggage to UAB, she also apparently failed to clean up the university's problems with research fraud. A second UAB whistleblower filed a complaint with the government in 2004, two years after Garrison's arrival.
As for Kenneth Owens Jr., I think he is right to be concerned about UAB's treatment of Horace Huntley and minority-owned architectural firms. In fact, Owens and other citizens should be concerned about UAB's treatment of anyone who doesn't fit the white/male/monied Republican profile that seems to hold sway on the campus these days.
Consider the treatment of Rosalia Scripa, the first female faculty member in the School of Engineering.
Consider the fact that I was fired (after 19 years of service) for writing a progressive blog on my own time, while UAB has protected employees who have violated university policy by using state equipment to transmit bigoted and racist e-mail messages.
Now consider the fact that UAB has exalted a donor named William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, putting his family name on a new radiation oncology building. Never mind that Hazelrig has a dreadful driving record and a number of curious political and business connections to Republican powerbrokers. Hey, if you're a white Republican who can fork over $5 million, UAB thinks you are great--no matter how many times you put people's lives at risk.
Is Carol Garrison little more than a lapdog, who does the bidding of Alabama's white-elite power structure while letting a once-great university rot underneath her? Does UAB stand for anything besides "business as usual" and the power of cold, hard cash? Is it any wonder that Garrison married a wealthy retired banker named Julian Banton a few years back? Is that the only kind of world she understands or cares about?
Alabama citizens should be asking some serious questions about the "leadership" at UAB.
Don Siegelman, Bob Riley, and the Impact of U.S. Attorneys
As we await the appointment of new U.S. attorneys by the Barack Obama administration, perhaps we should ask this question: Just how important are these appointments?
The answer is "very." And Alabama is Exhibit A when it comes to evidence that illustrates the ways corrupt U.S. attorneys can harm the cause of justice.
Experience and research have taught me that federal criminal statutes are very broadly written--frighteningly so. Clarity about federal law usually comes from the case law, and a U.S. attorney must have both the intellectual ability and the moral clarity to accurately determine what is a crime and what is not.
That process has been butchered in Alabama under the George W. Bush Justice Department From Hell.
Consider two cases, both involving Alabama governors:
* We all know about the saga of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Siegelman accepted a $500,000 donation for his lottery campaign and appointed Scrushy to a hospital-oversight board to which he already had served under three previous governors. Despite law and fact to the contrary, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary determined this activity constituted a crime.
* Current Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, packed Alabama's Joint Patriotic Immigration Commission with his own major donors. Four of the appointees gave at least $390,000 to the Riley campaign.
How are Riley's actions different from Siegelman's actions? Answer: they aren't. So why was Siegelman investigated and prosecuted, while Teflon Bob Riley never drew scrutiny from law enforcement? Answer: That's what happens when you appoint political hacks as federal prosecutors.
It's clear that Siegelman and Scrushy did not commit a crime, and I would suggest that Riley probably did not commit a crime with his appointments to the immigration commission.
But I would further suggest that it's time for someone to look past Riley's Teflon coating and examine some of his other activities, particularly his associations with corrupt GOP politicos Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon and the ties that Riley and his associates have to the gambling industry.
For good measure, and hitting close to home, it might be time for someone to look into connections that Riley associates have to my unlawful termination at UAB and the broader corruption of Alabama higher education.
Will Alabama's new U.S. attorneys, appointed by an Obama administration, be up to the task? I would suggest that citizens should do more than just hope on that issue. We should do everything we can to hold their feet to the fire.
The answer is "very." And Alabama is Exhibit A when it comes to evidence that illustrates the ways corrupt U.S. attorneys can harm the cause of justice.
Experience and research have taught me that federal criminal statutes are very broadly written--frighteningly so. Clarity about federal law usually comes from the case law, and a U.S. attorney must have both the intellectual ability and the moral clarity to accurately determine what is a crime and what is not.
That process has been butchered in Alabama under the George W. Bush Justice Department From Hell.
Consider two cases, both involving Alabama governors:
* We all know about the saga of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Siegelman accepted a $500,000 donation for his lottery campaign and appointed Scrushy to a hospital-oversight board to which he already had served under three previous governors. Despite law and fact to the contrary, U.S. Attorney Leura Canary determined this activity constituted a crime.
* Current Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, packed Alabama's Joint Patriotic Immigration Commission with his own major donors. Four of the appointees gave at least $390,000 to the Riley campaign.
How are Riley's actions different from Siegelman's actions? Answer: they aren't. So why was Siegelman investigated and prosecuted, while Teflon Bob Riley never drew scrutiny from law enforcement? Answer: That's what happens when you appoint political hacks as federal prosecutors.
It's clear that Siegelman and Scrushy did not commit a crime, and I would suggest that Riley probably did not commit a crime with his appointments to the immigration commission.
But I would further suggest that it's time for someone to look past Riley's Teflon coating and examine some of his other activities, particularly his associations with corrupt GOP politicos Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon and the ties that Riley and his associates have to the gambling industry.
For good measure, and hitting close to home, it might be time for someone to look into connections that Riley associates have to my unlawful termination at UAB and the broader corruption of Alabama higher education.
Will Alabama's new U.S. attorneys, appointed by an Obama administration, be up to the task? I would suggest that citizens should do more than just hope on that issue. We should do everything we can to hold their feet to the fire.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Kitten Torturer's Defense Doesn't Stand Up to Scrutiny
Let's return to the story of Ralph Allen Fisk IV, the 24-year-old south Alabama man who was convicted of animal torture but managed to escape an 18-month prison sentence.
A kitten belonging to Fisk's common-law wife scratched him, and Fisk responded by cutting off all four of the kitten's pads to the bone and then burning its belly and genitalia. The kitten lived briefly, but eventually died.
I've done some more research on the case since our original post and discovered that the jury needed only 15 minutes to determine that Fisk was guilty. Some family members had to be restrained from attacking Fisk in the wake of the mutilation.
An article about the conviction said Fisk faced a sentence of one to 10 years in prison, and the judge sentenced him to 18 months.
But in a hearing to reconsider the sentence, Fisk's attorney argued that his client had anger issues that blinded him to the reality of what was happening, causing him to harm the kitten in a way he did not intend.
An Alabama judge actually bought that argument and reduced Fisk's sentence to 18 months of reporting to the Mobile Community Corrections Center. An AP story says the center generally requires participants to report daily and undergo intense rehabilitation programs.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we had a little trouble swallowing the argument from Fisk's lawyer. So I decided to conduct some research, and I started by going to the best sources I know of on all issues related to kitty kats--and that's our own brother-and-sister Tonkinese tandem, Baxter and Chloe.
I found Baxter in our kitchen, admiring his reflection in the oven door.
"Excuse me, B-Boy," I said, using one of about 87 nicknames we have for him. "Can I have a word with you?"
"Just a sec," he said. "I'm checking my best side."
Given Baxter's stunning manliness, I understood that he needed more time to scope out his visage.
