Legal Schnauzer

Death of a Bingo Defendant Adds to Political Intrigue in Alabama

2012-01-30T10:01:00.000-06:00

Ray Crosby

Having lived as a progressive through the Karl Rove era in Alabama, this reporter is not easily shocked. But when word started spreading early yesterday evening that a defendant had died on the eve of the Alabama bingo re-trial . . . well, that was a stunner.

Ray Crosby, a former legislative analyst in the Alabama Legislature, was found dead in his Montgomery home yesterday afternoon. He was one of seven defendants to be retried in the bingo case, which was to kick off again today in Montgomery.

The first word I heard was that Crosby committed suicide, which would make him No. 5 on our list of suspicious "suicides" that have ties to Alabama GOP politics over the past two years. The strange-deaths list grows to six if you include the apparent beating death of former Bob Riley aide Zoa White in her Mobile home. And I'm not even including some apparent heart attacks of folks connected to the bingo case.

What do we know about the Crosby death? Neal Vickers reports at examiner.com:

One of seven defendants set to be tried again in the Alabama bingo corruption case is dead. Former legislative analyst Ray Crosby was found dead in his home late Sunday afternoon.

Authorities have not revealed a cause of death. The denial includes if it could have been from natural causes. Montgomery police simply say they are "conducting a death investigation".

How will Crosby's death affect the bingo trial? That is unclear. Reports Vickers:

Crosby’s death casts an ominous chill on the trial set to start Monday morning that has already had several last minute twists making some speculate the prosecution is possibly in trouble.

When asked tonight if Crosby’s death would affect the status of the trial set to begin Monday, Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney replied "We would decline to comment".

A report out just a few minutes ago states that jury selection in the case has been suspended indefinitely.

Crosby reportedly had suffered significant personal and financial struggles in the wake of the first bingo trial, which ended with no convictions last summer. One of the best summations I've seen about his death comes from Dothan-based rickeystokesnews.com, noting that family members believe Crosby died from a heart attack:

Since the October 4, 2010 arrest and trials, Mr. Cosby, as all defendants, has suffered a lot. This arrest caused Mr. Cosby to lose his job. He has had to come up with thousands of dollars to employ legal representation to clear him. The first trial of two month ended in a hung jury. Then the evidence of the government withholding documents that would have cleared him in the first case. Then coming up with more money for a second time.

Evidence from his bosses and superiors that said they knew and approved what Cosby was doing. Their statements that is was okay. Something the public integrity unit argued against, even when they knew they had statements from his superiors that it was an approved action.

Stokes has harsh words for federal prosecutors:

The government's pattern and practice, cost you all of the money they can until you are financially broke, then convict you when you have no more money to defend yourself. Remember, not one person on the government side has to come up with one dollar. And when they are cut financially, they pull the "public safety" card or the "justice" card out in an effort to get more money.

If we knew all of the things the so called public integrity people in this case have done, including law enforcement agents, the public would be outraged. Remember, the government, which represents the people of the United States, is the one that has asked the court for a gag order so no comments can be made to the public. The people whose freedoms are at stake, they have not asked for the government not to talk. The government wants to hide true facts from the public.

Stokes pins the blame for Ray Crosby's death right where it probably belongs:

This case is the cause of death for Mr. Ray Cosby. And this case has absolutely ZERO to do with justice. It is politics, pure and simple. In the testimony of Senator Scott Beason, when he secretly taped himself, summed what this case was about. If the blacks vote, the republicans will not win. This case was about the republicans taking over the power in Alabama and they would destroy in and everyone who got in their path.

A Reporter Goes Undercover to Expose the Debt-Collection Industry

2012-01-30T06:25:00.006-06:00

America consists of two kinds of people--those who have heard from debt collectors and those who probably will hear from debt collectors.

In a nation of easy credit, most Americans are just a few late payments away from entering the murky netherworld of collection companies, outfits with names like NCO, Mann Bracken, LVNV, and Asset Acceptance. Never heard of those? If you have a credit card, you probably will someday.

When collection phone calls start coming--often accompanied by unlawful threats, misrepresentations, and other forms of deceit--most Americans have no idea what they are getting into. I know because I used to be one of those clueless Americans.

I had to educate myself about the sharks that swim in the churning, poorly regulated waters of the debt-collection business. But you won't have to do that if you make author Fred Williams your friend.

Williams, probably the foremost debt-collection journalist in the country, has written a book that is indispensable for consumers who want to be prepared when the collection calls start coming. It's called
Fight Back Against Unfair Debt Collection Practices: Know Your Rights and Protect Yourself From Threats, Lies, and Intimidation (FT Press, 2011).

That's an unwieldy title, and it doesn't do Williams' book justice. The FT in FT Press stands for Financial Times, and the publisher is an imprint of Pearson Prentice Hall. The book apparently was marketed as a specialty book, in the personal finance genre.

Fight Back is about as close as you will find to a "one-stop shop" for information about dealing with debt collectors--and as such, it is a personal-finance book. But it's much more than that. Williams, a former reporter for The Buffalo News, went underground to work for three months at a debt-collection agency in 2008. That experience produced an articled titled "Confessions of a Debt Collector," at Kiplinger.

Fight Back is the book-length account of Williams' time as a debt collector. He now lives in Virginia and comes across as a true reporter, a guy who deals in solid information. He has a no-frills, behind-the-scenes style that conjures up a non-fiction version of John Grisham. You get the sense that this is a writer who has been there, who knows his subject intimately. Fight Back, at its best, reads like a Grisham novel--except that the bad guys are managers in a debt-collection agency, not partners in a law firm.

The law, however, plays a leading role in Fight Back. Specifically, it's a single law, called the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). It's supposed to govern the actions of debt collectors and keep them from behaving in an abusive fashion. Williams shows, through 194 crisply written pages, that the FDCPA is pathetically weak and does almost nothing to protect consumers.

That's why consumers have to be prepared to protect themselves. And Fight Back is filled with practical suggestions for doing just that.

How badly is the FDCPA failing? Consider this from Williams:

Debt collectors caused more than 300,000 complaints to the Federal Trade Commission in the past five years, more than any other industry that the agency regulates. The rate of complaints is exploding, having more than tripled since 2003. The number-one complaint is that collectors are demanding money that people do not even owe, even grabbing it from their bank accounts. As the industry casts its net wider and wider--making an estimated one billion contacts with consumers per year--a growing number of people say they are being shaken down by telephone bullies.

My wife and I know what that is like. I've written extensively about our battles with debt collectors and their disregard for federal law and the rights of consumers. We even have tape-recorded evidence of collectors from the Birmingham firm Ingram & Associates repeatedly violating the FDCPA while trying to collect a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. The local firm, headed by a lawyer named Angie Ingram, was hired to collect the debt by a large Pennsylvania outfit called NCO. Multiple parties in our federal lawsuit admitted this, but we have recordings of Ingram representatives repeatedly saying they had been hired by American Express to sue me--that Angie Ingram was American Express' lawyer. This is both a grotesque violation of the FDCPA--which prohibits any false or deceiving statements to alleged debtors--and it also represents fraud under Alabama state law.

Fred Williams

Has our tape-recorded evidence, which is indisputable, been helpful in our lawsuit against Ingram and NCO? Not exactly. Much more is coming soon on our case and the lengths to which federal judges (and lawyers who defend the industry) will go to keep the high-dollar, debt-collection express rolling. But for now, we will focus on the broad picture--and Fred Williams shows clearly that it isn't pretty. About his three months as a collector, Williams writes:

As it turned out, the job tested more than the ability of a legally compliant collector to remain employed. On a day-to-day level, the job also tested my standards for reasonable and humane conduct. Living by the golden rule is not entirely congruent with the task of browbeating strangers who have fallen on hard times--especially ones whose lives have become a tragedy.

What's the environment like at a typical collection outfit?

Call centers are like factories used to be in this Rust Belt area--places where practically anyone can show up and get a job. But these jobs are easier to get than they are to keep. Of the four female trainees present at the start, one fails to return after the midmorning break, marking the first of what will be many abrupt exits from our group.

Williams isn't writing about a problem that affects only those on the fringes of American society; it affects us all:

The average home has three open credit-card accounts. Nearly half of all Americans carry a balance on their cards, with the average household's balance being over $7,000.

That means millions of Americans are just one job loss, health problem, or lawsuit away from a financial upheaval--and the debt-collection calls that come with it.

One of our goals is to help educate consumers about issues that many are likely to face someday. We will return to Fight Back, and Fred Williams, for assistance.

Here is an interview with Williams on CNBC:

Conservatives' Use of Animal Abuse Should Come As No Surprise

2012-01-26T06:30:00.008-06:00

An apparent political hit on a family's cat in Arkansas has drawn national attention, and it's one of the most nauseating stories I've read in a long time. I only wish I could say it came as a surprise.

Since starting this blog in June 2007, I've written frequently about wrongdoing among conservative elites in Alabama and beyond. That has made me a fair number of enemies, enough that both my wife and I have been cheated out of our jobs. But the abuse has not stopped there. We learned a long time ago that conservative thugs enjoy using threats--and they don't mind targeting family pets.

The title of this blog hints that animals are held in high regard in our household. Our current pets, the Tonkinese kitty kat combo of Baxter and Chloe, mean the world to us and are treated in a fashion that Will and Kate would recognize. Our previous pet, a miniature schnauzer named Murphy (1993-2004), meant so much to us that this blog is devoted to her memory.

What form of scum would kill a family cat, scrawl the word "liberal" on the corpse, and leave it for a Democratic politico and his children to find? I probably don't possess the vocabulary to adequately describe such a lowlife, but I'm not surprised that someone who apparently identifies as a conservative would kill an animal in order to make a political threat.

That's because I've received numerous animal-related threats via e-mail or anonymous comments on this blog. Our cats are pretty low key, and the blog title does not refer to them, so they have remained out of the rhetorical fire (so far). But conservative dirt bags have made regular sport of leaving nasty comments about our dog. Here is a sampling from a post titled "Unmasking Right-Wing Sickos?"