"OK," he finally said. "I'm done--for now. What do you need."
"How many pads do you have?" I said.
He shot me a look like the one Eddie Murphy gave in Trading Places after being instructed by the old dudes about the ingredients for a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich.
"Humor me a little; it's for my blog."
"Oh, I didn't know I had a massive international audience," he said, with the hint of a smirk. "I've got four pads."
"And I notice you clean them regularly."
"Girls like a guy with clean pads."
"Come on, girls like you regardless."
"You have a point."
"But here's my question: Could you accidentally clean one of your pads?"
"That's a strange question, even for you. But yes, I guess I could accidentally clean one of my pads."
"But if you clean all four pads, it would be intentional?"
"Pad cleaning is serious business. To do all four requires major concentration. If you see me doing all four, you know I've got my game face on."
"That's what I needed. Thanks for your time."
"Can I go back to admiring my reflection?"
"Absolutely."
I found Chloe in the living room, spread-eagled on her favorite chair, calmly licking her . . . well, let's say she was grooming herself.
"Chloe, can I interrupt you for a moment," I said.
"Can't a girl have any privacy around here?" she said.
"I'm sorry, baby, but this is important. I need to know how many pads you have."
Chloe's face never changes expression, except when we're late with her supper and when she wants to rub back and forth against our legs. She didn't bat an eye at my question, just calmly counted each pad.
"I've got four," she said.
When I asked about cleaning all four pads, she agreed that could only be done intentionally.
"I bet Baxter fired that Eddie Murphy look when you asked him those question, didn't he?"
"Yep," I said. "I appreciate your understanding."
"No problem. Can I tend to my business now."
"By all means."
So there you have it, straight from the experts' mouths. You do something to all four kitty-kat pads--whether it's something helpful like cleaning or something evil like cutting--it's intentional.
Fisk's attorney had a bogus argument, but I suspect he knew that already.
As for Judge James Wood, one can only wonder why he went along with this crock. I've learned from hard-earned experience that one can never be surprised when an Alabama judge acts contrary to law, fact, or rational thought--or, in some cases, all three.
In this instance, based on news reports, it appears that Wood sentenced Fisk to less than the minimum required by law--unless reporting daily to a corrections center is considered the equivalent of time in prison.
Thanks to the miracle of e-mail, citizens can contact the judge and ask him to explain his cockamamie ruling. Judge Wood can be reached at james.wood@alacourt.gov.
A kitten belonging to Fisk's common-law wife scratched him, and Fisk responded by cutting off all four of the kitten's pads to the bone and then burning its belly and genitalia. The kitten lived briefly, but eventually died.
I've done some more research on the case since our original post and discovered that the jury needed only 15 minutes to determine that Fisk was guilty. Some family members had to be restrained from attacking Fisk in the wake of the mutilation.
An article about the conviction said Fisk faced a sentence of one to 10 years in prison, and the judge sentenced him to 18 months.
But in a hearing to reconsider the sentence, Fisk's attorney argued that his client had anger issues that blinded him to the reality of what was happening, causing him to harm the kitten in a way he did not intend.
An Alabama judge actually bought that argument and reduced Fisk's sentence to 18 months of reporting to the Mobile Community Corrections Center. An AP story says the center generally requires participants to report daily and undergo intense rehabilitation programs.
Here at Legal Schnauzer, we had a little trouble swallowing the argument from Fisk's lawyer. So I decided to conduct some research, and I started by going to the best sources I know of on all issues related to kitty kats--and that's our own brother-and-sister Tonkinese tandem, Baxter and Chloe.
I found Baxter in our kitchen, admiring his reflection in the oven door.
"Excuse me, B-Boy," I said, using one of about 87 nicknames we have for him. "Can I have a word with you?"
"Just a sec," he said. "I'm checking my best side."
Given Baxter's stunning manliness, I understood that he needed more time to scope out his visage.
"OK," he finally said. "I'm done--for now. What do you need."
"How many pads do you have?" I said.
He shot me a look like the one Eddie Murphy gave in Trading Places after being instructed by the old dudes about the ingredients for a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich.
"Humor me a little; it's for my blog."
"Oh, I didn't know I had a massive international audience," he said, with the hint of a smirk. "I've got four pads."
"And I notice you clean them regularly."
"Girls like a guy with clean pads."
"Come on, girls like you regardless."
"You have a point."
"But here's my question: Could you accidentally clean one of your pads?"
"That's a strange question, even for you. But yes, I guess I could accidentally clean one of my pads."
"But if you clean all four pads, it would be intentional?"
"Pad cleaning is serious business. To do all four requires major concentration. If you see me doing all four, you know I've got my game face on."
"That's what I needed. Thanks for your time."
"Can I go back to admiring my reflection?"
"Absolutely."
I found Chloe in the living room, spread-eagled on her favorite chair, calmly licking her . . . well, let's say she was grooming herself.
"Chloe, can I interrupt you for a moment," I said.
"Can't a girl have any privacy around here?" she said.
"I'm sorry, baby, but this is important. I need to know how many pads you have."
Chloe's face never changes expression, except when we're late with her supper and when she wants to rub back and forth against our legs. She didn't bat an eye at my question, just calmly counted each pad.
"I've got four," she said.
When I asked about cleaning all four pads, she agreed that could only be done intentionally.
"I bet Baxter fired that Eddie Murphy look when you asked him those question, didn't he?"
"Yep," I said. "I appreciate your understanding."
"No problem. Can I tend to my business now."
"By all means."
So there you have it, straight from the experts' mouths. You do something to all four kitty-kat pads--whether it's something helpful like cleaning or something evil like cutting--it's intentional.
Fisk's attorney had a bogus argument, but I suspect he knew that already.
As for Judge James Wood, one can only wonder why he went along with this crock. I've learned from hard-earned experience that one can never be surprised when an Alabama judge acts contrary to law, fact, or rational thought--or, in some cases, all three.
In this instance, based on news reports, it appears that Wood sentenced Fisk to less than the minimum required by law--unless reporting daily to a corrections center is considered the equivalent of time in prison.
Thanks to the miracle of e-mail, citizens can contact the judge and ask him to explain his cockamamie ruling. Judge Wood can be reached at james.wood@alacourt.gov.
The Abramoff Trail--and Bob Riley's Chair--Might Be Heating Up
It's been awhile since we've heard about disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In fact, now that Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon have signed guilty pleas, one might think the case has grown cold.
But a citizen reporter at Daily Kos says the Abramoff case is anything but cold, and that is why Republicans and Karl Rove plan an all-out fight against the confirmation of Eric Holder as Barack Obama's attorney general.
If the Abramoff trail indeed heats up in the next few months, look for the trail eventually to lead to Alabama and the doorstep of Governor Bob Riley. After all, it's well established that Riley received $13 million of Mississippi Choctaw gambling money, laundered through Abramoff, for his 2002 campaign against Don Siegelman. And it's well established that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) withheld from a Senate report an e-mail that proved Riley's connections to Abramoff.
The Daily Kos reporter, who goes by the name "dengre," works for a Washington, D.C. nonprofit called Green America and has been following the Abramoff case since 1999. His work is exhaustively researched, and here is some background about his interest in the Abramoff case.
It appears that "dengre" is one of the most knowledgeable laypeople out there on the Abramoff matter. And he says the case is going to become a massive headache for Republicans in 2009.
The key player now, Daily Kos reports, is former Abramoff "right-hand man" Kevin Ring. Government investigators and Ring's attorneys are currently in a legal dance over discovery, wrestling with evidence that has accumulated against Ring.
Kos reports that the government has more than 50,000 e-mails that Ring sent or received, along with thousands of hours of interviews related to Ring's activities. "It is a massive pile of evidence that must have many players in the GOP trembling with fear," "dengre" writes.
A few Democrats are likely to be caught in the sleaze, Kos reports, but the heaviest fallout figures to land on the GOP. The investigation now appears to be geared toward using Ring as a stepping stone to build cases against a number of Republican luminaries, including John Doolittle, Roy Blunt, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, and more.
But a citizen reporter at Daily Kos says the Abramoff case is anything but cold, and that is why Republicans and Karl Rove plan an all-out fight against the confirmation of Eric Holder as Barack Obama's attorney general.
If the Abramoff trail indeed heats up in the next few months, look for the trail eventually to lead to Alabama and the doorstep of Governor Bob Riley. After all, it's well established that Riley received $13 million of Mississippi Choctaw gambling money, laundered through Abramoff, for his 2002 campaign against Don Siegelman. And it's well established that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) withheld from a Senate report an e-mail that proved Riley's connections to Abramoff.
The Daily Kos reporter, who goes by the name "dengre," works for a Washington, D.C. nonprofit called Green America and has been following the Abramoff case since 1999. His work is exhaustively researched, and here is some background about his interest in the Abramoff case.
It appears that "dengre" is one of the most knowledgeable laypeople out there on the Abramoff matter. And he says the case is going to become a massive headache for Republicans in 2009.
The key player now, Daily Kos reports, is former Abramoff "right-hand man" Kevin Ring. Government investigators and Ring's attorneys are currently in a legal dance over discovery, wrestling with evidence that has accumulated against Ring.
Kos reports that the government has more than 50,000 e-mails that Ring sent or received, along with thousands of hours of interviews related to Ring's activities. "It is a massive pile of evidence that must have many players in the GOP trembling with fear," "dengre" writes.
A few Democrats are likely to be caught in the sleaze, Kos reports, but the heaviest fallout figures to land on the GOP. The investigation now appears to be geared toward using Ring as a stepping stone to build cases against a number of Republican luminaries, including John Doolittle, Roy Blunt, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, and more.
When Ring begins to fully cooperate with investigators--and it appears he will have little choice but to cooperate--some serious dominoes could start to fall.
The biggest domino in our neck of the woods could be the governor of Alabama--and perhaps some of his close associates.
Kos reports that Eric Holder is the man to get to the bottom of the Abramoff cesspool. And that's why a fierce battle over his confirmation is expected.
Look for the seat under Bob Riley's fanny to start getting warm in the coming weeks and months.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Case of "Flying Footballs" Generates a Lawsuit
An Ohio woman who was arrested in October for keeping a football that had landed in her yard has sued the parents of the children involved.
A lawsuit, filed on behalf of 88-year-old Edna Jester of Blue Ash, Ohio, claims Jester suffered emotional distress from having to deal with repeated instances of objects entering her property and people trespassing to retrieve them.
The case gained national attention when Jester was arrested on a misdemeanor theft charge after refusing to return a football that had landed in her yard while she was gardening.
Jester said she had repeatedly asked neighbors Paul and Kelly Tanis to keep their children and their stuff off her property. When the trespassing continued, Jester decided to take matters into her own hands by keeping the football.
Criminal charges against Jester were eventually dropped.
We've posted about the Jester case because it is so similar to our experiences here in Alabama. In fact, my efforts to protect our property rights--in much the same way that Jester did--wound up with me facing a bogus lawsuit. And that lawsuit, and the corrupt handling of it by Alabama judges and lawyers, led to this blog.
I'm the last person who would defend someone for filing a baseless lawsuit. But Jester has solid grounds for her complaint, and the parents are getting pretty much what they deserve after repeatedly failing to take simple steps that would have solved the problem.
In fact, the core problem, I suspect, can be seen in this comment from Kelly Tanis, the mother of five children who helped turn Jester's yard into a playground: "It's a very silly suit."
Oh, really? You mean that Jester doesn't have a right to the quiet enjoyment of her property? You mean that Jester has to put up with thoughtless trespassers and their clueless parents?
The Tanises might want to try checking the law. Apparently they aren't familiar with the concept of private property. They also apparently are too busy procreating to become familiar with the concept of common courtesy--such as abiding by your neighbor's wishes when she repeatedly makes a reasonable and lawful request to stay off her property.
Kelly Tanis might think this lawsuit is silly, but imagine if one of her children had gotten hurt on Jester's property. Who would be suing who then? Answer: The Tanises would be suing Jester out the wazoo, and Jester's homeowner's insurance would either sky rocket or she would be dropped as an insured.
If the situation was "silly," why did the Tanises sic the police on Jester when she committed a thoroughly lawful act--she picked an object off her yard that didn't belong there.
And get this: After the Tanises helped get Jester arrested, they then wanted to "negotiate" with her so the trespassing could continue. I hate to borrow a line from George W. Bush, but that's a little like "negotiating with the terrorists."
The Tanises strategy? We'll call the police on you to force you to give up your property rights. Classy isn't it? And it's exactly what Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor, tried--with the help of his ethically challenged lawyer, William E. Swatek. Just like the Tanises, McGarity had cops sent to our house when I simply cleaned up my yard of objects that didn't belong there. When that failed, McGarity tried to take over our property by filing a bogus lawsuit.
That kind of intimidation didn't work for McGarity, and it didn't work for the Tanises.
It appears the Tanises are resorting to a tactic Mrs. Schnauzer and I are familiar with--playing fast and loose with the truth. Kelly Tanis says she denies the allegations in the lawsuit, as if people and things from her yard never entered Jester's property. If that's the case, why did the Tanises want to "negotiate" about the situation?
And here's another tactic that is familiar to us: Use your children in an effort to gain public sympathy for your willingness to violate the law.
Just because kids were involved doesn't mean that Jester has to give up her property rights. It doesn't mean the issues aren't serious. And it doesn't mean Jester is a mean old bitter woman because she wants to manage who comes and goes on her property.
Isn't it interesting that the Tanises now seem to be concerned about the cost of litigation? Maybe they should have thought about that when Jester was repeatedly asking them to respect her property rights.
As we noted in a previous post, there are numerous ways to solve situations like this short of legal action. But both parties have to be educated about the law, both have to be rational, and both have to be considerate of the other's rights.
The Tanises don't appear to be any of these things. I believe it was Harry Truman, a great Missourian, who once famously said, "Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose."