To truly grasp the depravity of the right-wing fear mongers, you need to see the anonymous comments I have not let through. Following is a sampler of such comments divided up by subject:

ON OUR DOG MURPHY

* From: Anonymous Date: Jun 30, 2008 8:58 PM

are you sure your dog died a natural death? maybe, maybe not...you will never know will you?

* From: Anonymous Date: Jun 12, 2008 10:18 PM

you are a fool like your dead dog

* From: Anonymous Date: May 20, 2008 9:25 PM

You are such a little man...such the small person. You offer nothing to the world other than your pitiful rantings. How is your dog?

* From: Anonymous Date: May 19, 2008 7:27 PM

Your Schnauzer has no bite because he is dead. Why did you roll over and kill your dog? Possible animal cruelty charges to come.

The most chilling message, of course, is the first one, where someone actually hints that Murphy might have been murdered. Whoever left that message probably does not live around us or know us very well. That's because Murphy was an indoor dog, except when we took her for daily walks or let her out onto our screened deck. She never was outside without our supervision, so the only way her death could not be natural is if someone broke into our house and poisoned her. Our vet told us that Murphy's symptoms prior to her death did not suggest that she had ingested a harmful substance, so poisoning of any kind almost certainly was not a factor. Plus, we never saw any signs of a break-in.

Sicko No. 1, by saying "you'll never know" about the cause of Murphy's death, was trying to plant doubt in our minds--a weak attempt at psychological torture. But like many conservatives, No. 1 is not terribly bright. We know exactly the environment Murphy lived in, so we have no doubt that her death was from natural causes--and we know what the natural causes were.

In light of recent events, here is the key point: This individual, apparently a conservative, wanted us to think that someone might have killed our dog for political reasons--because I write what could be called a progressive blog.

Am I surprised that someone actually did kill a cat, all because it belonged to a Democratic household? No, I'm not. I've had direct communication with people who share that very mindset.

A Victim of Child Sexual Abuse Uses the Web to Speak Out and Fight Back

2012-01-25T06:14:00.001-06:00

Don Corley, as a scout leader, with one
of his sex-abuse victims.

This moment in history, it seems, is when mankind will be forced to grapple with a child sexual abuse problem that is far worse than many of us imagined.

Since former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested in early November and charged with molesting at least eight boys over a 15-year period, we have seen a constant stream of stories about sexual horrors perpetrated on children.

Many of the stories have centered on boys and athletics--in Syracuse University basketball, Canadian hockey, AAU basketball, and even sports journalism. But the problem hardly is limited to those who prey on boys through sports. Here in Alabama, former teacher and church leader Daniel M. Acker Jr. has admitted to molesting 21 girls since the early 1990s

Just last week, we learned of two new cases. One, involving an elite hockey coach in Ukraine, was connected to sports. The other, involving two men in Johnson City, Tennessee, was not.

What has all of this taught us? For one, it's not just an American problem; it is international in scope. For another, the problem is hard to grasp because many victims are unwilling or unable to speak out. Some victims fear they will not be believed. Others fear they will bring shame to themselves or their families. For some, the psychological trauma is so severe that they struggle to function, haunted by depression, anxiety, addictions, relationship problems, and thoughts of suicide. For others, memories of the abuse are repressed, causing statutes of limitations to pass before law-enforcement officials can even try to take action.

One victim with ties to Alabama has found his voice--and he is using the Web to share his story. Jason Lee, a 36-year-old former Birmingham-area resident, was molested repeatedly over a five-year period. Charles Donald Corley, a respected leader in Boy Scouts and at Trinity United Methodist Church in Homewood, was convicted in 1995 of molesting Lee and two other boys.

"The bottom line is, I was just a kid and he used me as a sex toy," Lee told The Birmingham News.

Corley, who was 45 at the time of his conviction, received a 30-year sentence. But he comes up for parole on January 31. Lee and other victims have established a Web site, 30is30.com, to tell their stories and push for Corley to serve his full sentence.

Visitors to 30is30.com can click on "One Victim's Testimony" and learn about Lee's experience. It is compelling reading, to be sure:

I think there are two kinds of child molesters. One is the trench-coat-wearing, playground-stalking, child-stealing kind of person. He’s quick and violent. The other kind is the serial molester--he embeds himself in the community, wins the trust of families and children, and abuses that position of power to commit the molestation. Don Corley is the second type.

After my parents split up when I was 12, he saw my pre-teen vulnerability, befriended my family and presented himself as someone who could be a father figure to me. I was invited to hang out at his house, go on vacations with him, babysit his children. I won’t get into the details, but the molestation started under the pretense of trying to “educate me” on sexual issues. I was young enough and naive enough to believe him.

Lee says the abuse continued until his senior year at Homewood High School. Upon graduation, he went to a university two states away and tried to put the past behind him. But the Homewood Police Department contacted him one day, and Lee decided to open up:

After I left town, Don Corley finally made a move on a boy who had sense enough to say no, and to tell his parents. The parents did the right thing and contacted the police. The police investigated, and every stone they unturned seemed to lead to more and more information. If I remember correctly, the police informed me that they had identified 42 victims over a 25 year period, in a trail leading from California to Alabama.