A similar principle applies here: The right of the Tanis kids to play ball ends at the tip of Jester's property line.
The kids' parents should have known that and taken steps to solve the problem before it got into the legal realm. Based on news reports, Jester gave them multiple opportunities to do it.
I would like to see Jester's lawsuit go further and sue the city officials who were responsible for her arrest. If the Tanises were too stupid to understand the law, police officers could have solved this problem by explaining it to them.
Instead, the police left it for Jester to fight a battle she shouldn't have had to fight. I hope she wins some justice for all the headaches she's had to endure.
Finally, this case drives home an important point about our democracy. And it shows why the tampering with our justice system that has occurred under the George W. Bush reign is so destructive.
From checking comments to articles at the Cincinnati Enquirer and the popular Web site Boing Boing, the "flying footballs" case has generated strong public opinion. Sentiment seems to be running about 50-50 between those who think Jester is a "crabby, bitter old woman" and those who think the kids are "spoiled brats" with thoughtless parents.
But here's the great thing about our system--at least when sociopaths like Karl Rove aren't trying to interject politics into it at every turn: Public opinion, while it might be fun to read, should not have a thing to do with the outcome of this case.
You've probably heard this phrase: "We are a nation of laws, not of men."
Few sentences better sum up the way our justice system is supposed to work. So it doesn't matter what some men, and women, might think of Edna Jester. We have laws that are supposed to protect her property rights, and they should help her receive justice in this case.
By the way, those same laws protect the Tanises' property rights, too. Someday, the Tanises' five children will be grown and gone. The Tanises will be older, and it's possible they might enjoy having control of their own property. What if a family with four or five kids moves in next door, perhaps in the old Jester property, and decides to let them ramble all over the place?
And consider this: The Tanis kids will someday be adults, probably with homes and yards of their own. Will they find it amusing when other people's kids turn their yards into playgrounds? Maybe, maybe not.
What goes around has a way of coming around. The Tanises and their kids might think back on Edna Jester one day and decide she wasn't such a mean old woman after all.
A lawsuit, filed on behalf of 88-year-old Edna Jester of Blue Ash, Ohio, claims Jester suffered emotional distress from having to deal with repeated instances of objects entering her property and people trespassing to retrieve them.
The case gained national attention when Jester was arrested on a misdemeanor theft charge after refusing to return a football that had landed in her yard while she was gardening.
Jester said she had repeatedly asked neighbors Paul and Kelly Tanis to keep their children and their stuff off her property. When the trespassing continued, Jester decided to take matters into her own hands by keeping the football.
Criminal charges against Jester were eventually dropped.
We've posted about the Jester case because it is so similar to our experiences here in Alabama. In fact, my efforts to protect our property rights--in much the same way that Jester did--wound up with me facing a bogus lawsuit. And that lawsuit, and the corrupt handling of it by Alabama judges and lawyers, led to this blog.
I'm the last person who would defend someone for filing a baseless lawsuit. But Jester has solid grounds for her complaint, and the parents are getting pretty much what they deserve after repeatedly failing to take simple steps that would have solved the problem.
In fact, the core problem, I suspect, can be seen in this comment from Kelly Tanis, the mother of five children who helped turn Jester's yard into a playground: "It's a very silly suit."
Oh, really? You mean that Jester doesn't have a right to the quiet enjoyment of her property? You mean that Jester has to put up with thoughtless trespassers and their clueless parents?
The Tanises might want to try checking the law. Apparently they aren't familiar with the concept of private property. They also apparently are too busy procreating to become familiar with the concept of common courtesy--such as abiding by your neighbor's wishes when she repeatedly makes a reasonable and lawful request to stay off her property.
Kelly Tanis might think this lawsuit is silly, but imagine if one of her children had gotten hurt on Jester's property. Who would be suing who then? Answer: The Tanises would be suing Jester out the wazoo, and Jester's homeowner's insurance would either sky rocket or she would be dropped as an insured.
If the situation was "silly," why did the Tanises sic the police on Jester when she committed a thoroughly lawful act--she picked an object off her yard that didn't belong there.
And get this: After the Tanises helped get Jester arrested, they then wanted to "negotiate" with her so the trespassing could continue. I hate to borrow a line from George W. Bush, but that's a little like "negotiating with the terrorists."
The Tanises strategy? We'll call the police on you to force you to give up your property rights. Classy isn't it? And it's exactly what Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor, tried--with the help of his ethically challenged lawyer, William E. Swatek. Just like the Tanises, McGarity had cops sent to our house when I simply cleaned up my yard of objects that didn't belong there. When that failed, McGarity tried to take over our property by filing a bogus lawsuit.
That kind of intimidation didn't work for McGarity, and it didn't work for the Tanises.
It appears the Tanises are resorting to a tactic Mrs. Schnauzer and I are familiar with--playing fast and loose with the truth. Kelly Tanis says she denies the allegations in the lawsuit, as if people and things from her yard never entered Jester's property. If that's the case, why did the Tanises want to "negotiate" about the situation?
And here's another tactic that is familiar to us: Use your children in an effort to gain public sympathy for your willingness to violate the law.
Just because kids were involved doesn't mean that Jester has to give up her property rights. It doesn't mean the issues aren't serious. And it doesn't mean Jester is a mean old bitter woman because she wants to manage who comes and goes on her property.
Isn't it interesting that the Tanises now seem to be concerned about the cost of litigation? Maybe they should have thought about that when Jester was repeatedly asking them to respect her property rights.
As we noted in a previous post, there are numerous ways to solve situations like this short of legal action. But both parties have to be educated about the law, both have to be rational, and both have to be considerate of the other's rights.
The Tanises don't appear to be any of these things. I believe it was Harry Truman, a great Missourian, who once famously said, "Your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose."
A similar principle applies here: The right of the Tanis kids to play ball ends at the tip of Jester's property line.
The kids' parents should have known that and taken steps to solve the problem before it got into the legal realm. Based on news reports, Jester gave them multiple opportunities to do it.
I would like to see Jester's lawsuit go further and sue the city officials who were responsible for her arrest. If the Tanises were too stupid to understand the law, police officers could have solved this problem by explaining it to them.
Instead, the police left it for Jester to fight a battle she shouldn't have had to fight. I hope she wins some justice for all the headaches she's had to endure.
Finally, this case drives home an important point about our democracy. And it shows why the tampering with our justice system that has occurred under the George W. Bush reign is so destructive.
From checking comments to articles at the Cincinnati Enquirer and the popular Web site Boing Boing, the "flying footballs" case has generated strong public opinion. Sentiment seems to be running about 50-50 between those who think Jester is a "crabby, bitter old woman" and those who think the kids are "spoiled brats" with thoughtless parents.
But here's the great thing about our system--at least when sociopaths like Karl Rove aren't trying to interject politics into it at every turn: Public opinion, while it might be fun to read, should not have a thing to do with the outcome of this case.