They believed there were more victims out there, but had to take the investigation to the next level. Some victims didn’t want to go public with their story. Some victims were not open to talking to the police at all. Some victims wanted to press charges, but the statute of limitations had run out and they were unable to. In the end, three boys pressed charges, and I was one of them.

Jason Lee is not just hoping that his abuser serves a full prison sentence. He is taking steps to help make it happen. From 30is30.com:

I don’t want your money--I want your time. Please take 15 minutes to write a letter and tell the Parole Board of Alabama that you would like for Don Corley to serve his time--to stay in jail for his full sentence and not be granted parole. Better yet, print out one of our petitions and get as many people as you can to sign it and mail it to the Parole Board. Of course, the best I can hope for is that you do both.

That 15 minutes you can give towards this cause would really make a difference. Help us keep Don Corley in jail. Share your thoughts on the subject with the Alabama Parole Board and help keep an admitted child molester off our streets. . . .

I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

How can you help? You can take the first step by clicking here.

You can view several segments of an interview with Don Corley by clicking "From the Molester's Mouth" at 30is30.com. In the following segment, Corley says knowledge is the key for citizens to address the "dark side" that might be among them:

A Family's Cat Is Murdered In the Name of Politics and Conservatism

2012-01-24T11:22:00.003-06:00

The corpse of a cat that belonged
to the campaign manager for a
Democratic Congressional candidate

Our public discourse has sunk to such depths that a cat has been murdered in Arkansas, apparently for political reasons. The perpetrator, it seems, supports a Republican who is known for his strong "pro life" stands.

The campaign manager for a Democratic Congressional candidate returned to his Russellville, Arkansas home, to find that the family cat had been killed. The word "liberal" had been scribbled across the cat's body in paint.

Associated Press reports that a complaint has been filed with the Russellville Police Department, and officials have no suspects at this time.

The cat belonged to Jacob Burris, who has been campaign manager for Ken Aden since October 2011. Aden is running against Republican incumbent Steve Womack in Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District. From a press release issued by the Aden campaign:

On the heels of a weekend of positive news coverage for the campaign of Democratic Congressional candidate Ken Aden, Aden's campaign manager returned home to find his family pet slaughtered, with the word "liberal" painted on the animal's corpse.

The Russellville Police Department is investigating, and a report will be made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Monday morning.

Jacob Burris, who has served as Aden's campaign manager since late October, arrived home with his family Sunday evening, and his four children discovered the gruesome scene as they exited the family vehicle to enter their home.

Aden's campaign has said it does not suspect that anyone from the Womack camp is responsible. But the crime appears to be a "political hit." Ironically, Womack is a staunch "pro life" Republican. Someone who apparently supports Womack, however, does not have much respect for life. Here is how the Aden press release describes the ugly scene at the Burris house on Sunday night:

The family pet, an adult, mixed-breed Siamese cat, had one side of its head bashed in to the point the cat's eyeball was barely hanging from its socket. The perpetrators scrawled "liberal" across the cat's body and left it on the doorstep of Burris' house.

In the 2010 campaign, Womack received an endorsement from the Arkansas Right to Life PAC. In a press release, Womack touted his "pro life" and "family values" stances:

In a letter addressed to Womack, Arkansas Right to Life President Wayne Mays said the endorsement was a reflection of Womack's unquestionable stance to protect lives threatened by abortion or euthanasia.

"We appreciate the values by which you live, the inspiration you provide those in your community, and the courage with which you stand up for the principles in which you believe," Mays said.

Womack, the Republican nominee for United States Congress in the third district of Arkansas, said, he was pleased to receive the Arkansas Right to Life endorsement.

"Protecting the unborn is a fundamental core value rooted in conservative leadership," Womack said. "I will continue to be a pro-life advocate, as well as other family values issues that speak directly to the principles honored by most Arkansans."

Meanwhile, Womack's opponent was left to wonder how a "human being" could stoop so low in a political campaign:

"To kill a child's pet is just unconscionable," Aden said Monday morning. "As a former combat soldier, I've seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity. Whoever did this is definitely part of the worst of humanity," he said.

"It is one thing to engage in civil political discourse, and for Republicans and Democrats to disagree with each other, which is an expected part of the political process. Taking it to this level is beyond unacceptable."

Here is a CNN interview with Aden, including a comment from the Womack campaign:

Is Alabama's Football Factory Fueled In Part With the Proceeds From Insurance Fraud?

2012-01-24T06:33:00.016-06:00

Nick Saban

About 32,000 people turned out on Saturday at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa to celebrate the University of Alabama's latest national championship in football. It was Alabama's second title in three years, so perhaps now is the time to ask this question: Why in the heck is UA such a power on the football field?

The simple answer is that the Crimson Tide has loads of talented players, sharp coaches, passionate fans, and state-of-the-art facilities. The more complicated answer, one that raises at least one troubling question, is that Alabama spends a ton of money on football.

Given that the Crimson Tide's most prominent booster has documented ties to large-scale insurance fraud, a reasonable person might ask, "Do the proceeds from criminal activities help fuel Alabama's football dominance?"

The question comes in the wake of a Birmingham News report on Saturday about just how much money is funneled into Alabama's title-churning football machine. The headline on the story, "Can't Put a Price Tag on Saban's Value," implies that head coach Nick Saban is the man who has Alabama at high tide.

But what about that booster with an unsavory past? His name is Paul W. Bryant Jr., the son of the late Hall of Fame coach Paul "Bear" Bryant and the CEO of Tuscaloosa-based Greene Group Inc. Has his father's legacy given Bryant Jr. some clout at UA? He serves as president pro tempore of the university's board of trustees, which means he essentially runs the place--so the answer is yes.

Is Bryant the kind of person you would expect to find leading an institution of higher learning? Well, he certainly has shown a knack for making money. Bryant's father long was known as an astute businessman, one who left behind a tidy family fortune. The son, it appears, has taken that money and run with it. Under the Greene Group banner, Bryant has an array of business interests--in dog tracks and gaming, catfish farming, cement, advertising, and insurance.

It's that last category that once caught the eyes of federal authorities. Alabama Reassurance, one of Bryant's companies, was implicated in a fraud scheme that netted a 15-year federal prison sentence in 1997 for a Pennsylvania lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart.

How often, and to what extent, did Alabama Re engage in financial fraud? We know that the Alabama-related fraud in the Stewart case was estimated at $15 million, but we might never know the answer to that question. Sources tell us that an investigation of the company was planned once convictions were secured in the Stewart case. By the time the Pennsylvania case had wrapped up, someone in the U.S. Department of Justice had called off the investigation in Alabama.

We do know this: According to a report from the Alabama Department of Insurance (DOI), Bryant planned to liquidate Alabama Reassurance in late 2007 and replace it with a company called Alabama Life Reinsurance. At the time of liquidation, Alabama Re had "admitted assets" of at least $238 million. (You can check out the full DOI report at the end of this post.)

What happened to the fraud-tainted assets of Alabama Re? The answer is unclear, but we do know that Bryant is perhaps the No. 1 investor in Alabama football. And $238 million will buy an awful lot of jock straps.

Nick Saban might be one of the sharpest football minds in the country. But it surely does not hurt that he works at a university that is willing to engage in big-time spending on football. Reports Jon Solomon of The Birmingham News:

Remember the criticism in 2007 when Alabama made Saban the first $4-million-a-year coach in college sports? At the time, Oklahoma's Bob Stoops had the nation's highest guaranteed annual football salary at $2.5 million.

Saban's salary was only $500,000 less than what he reportedly made with the Miami Dolphins. It was a staggering amount even to the bloated college sports industry, which creates an artificial market for coaches because players don't get paid.

Solomon says Alabama has gotten a solid return on its football investment, and he quotes extensively from the university's NCAA financial report that was filed this month. Solomon points to financial gains since Saban took over in 2007 from previous coach Mike Shula:

Football ticket sales improved by $1.6 million from 2009 to 2010. Last year's record of $29.3 million in tickets sold represented a 42 percent increase from Mike Shula's last season in 2006. Consider this: Saban's 10-win team from 2010 with seven home games in a 101,000-seat stadium sold $13.2 million more in tickets than Shula's 10-win team from 2005 with seven home games in an 83,000-seat stadium.

Alabama football produced $78.1 million in athletics department revenue in 2010-11, compared to $53.2 million in Shula's last season. Almost half of that increase came from the SEC's mega TV deals with ESPN and CBS. But a case could be made that Saban played a role in getting more TV money because his teams draw some of the league's highest ratings.

Alabama's revenue last year from royalties, licensing, advertisements and sponsorships increased by 208 percent from Shula's final season. The athletics department made $17 million in that category during the past two years, compared to $11.9 million in the previous four. Also, booster donations directly to football increased by 29 percent after Saban's first national title in Tuscaloosa.

Alabama clearly believes in spending money to make money. Reports Solomon:

Meanwhile, Alabama spent more on football, from $21.3 million in Shula's last year to $31.5 million in 2010-11. Saban and his coaches last year received $3.5 million more in compensation than Shula's final staff. Saban's recruiting expenses increased by 279 percent from Shula's last class.

Let's focus on that last sentence: Alabama's football-recruiting expenses have increased by 279 percent since Nick Saban took over in 2007. And that apparently coincides with the liquidation of Alabama Re, a company owned by Paul Bryant Jr. Is that a coincidence?

Well, let's consider that Bryant gave $10 million in 2002 to help launch the Crimson Tradition Fund, which he chaired. What was the fund's goal? From a press release:

Bryant, who chairs the Crimson Tradition Fund, made his gift at this time to offer leadership to the 27 members of the Crimson Tradition Fund Executive Committee who are also preparing their own gifts and beginning their soliciting of key supporters of the drive.

“This campaign will allow our fans, friends and alumni to support the Crimson Tide in a meaningful way,” said Bryant. “Our goal is to raise $50 million in commitments from the private sector.”