You've probably heard this phrase: "We are a nation of laws, not of men."
Few sentences better sum up the way our justice system is supposed to work. So it doesn't matter what some men, and women, might think of Edna Jester. We have laws that are supposed to protect her property rights, and they should help her receive justice in this case.
By the way, those same laws protect the Tanises' property rights, too. Someday, the Tanises' five children will be grown and gone. The Tanises will be older, and it's possible they might enjoy having control of their own property. What if a family with four or five kids moves in next door, perhaps in the old Jester property, and decides to let them ramble all over the place?
And consider this: The Tanis kids will someday be adults, probably with homes and yards of their own. Will they find it amusing when other people's kids turn their yards into playgrounds? Maybe, maybe not.
What goes around has a way of coming around. The Tanises and their kids might think back on Edna Jester one day and decide she wasn't such a mean old woman after all.
The Future of Justice in North Alabama--And Beyond
If we have learned anything over the past eight years of George W. Bush's reign, it is this: The appointment of U.S. attorneys is a hugely important decision.
Your district can wind up with a noble public servant who truly serves the interests of justice. Or you can wind up with a political hack--someone like Bush appointees Alice Martin (Northern District of Alabama) and Leura Canary (Middle District of Alabama).
It looks like the new U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, based in Birmingham, will be one of two people--Joyce White Vance or James R. Sturdivant.
Vance and Sturdivant appear to have solid resumes, but I wonder if our process for selecting U.S. attorneys could stand some tweaking--both in Alabama and elsewhere. More on that in a moment.
The Birmingham News reports that four lawyers applied for the position by the December 31 deadline. Joining Vance and Sturdivant are Glenda Freeman and Michele Nicrosi. Freeman has been a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society of Birmingham, and Nicrosi is a Mobile-based lawyer who applied for the top jobs in all three Alabama districts. Neither Freeman nor Nicrosi responded to efforts to reach them, and it appears that Vance and Sturdivant have the credentials and the clout to make it a two-person race.
Vance is the wife of Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr., and her father-in-law was U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Vance, who was killed in a mail-bomb attack in 1989.
Joyce Vance, 48, has worked with the U.S. attorney's office in Birmingham since 1991 and has been chief of the appellate division since 2005.
Sturdivant, 46, was an assistant U.S. attorney in Birmingham from 1992 to '95 and has been a judge advocate general in the U.S. Army. He has been in private practice, with the Birmingham firm of Sirote & Permutt, since 1995.
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) created a panel that will forward names to the White House for consideration.
Whoever gets the position is bound to be a major improvement over the abominable Alice Martin. I've got a dead tree stump in my backyard that would be an improvement over Alice Martin. I picked some lint out of my drain the other day that would be an improvement over Alice Martin. I found a dust bunny in our living room that . . . well, you get the idea.
No one asked me to serve on Artur Davis' panel. And I find it a bit alarming that his group appears to include only lawyers, judges, and law-school deans. Has anyone thought of getting citizen input, perhaps talking to non-lawyers who have seen how our "justice" system really works? Why is this decision going to be made with input only from the legal establishment?
Here are some questions that would be asked if a Legal Schnauzer served on Davis' committee:
* How much dysfunction is present in the U.S. attorney's office after eight years of misrule by Alice Martin? How bad is morale? Who is the best person to turn the office into a legitimate crime-fighting unit? Who is the best person to get rid of the Martin loyalists that probably want to hang around?
* Alice Martin clearly has based prosecutions on political and racial considerations. Who is the best person to reverse that despicable practice?
* Speaking of racial considerations, isn't it interesting that wrongdoing under Martin's reign seemed to occur only in areas where minorities were in positions of power? Isn't it curious that public corruption seemed to occur only in areas like the Jefferson County Commission, the Birmingham Mayor's Office, and majority-black legislative districts? Who is best to ensure that future investigations and prosecutions will be race and class blind? Who has the guts to look into possible wrongdoing in suburban cities like Hoover, Mountain Brook, Homewood, and Vestavia Hills? Are such places immune from public corruption? Who has the guts to look into grotesque wrongdoing in majority-white enclaves like Shelby County?
* Speaking of Shelby County, it's a running joke among many lawyers in metro Birmingham that the place is a cesspool of corruption. Who has the cojones to go into Columbiana and clean out the joint, introducing perp walks and orange jump suits to any number of public officials who need to become acquainted with them?
* Personal experience, and public records, indicate that UAB is infected with an ugly brand of greed and corruption. This ugliness almost certainly extends to the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and Chancellor's Office, based in Tuscaloosa. Who has the guts to take on the powerful interests who have corrupted higher education in Alabama?
All of these questions lead us to one big question about the appointment of U.S. attorneys: Is it really a good idea to have federal prosecutors be long-time residents of the districts where they will be working?
Consider Vance and Sturdivant. Both appear to have deep roots in the Birmingham community. But is that a good quality for a federal prosecutor to have? I would argue that it is not.
Sturdivant obviously has deep ties to one of Birmingham's most prominent law firms, Sirote & Permutt. Before being appointed to the bench by then Governor Don Siegelman, Vance's husband was with the Birmingham firm of Johnston Barton Proctor & Powell.
Between that experience and being a judge, Robert Vance is familiar with every law firm of any size in the metro area. He probably has professional and personal buddies at firms all over the city--and he knows who stands to win or lose if certain clients were to get into hot water with the federal government.
Could that pose conflicts for Joyce White Vance? Sure looks like it from here.
And consider Sturdivant's ties to Sirote & Permutt. I know a number of lawyers at the firm, for example, have ties to UAB. Would that color Sturdivant's decisions regarding possible investigations at an institution that clearly is infected with pockets of corruption, probably involving federal law? My guess is that it would.
And here's a sticky question: What if a Birmingham law firm itself is involved in activity that violates federal law? Would Vance or Sturdivant be willing to examine the dirty laundry that undoubtedly exists at any number of Birmingham law firms?
Vance and Sturdivant appear to be quality folks. But are the citizens of the Northern District of Alabama best served by having a federal prosecutor who has lived here for many years?
I'm not familiar with the rules that govern the nomination process for U.S. attorneys. It's possible that nominees must come from states where they would serve. But if such a rule exists, I wonder if it needs to be reconsidered.
Would the interests of justice be better served if Alabama's three U.S. attorneys came from, say, Oregon, Maine, and Iowa? Would the interests of justice be better served if qualified candidates like Vance and Sturdivant served not in their home state of Alabama but in, say, Arizona or New Hampshire, or Virginia?
I think the answer to both questions is yes.
I'm sure some would argue that, as a practical matter, such a setup would cause some qualified candidates to reject opportunities to serve as federal prosecutors. Many candidates might not want to uproot their homes and families to serve in a government assignment that is only going to last four or eight years.
That's a legitimate argument. But I think questions should be raised about a process for selecting federal prosecutors that seems to inherently present conflicts of interest.
Your district can wind up with a noble public servant who truly serves the interests of justice. Or you can wind up with a political hack--someone like Bush appointees Alice Martin (Northern District of Alabama) and Leura Canary (Middle District of Alabama).