The other $50 million of the $100 million total will come from a public bond issue offered for the construction of the north end zone of Bryant-Denny Stadium. Bond monies would be repaid through ticket sales revenue.

Much remains unclear about Paul Bryant Jr.'s business activities. But we know one of his companies had clear ties to financial fraud, and that company was liquidated to the tune of $238 million in "admitted assets." We know that the Alabama football program has been in the midst of a spending spree that dates to 2002 and has generated two national championships--and counting. We also know that Bryant Jr., from his perch on the UA board of trustees, has been in the middle of it.

Do fraud and football mix at the University of Alabama? Information from public documents indicates that question needs to be addressed.

Here is the 2006 DOI report on Alabama Reassurance:

Alabama Reassurance Report

This Might Explain Why Newt Gingrich Actually Could Become President

2012-01-23T07:41:00.021-06:00

Newt Gingrich

After the results of Saturday's GOP primary in South Carolina, Americans face the real possibility that Newt Gingrich could become president. How did we get to such a frightening place? In a general sense, it's because Barack Obama has left himself vulnerable by failing to stand up for the progressive base that got him elected. To be specific, it's largely because of Obama's dismal record on justice issues.

Want more evidence of how badly Obama has botched things on the justice front? Stay tuned for a federal bingo prosecution that is set to be re-tried on January 30 in Montgomery, Alabama. In the original trial last summer, prosecutors from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) charged that various pro-gaming forces had tried to buy votes in the Alabama Legislature for bills related to electronic bingo.

That trial resulted in zero convictions, and you might think the DOJ would decide the case was a stinker and not bother with remaining counts where the jury deadlocked. But you would be wrong. The DOJ is back for more, and it already looks like Trial No. 2 will be a study in theater of the absurd.

What happens when a Democratic administration gets mixed up with the people and philosophies left over from a corrupt gang of Republicans? Well, the results ain't pretty--and events in Montgomery already are spelling that out. Consider what transpired last week. (Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, provides an excellent summary here.)

* The Incredible Vanishing Prosecutor--Justin Shur, of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section, was to be lead prosecutor on the second Alabama bingo trial. But Shur announced last week that he is leaving the department to take a job with the Washington law firm MoloLamken. The MoloLamken firm has strong ties to Baker Botts, the Houston-based outfit that has powerful connections to the Bush family. In fact, Baker Botts perhaps has been best known recently for defending various Saudi interests who have been sued in connection with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Justin Shur, it appears, has long been in bed with "loyal Bushies," and the Obama DOJ was going to rely on him to spearhead the politically charged Alabama bingo case? Sheesh.

* The Withheld Documents--Attorneys for gambling magnate Milton McGregor are seeking sanctions against federal prosecutors for failing to turn over documents and intentionally trying to mislead jurors in the first trial. Lawyer Joe Espy states in a court filing that prosecutors withheld testimony that contradicted their bribery charges against McGregor. This all will sound familiar to those who have followed the Don Siegelman case. Could this have contributed to Shur's hasty exit from the scene?

* The Incredible Vanishing Witnesses--Current state legislator Scott Beason and former legislator Benjamin Lewis, both Republicans, were star witnesses for the government in the first trial. In fact, they were the ones who wore wires and wound up catching Beason on tape referring to black Alabamians as "aborigines." How have prosecutors decided to deal with that inflammatory, race-based problem? They have announced that they will not call Beason and Lewis in the second trial.

Yes, you heard that correctly. The two witnesses who were considered so crucial that they wore wires to catch alleged unlawful activity now are so unimportant that the prosecution will not call them as witnesses. And how is this for irony? The DOJ, under the nation's first black president, has been relying on a witness who taped himself calling black people "aborigines." The creators of The Three Stooges couldn't make this stuff up.

Justin Shur

If Attorney General Eric Holder is not embarrassed by this traveling minstrel show . . . well, he must not be capable of shame.

This is what happens when you treat the American justice system like a plaything. Consider some of Obama's inexplicable actions on matters of justice:

* He announced, even before taking office, that he was going to give Bush officials a free pass on apparent criminality;

* He adopted Bush positions on key justice issues, running counter to progressive principles;

* He has failed to seek accountability for the financial gurus who brought our economy to the edge of collapse. Now we learn that Holder and criminal-division head Lanny Breuer have powerful ties to mortgage banks. Breuer's name, by the way, has been all over documents in the Alabama bingo case.

* He left key Bush-era justice officials in place for more than two-plus years.

The Alabama bingo train started pulling out of the station under Leura Canary, the abominable Bush nominee as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The Obama DOJ has failed to stop it and failed to show any signs of restoring justice in a state that was home to the Don Siegelman case, perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

Thoughts of Newt Gingrich in the White House should send shivers down the spine of our body politic. But given the shenanigans unfolding in Montgomery, Alabama, it's hard to argue that Barack Obama deserves another term--at least based on justice issues.

Another Arrest Is Made in the Murder of Alabama Lawyer Blake Lazenby

2012-01-22T16:08:00.012-06:00

Calvin McCall Haynes

A second Birmingham man has been arrested in the murder of Talladega lawyer Blake Lazenby. We seem, however, to be no closer to learning why someone wanted to kill Lazenby, who was in the midst of a contentious divorce at the time of his death last July.

Calvin McCall Haynes, 30, has been arrested and charged with one count each of solicitation of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Ocie Lee Lynch, also 30 and from Birmingham, was arrested in connection with the Lazenby case on January 10.

Talladega County District Attorney Steve Giddens is not saying much about the investigation. Reports the Talladega Daily Home:

Giddens would not go into any further detail Friday afternoon regarding Haynes’ involvement in the case.

Interim Sylacauga Police Chief Chris Carden said “the investigation remains ongoing and is far from finished.”

Another Birmingham resident, Ocie Lee Lynch, 30, was charged earlier this month with Lazenby’s murder. Lynch is currently in the Talladega County Metro Jail, where he is being held without bond on a capital murder charge.

The fact that Lynch allegedly broke into Lazenby’s home provides the aggravating circumstance making it a capital case.

Lazenby was found dead in his home on Stonehill Road in Sylacauga on July 27. He appears to have died from multiple gunshot wounds.

As we have reported in a series of posts, substantial evidence suggests that motivation for murder might have come from a divorce case involving Blake Lazenby and his wife, Geanne Elder Lazenby.

Public documents indicate several complications had caused the Lazenby v. Lazenby divorce case to turn nasty:

* Multiple lawyers for Geanne Lazenby had tried unsuccessfully to get District Judge Jeb Fannin to recuse himself on the grounds that Blake Lazenby and members of his firm had repeatedly practiced before judges in the county. The case almost certainly presented valid grounds for recusal, but Fannin refused to step aside.

* Lawyers from a Birmingham firm arrived late in the case and engaged in what appear to be hardball tactics, seeking medical records on Ms. Lazenby from two locations and documents on a criminal complaint she had filed against a Coosa County man named Earnest James Files. How those documents were relevant to issues in the divorce case remains unclear.

* Lawyers appeared to be trying to strong arm Ms. Lazenby into a settlement agreement against her will.

Our research indicates that Lazenby v. Lazenby was not being handled in a lawful fashion, and Geanne Lazenby and those close to her probably had reason to feel she was being railroaded. Others connected to the case perhaps felt threatened. It appears, unfortunately, that someone reacted by turning to violence.

Blake Lazenby is dead, and two men have been arrested in connection with his murder. Will we learn what drove an apparent conspiracy to kill a prominent Alabama lawyer? That remains to be seen.

Are Conservatives Still Pulling a Cover Up In the Case of an Alabama Child Molester?

2012-01-20T09:30:00.016-06:00

Daniel M. Acker Jr.

It comes about 20 years too late, but The Birmingham News actually is producing some decent journalism in the story of Daniel M. Acker Jr., the politically connected teacher who was allowed to go on a child molestation spree in Shelby County, Alabama.

We learned yesterday that two additional charges of first-degree sexual abuse have been filed against Acker, bringing the total to six. A few days before that, reporter Veronica Kennedy produced a compelling story about a counselor who worked with the first abuse victim and suffered an emotional breakdown when she learned in the early 1990s that Shelby County officials would take no action against Acker. Kennedy's story provides insight into the suffering experienced by at least one victim, her family, and those close to her.

Higher-ups at The Birmingham News, however, are not anxious to answer questions about how the Acker story floated beneath their radar for about two decades. Some curious aspects of the story make us wonder if a cover up, perhaps designed to protect prominent Shelby County officials, still is in play. For good measure, we have learned about another case of child sex abuse in Alabama, and it gives you an idea of how quickly action can be taken when an alleged perpetrator is not politically connected in the way that Daniel M. Acker Jr. was in Shelby County.

Allison Black Cornelius is the counselor who tried to assist Acker's first victim, and Veronica Kennedy provides details about her background:

Leon Albert Prince raped Allison Black in 1972 in Birmingham when she was 7 years old. Prince was her Sunday school teacher.

In 1991, Black testified against Prince, who was convicted and served 15 years of a 30-year sentence. She was 26 years old and on her way to becoming an advocate for children who have been sexually abused.

That was just a few months before Daniel M. Acker Jr. was first accused of molesting a fourth-grade student and neighbor. Acker's alleged victim was the first child Black counseled.

Cornelius has gone on to found a consulting firm called Blackfish Strategies, and she vividly recalls the devastation she felt when a Shelby County grand jury refused to indict Acker and the school board returned him to the classroom:

When Black heard that a grand jury had declined to indict Acker, she recalled that she collapsed from the emotional trauma she felt. "I know an ambulance came to pick me up, and I was in the hospital for a week," she said.

Since then, Black--who lives in Birmingham and now goes by her married name of Allison Black Cornelius--has related her experience on national talk shows and traveled the world as the head of her consulting firm Blackfish Strategies.

Wherever she goes as a speaker, she talks about the emotional scars that linger from sexual abuse, whether they are her own or those of another victim. She said her talks often include that first child from 1991.