It looks like the new U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, based in Birmingham, will be one of two people--Joyce White Vance or James R. Sturdivant.
Vance and Sturdivant appear to have solid resumes, but I wonder if our process for selecting U.S. attorneys could stand some tweaking--both in Alabama and elsewhere. More on that in a moment.
The Birmingham News reports that four lawyers applied for the position by the December 31 deadline. Joining Vance and Sturdivant are Glenda Freeman and Michele Nicrosi. Freeman has been a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society of Birmingham, and Nicrosi is a Mobile-based lawyer who applied for the top jobs in all three Alabama districts. Neither Freeman nor Nicrosi responded to efforts to reach them, and it appears that Vance and Sturdivant have the credentials and the clout to make it a two-person race.
Vance is the wife of Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr., and her father-in-law was U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Vance, who was killed in a mail-bomb attack in 1989.
Joyce Vance, 48, has worked with the U.S. attorney's office in Birmingham since 1991 and has been chief of the appellate division since 2005.
Sturdivant, 46, was an assistant U.S. attorney in Birmingham from 1992 to '95 and has been a judge advocate general in the U.S. Army. He has been in private practice, with the Birmingham firm of Sirote & Permutt, since 1995.
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) created a panel that will forward names to the White House for consideration.
Whoever gets the position is bound to be a major improvement over the abominable Alice Martin. I've got a dead tree stump in my backyard that would be an improvement over Alice Martin. I picked some lint out of my drain the other day that would be an improvement over Alice Martin. I found a dust bunny in our living room that . . . well, you get the idea.
No one asked me to serve on Artur Davis' panel. And I find it a bit alarming that his group appears to include only lawyers, judges, and law-school deans. Has anyone thought of getting citizen input, perhaps talking to non-lawyers who have seen how our "justice" system really works? Why is this decision going to be made with input only from the legal establishment?
Here are some questions that would be asked if a Legal Schnauzer served on Davis' committee:
* How much dysfunction is present in the U.S. attorney's office after eight years of misrule by Alice Martin? How bad is morale? Who is the best person to turn the office into a legitimate crime-fighting unit? Who is the best person to get rid of the Martin loyalists that probably want to hang around?
* Alice Martin clearly has based prosecutions on political and racial considerations. Who is the best person to reverse that despicable practice?
* Speaking of racial considerations, isn't it interesting that wrongdoing under Martin's reign seemed to occur only in areas where minorities were in positions of power? Isn't it curious that public corruption seemed to occur only in areas like the Jefferson County Commission, the Birmingham Mayor's Office, and majority-black legislative districts? Who is best to ensure that future investigations and prosecutions will be race and class blind? Who has the guts to look into possible wrongdoing in suburban cities like Hoover, Mountain Brook, Homewood, and Vestavia Hills? Are such places immune from public corruption? Who has the guts to look into grotesque wrongdoing in majority-white enclaves like Shelby County?
* Speaking of Shelby County, it's a running joke among many lawyers in metro Birmingham that the place is a cesspool of corruption. Who has the cojones to go into Columbiana and clean out the joint, introducing perp walks and orange jump suits to any number of public officials who need to become acquainted with them?
* Personal experience, and public records, indicate that UAB is infected with an ugly brand of greed and corruption. This ugliness almost certainly extends to the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and Chancellor's Office, based in Tuscaloosa. Who has the guts to take on the powerful interests who have corrupted higher education in Alabama?
All of these questions lead us to one big question about the appointment of U.S. attorneys: Is it really a good idea to have federal prosecutors be long-time residents of the districts where they will be working?
Consider Vance and Sturdivant. Both appear to have deep roots in the Birmingham community. But is that a good quality for a federal prosecutor to have? I would argue that it is not.
Sturdivant obviously has deep ties to one of Birmingham's most prominent law firms, Sirote & Permutt. Before being appointed to the bench by then Governor Don Siegelman, Vance's husband was with the Birmingham firm of Johnston Barton Proctor & Powell.
Between that experience and being a judge, Robert Vance is familiar with every law firm of any size in the metro area. He probably has professional and personal buddies at firms all over the city--and he knows who stands to win or lose if certain clients were to get into hot water with the federal government.
Could that pose conflicts for Joyce White Vance? Sure looks like it from here.
And consider Sturdivant's ties to Sirote & Permutt. I know a number of lawyers at the firm, for example, have ties to UAB. Would that color Sturdivant's decisions regarding possible investigations at an institution that clearly is infected with pockets of corruption, probably involving federal law? My guess is that it would.
And here's a sticky question: What if a Birmingham law firm itself is involved in activity that violates federal law? Would Vance or Sturdivant be willing to examine the dirty laundry that undoubtedly exists at any number of Birmingham law firms?
Vance and Sturdivant appear to be quality folks. But are the citizens of the Northern District of Alabama best served by having a federal prosecutor who has lived here for many years?
I'm not familiar with the rules that govern the nomination process for U.S. attorneys. It's possible that nominees must come from states where they would serve. But if such a rule exists, I wonder if it needs to be reconsidered.
Would the interests of justice be better served if Alabama's three U.S. attorneys came from, say, Oregon, Maine, and Iowa? Would the interests of justice be better served if qualified candidates like Vance and Sturdivant served not in their home state of Alabama but in, say, Arizona or New Hampshire, or Virginia?
I think the answer to both questions is yes.
I'm sure some would argue that, as a practical matter, such a setup would cause some qualified candidates to reject opportunities to serve as federal prosecutors. Many candidates might not want to uproot their homes and families to serve in a government assignment that is only going to last four or eight years.
That's a legitimate argument. But I think questions should be raised about a process for selecting federal prosecutors that seems to inherently present conflicts of interest.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Is An Economic Collapse Just Around the Corner?
I don't know much about Ben F. Terton. But he has written an intriguing piece on our nation's economic mess, and I thought it was worth sharing with Legal Schnauzer readers.
Terton writes at The Moderate Independent Web site, and that's all I know about him. I have no idea what, if any, credentials he has for writing about the economy. But his latest article, titled "Hold Onto Your Seats--The Economic Collapse Is About to Begin," is filled with analysis that I find compelling.
I hope Terton is overstating some of his dire predictions. But I think his diagnosis of what fundamentally ails our economy is on target.
Here is a capsule of Terton's main points: Since 1970, prices on many products have risen to the point that regular Americans cannot afford them. Middle-class folks first adjusted by turning to two-worker households, as women flooded into the workplace. A second adjustment came as the middle class grew increasingly dependent on credit.
But regular folks, the ones who keep our economy humming, simply could not keep up with soaring prices. The result? Two-worker households today cannot afford what one-income households could buy in 1970.
Easy credit helped keep this unsustainable situation afloat. But with credit markets now stumbling, many Americans feel like they are on the verge of an economic drowning.
What is Terton's prescription? He says average wages need to take a massive jump, while top-level wages plummet. But he is quick to add that won't happen easily or quickly.
Terton is not a newcomer to this subject. Roughly one year ago, he wrote that our economy was due for an across-the-board deflation. That process won't be fun, he seems to be saying, but it beats continuing on a path of flimsy credit that has been propping us up for a generation or more.
What's ahead over the next year or so? Terton poses the question this way: Will we go into a depression or an all-out economic collapse, such as those we've seen in Argentina or the Soviet Union?
Is there any chance that the worst of our economic crisis is behind us? None, says Terton.
Not a cheery thought, so the reader might reasonably ask: Does this guy have anything encouraging to say? Well, actually he does.
Terton is high on Barack Obama's economic plan, going so far as to call it brilliant.
Obama, Terton writes, brings a radically new philosophy to replace the refried Reaganomics that brought us to the precipice. The Obama idea is to trust government over business, rather than the other way around. "A fundamental shift," Terton says, "and not a moment too soon."
Here is a critical question: Will the American public support Obama's plan or fall for Republican rants about the danger of "big government?" Those rants that are sure to come, perhaps with "Harry and Louise" style ads that helped torpedo the Clinton health-care plan in the 1990s.
Does the GOP have an updated version of Harry and Louise in the works right now?
For those who have forgotten about Harry and Louise, here is a reminder. Will we be seeing this sort of garbage soon about Obama's economic proposals?
Terton writes at The Moderate Independent Web site, and that's all I know about him. I have no idea what, if any, credentials he has for writing about the economy. But his latest article, titled "Hold Onto Your Seats--The Economic Collapse Is About to Begin," is filled with analysis that I find compelling.
I hope Terton is overstating some of his dire predictions. But I think his diagnosis of what fundamentally ails our economy is on target.
Here is a capsule of Terton's main points: Since 1970, prices on many products have risen to the point that regular Americans cannot afford them. Middle-class folks first adjusted by turning to two-worker households, as women flooded into the workplace. A second adjustment came as the middle class grew increasingly dependent on credit.
But regular folks, the ones who keep our economy humming, simply could not keep up with soaring prices. The result? Two-worker households today cannot afford what one-income households could buy in 1970.
Easy credit helped keep this unsustainable situation afloat. But with credit markets now stumbling, many Americans feel like they are on the verge of an economic drowning.
What is Terton's prescription? He says average wages need to take a massive jump, while top-level wages plummet. But he is quick to add that won't happen easily or quickly.
Terton is not a newcomer to this subject. Roughly one year ago, he wrote that our economy was due for an across-the-board deflation. That process won't be fun, he seems to be saying, but it beats continuing on a path of flimsy credit that has been propping us up for a generation or more.
What's ahead over the next year or so? Terton poses the question this way: Will we go into a depression or an all-out economic collapse, such as those we've seen in Argentina or the Soviet Union?
Is there any chance that the worst of our economic crisis is behind us? None, says Terton.
Not a cheery thought, so the reader might reasonably ask: Does this guy have anything encouraging to say? Well, actually he does.
Terton is high on Barack Obama's economic plan, going so far as to call it brilliant.
Obama, Terton writes, brings a radically new philosophy to replace the refried Reaganomics that brought us to the precipice. The Obama idea is to trust government over business, rather than the other way around. "A fundamental shift," Terton says, "and not a moment too soon."
Here is a critical question: Will the American public support Obama's plan or fall for Republican rants about the danger of "big government?" Those rants that are sure to come, perhaps with "Harry and Louise" style ads that helped torpedo the Clinton health-care plan in the 1990s.
Does the GOP have an updated version of Harry and Louise in the works right now?
For those who have forgotten about Harry and Louise, here is a reminder. Will we be seeing this sort of garbage soon about Obama's economic proposals?
Did the Race Card Finally Blow Up on the GOP?
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is one of our most astute observers on the Republican Party and the factors that have helped it attain power over the past 40 years or so.
Krugman also is an astute observer about the factors that cause Republicans to be so dismal at governance once they are in power.
A willingness to play the race card in not-so-subtle ways played a huge role in helping Republicans dominate presidential politics since the days of LBJ. But that strategy was doomed to fail eventually, Krugman says, and the implosion of the George W. Bush administration might finally have put it to rest.
Some Republicans, in the wake of Barack Obama's electoral victory in November, say the Bushies were merely the victims of bad luck. But Krugman says the GOP's problems go much deeper than that:
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans' stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party's champion, to the Bush administration's pervasive incompetence, to the party's shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
The GOP tried to plant race-based fears in the minds of middle-class white voters. And Republicans often did not try all that hard to hide it, Krugman writes:
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.'s "Southern strategy," which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: "You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites." In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
The crash and burn of the Bush administration was not an accident, and it was not caused by a betrayal of conservative values. It was a byproduct of conservative values, Krugman says:
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party's divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to "stay in touch with real Americans" — and its governing philosophy.
Krugman says the Bush collapse is the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation. He says Republicans undoubtedly will make a comeback, but not until they correctly assess what has gone wrong over the past eight years.
Maybe my location in Alabama colors my vision, but I'm not so sure Krugman is right about that. I have a feeling the race card still has some effectiveness left in it.
But let's hope that Krugman is right when he says Obama should approach his presidency with a determination to take bold action, even though Republicans effectively attacked Bill Clinton in 1993:
Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac. Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they'll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn't play the way it used to.
Krugman also is an astute observer about the factors that cause Republicans to be so dismal at governance once they are in power.
A willingness to play the race card in not-so-subtle ways played a huge role in helping Republicans dominate presidential politics since the days of LBJ. But that strategy was doomed to fail eventually, Krugman says, and the implosion of the George W. Bush administration might finally have put it to rest.
Some Republicans, in the wake of Barack Obama's electoral victory in November, say the Bushies were merely the victims of bad luck. But Krugman says the GOP's problems go much deeper than that:
The fault, however, lies not in Republicans' stars but in themselves. Forty years ago the G.O.P. decided, in effect, to make itself the party of racial backlash. And everything that has happened in recent years, from the choice of Mr. Bush as the party's champion, to the Bush administration's pervasive incompetence, to the party's shrinking base, is a consequence of that decision.
The GOP tried to plant race-based fears in the minds of middle-class white voters. And Republicans often did not try all that hard to hide it, Krugman writes:
Where did this hostility to government come from? In 1981 Lee Atwater, the famed Republican political consultant, explained the evolution of the G.O.P.'s "Southern strategy," which originally focused on opposition to the Voting Rights Act but eventually took a more coded form: "You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites." In other words, government is the problem because it takes your money and gives it to Those People.
The crash and burn of the Bush administration was not an accident, and it was not caused by a betrayal of conservative values. It was a byproduct of conservative values, Krugman says:
So the reign of George W. Bush, the first true Southern Republican president since Reconstruction, was the culmination of a long process. And despite the claims of some on the right that Mr. Bush betrayed conservatism, the truth is that he faithfully carried out both his party's divisive tactics — long before Sarah Palin, Mr. Bush declared that he visited his ranch to "stay in touch with real Americans" — and its governing philosophy.
Krugman says the Bush collapse is the end of the line for a political strategy that dominated the scene for more than a generation. He says Republicans undoubtedly will make a comeback, but not until they correctly assess what has gone wrong over the past eight years.
Maybe my location in Alabama colors my vision, but I'm not so sure Krugman is right about that. I have a feeling the race card still has some effectiveness left in it.
But let's hope that Krugman is right when he says Obama should approach his presidency with a determination to take bold action, even though Republicans effectively attacked Bill Clinton in 1993:
Today, Republicans have taken away almost all those Southern votes — and lost the rest of the country. It was a grand ride for a while, but in the end the Southern strategy led the G.O.P. into a cul-de-sac. Mr. Obama therefore has room to be bold. If Republicans try a 1993-style strategy of attacking him for promoting big government, they'll learn two things: not only has the financial crisis discredited their economic theories, the racial subtext of anti-government rhetoric doesn't play the way it used to.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Will We Ever Get Serious About Animal Cruelty?
Few things get our Legal Schnauzer team riled up quite like stories about animal abuse.
Unfortunately, such stories are all too common, even in the post-Michael Vick era.
Two stories came to our attention in recent days. One has a heart-warming quality to it; the other definitely does not. Both serve as reminders that we still have a long way to go when it comes to protecting "the least of these" among us.
The first story involves an Alabama "man" named Ralph Allen Fisk IV. It seems the 24-year-old Mr. Fisk got angry at a kitten belonging to his common-law wife after the small creature scratched him. So Fisk cut all four of the kitten's pads off to the bone and then burned its belly and genitalia.
The kitten, named Gizmo, was found alive in a closet while Fisk slept, but it died shortly afterward.
Fisk was convicted of animal torture in August and was sentenced to 18 months in state prison. The sentence was revised recently so that Fisk will be able to forgo prison and spend 18 months reporting to Mobile's Community Corrections Center.
No word on what "reporting" to the corrections center entails. Probably means Fisk will stick his head in the door, wave hello, and leave.
Thomas Harrison, Fisk's lawyer, argued that his client has an acute anger problem. Gee, you think so?
Harrison went on to argue that Fisk was blinded by his condition and proceeded to inflict harm that he did not intend. Believe it or not, Mobile County Circuit Judge James Wood bought that "argument."
If you would like to contact Judge Wood and let him know what you think of his ruling, you can do it via e-mail at james.wood@alacourt.gov or via phone at (251) 574-8474.
If you would like to let "Counselor" Harrison know what you think of his legal theories, you can do it via e-mail at teharisn@bellsouth.net or via phone at (251) 433-1819.
The second story involves Michael Vick himself--and it has a happier ending.
The cover story of the December 29, 2008, issue of Sports Illustrated is titled "What Happened to Michael Vick's Dogs?" It spotlights the efforts of a few special folks to save some of the abused pit pulls that were recovered from Vick's dog-fighting ring.
A surprising number of the dogs have been saved. The story is both encouraging and informative. And it brings attention to the different philosophies of various animal-welfare groups.
Both PETA and The Humane Society of the U.S., for example, take the position that dogs saved from fight rings are beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them is a misappropriation of time and money. ASPCA and a group called BAD RAP disagreed and led the effort to save the Vick dogs.
The SI article is filled with valuable information. A few examples:
* Studies have shown that dogs--in fact, all mammals--suffer just from being around abuse. The sounds of fights and executions at the Vick facility undoubtedly affected dogs that were not directly mistreated. "The trauma isn't limited to the animal that is experiencing the pain," one expert said.
* Pit bulls are among the most people-friendly dogs on the planet. Ironically, that's partly because of their use as fighters. Organized dogfights usually involve three or four people in the ring who pull the dogs apart to rest before resuming combat. The handlers have to be sure the dogs will not turn on them, so over the years, dogfighters have either killed or not bred dogs that show signs of aggression toward humans. "Of all dogs," one expert says, "pit bulls possess the single greatest ability to bond with people."
Unfortunately, such stories are all too common, even in the post-Michael Vick era.
Two stories came to our attention in recent days. One has a heart-warming quality to it; the other definitely does not. Both serve as reminders that we still have a long way to go when it comes to protecting "the least of these" among us.
The first story involves an Alabama "man" named Ralph Allen Fisk IV. It seems the 24-year-old Mr. Fisk got angry at a kitten belonging to his common-law wife after the small creature scratched him. So Fisk cut all four of the kitten's pads off to the bone and then burned its belly and genitalia.
The kitten, named Gizmo, was found alive in a closet while Fisk slept, but it died shortly afterward.
Fisk was convicted of animal torture in August and was sentenced to 18 months in state prison. The sentence was revised recently so that Fisk will be able to forgo prison and spend 18 months reporting to Mobile's Community Corrections Center.
No word on what "reporting" to the corrections center entails. Probably means Fisk will stick his head in the door, wave hello, and leave.
Thomas Harrison, Fisk's lawyer, argued that his client has an acute anger problem. Gee, you think so?
Harrison went on to argue that Fisk was blinded by his condition and proceeded to inflict harm that he did not intend. Believe it or not, Mobile County Circuit Judge James Wood bought that "argument."
If you would like to contact Judge Wood and let him know what you think of his ruling, you can do it via e-mail at james.wood@alacourt.gov or via phone at (251) 574-8474.
If you would like to let "Counselor" Harrison know what you think of his legal theories, you can do it via e-mail at teharisn@bellsouth.net or via phone at (251) 433-1819.
The second story involves Michael Vick himself--and it has a happier ending.
The cover story of the December 29, 2008, issue of Sports Illustrated is titled "What Happened to Michael Vick's Dogs?" It spotlights the efforts of a few special folks to save some of the abused pit pulls that were recovered from Vick's dog-fighting ring.
A surprising number of the dogs have been saved. The story is both encouraging and informative. And it brings attention to the different philosophies of various animal-welfare groups.
Both PETA and The Humane Society of the U.S., for example, take the position that dogs saved from fight rings are beyond rehabilitation and that trying to save them is a misappropriation of time and money. ASPCA and a group called BAD RAP disagreed and led the effort to save the Vick dogs.
The SI article is filled with valuable information. A few examples:
* Studies have shown that dogs--in fact, all mammals--suffer just from being around abuse. The sounds of fights and executions at the Vick facility undoubtedly affected dogs that were not directly mistreated. "The trauma isn't limited to the animal that is experiencing the pain," one expert said.
* Pit bulls are among the most people-friendly dogs on the planet. Ironically, that's partly because of their use as fighters. Organized dogfights usually involve three or four people in the ring who pull the dogs apart to rest before resuming combat. The handlers have to be sure the dogs will not turn on them, so over the years, dogfighters have either killed or not bred dogs that show signs of aggression toward humans. "Of all dogs," one expert says, "pit bulls possess the single greatest ability to bond with people."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)