Do real people--innocent people--suffer when public officials ignore signs of wrongdoing? The answer clearly is yes. Could a cover up still be unfolding? We think it might be.

Consider this from Veronica Kennedy's article:

At the time, Acker denied touching the girl inappropriately. Last week, Alabaster police said he confessed to molesting her.

Not only that, but Acker confessed to molesting 20 other girls. How strange is that? Here is a guy who lied about his activities some 20 years ago, and that strategy worked; he got off. So why is he now confessing to all sorts of sexual abuse. If anyone in North America claims they were sexually abused as a child since World War II, I now expect Daniel M. Acker Jr. to raise his hand and say, "Hey, I did it."

Allison Black Cornelius

Is it possible that, the more confessions Acker makes, the more likely a spotlight will remain on him and not on the public officials and "church people" who helped him get away the first time around? With each confession, is Acker Jr. protecting his father (Daniel M. Acker Sr.) and others who have served on the Shelby County Commission and helped create an environment of rampant corruption?

What happens to an alleged child molester in Alabama when his daddy is not a prominent county commissioner? Perhaps the answer comes from a breaking story about a Gadsden man named Dale Emmett Ramsay. From The Gadsden Times:

A Gadsden man was arrested and charged with sodomy and sex abuse, according to a news release from Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin.

Dale Emmett Ramsey, 63, is charged with one count of first-degree sodomy and one count of sex abuse of a child under the age of 12, Investigator Carla Carroll said in the release.

Both charges are felonies.

The abuse allegedly took place in December 2011 to an 8-year-old female at Ramsey's residence on Fairview Road.

Ramsey is being held in the Etowah County Detention Center on $25,000 bond.

Let's review: Mr. Ramsey allegedly sexually abused a child in December, and he wound up in the slammer roughly one month later. Mr. Acker, whose father is a county commissioner, allegedly abused a child in 1991 and wound up in the slammer in 2012--some 20 molestations later. Gee, do political connections pay off in postmodern America?

We would put that question to some of the big dogs at The Birmingham News, but they seem to be in no mood for questions--at least not from me. We have noted the stunning irony of Columnist John Archibald calling out Shelby County officials for their fumbling on the Acker case, even though Archibald, Editor Tom Scarritt, and others at the News have ignored wrongdoing in the county for years.

I sent Archibald and Scarritt an e-mail on Tuesday and invited them to explain their myopic coverage on criminal matters in Alabama's wealthiest and most conservative county--a county that features public officials who seem to be uniformly white and Republican. I'm still waiting for a reply.

Here is a copy of my e-mail, raising issues that Archibald and Scarritt apparently do not want to touch:

Roger Shuler Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM
To: John Archibald
Cc: Tom Scarritt

John:

I am baffled by the outrage in your Sunday column about the failure of Shelby County officials to act on early signs of misconduct involving Daniel M. Acker Jr. As you know, Acker now has confessed to molesting at least 21 girls--and these crimes date to the early 1990s, when county officials passed on an opportunity to put a stop to it.

Why am I baffled by your Sunday piece? You might recall that you and I met in Sept. 2008 at the Safari Cup in downtown Birmingham to discuss issues connected to the Shelby County Sheriff's Office. The meeting was at your invitation after you had written a critical column about the sheriff's department, and I responded that I had witnessed events showing that Sheriff Chris Curry and his officers play fast and loose with the law. You indicated that you'd received a number of similar complaints from other citizens, and that was one reason you wanted to meet with me.

As I recall, we had a fairly pleasant visit, but you showed no interest in looking at documents I had or in pursuing a story about the unlawful conduct I had witnessed. You stated that you were working on another big story regarding Shelby County, one that involved apparent "high crimes." More than three years have passed, and I've seen nothing about that story.

Why are you outraged about Shelby County officials allowing wrongdoing to slide when you have done the same thing? And you aren't the only one at The Birmingham News who has taken this approach. I met with Tom Scarritt in probably 2003 or 2004, and I told him about indisputable evidence of criminal acts involving judges and lawyers in Shelby County. He showed no interest in pursuing the story and didn't bother looking at documents I had that proved the wrongdoing.

In my view, your newspaper shares in the blame for what has happened to 20-plus girls in Shelby County. I know from first-hand experience that you take a "see no evil" approach to coverage in Shelby County, so it should not be a surprise that Daniel M. Acker Jr. thought he could get away with it.

If you or your editors would care to offer an explanation as to why you now voice outrage about the Acker story, having ignored clear evidence of serious problems in Shelby County for years, I would be happy to run it on my blog, Legal Schnauzer.

For the record, the judicial/legal corruption in Shelby County has only gotten worse since you and I met. I've become aware of grotesque violations of law in cases that do not involve me, causing profound hardship for citizens.

I assume the News will continue with its "see no evil" reporting in Shelby County. But you should not be surprised when the ugliness surfaces, and the public wonders why you let it slide.

Regards,

Roger Shuler

News Flash for Newt Gingrich: Americans Do Not "Own" Their Jobs

2012-01-19T09:59:00.000-06:00

Newt Gingrich

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has caused a stir by saying that Barack Obama is a "food stamp president" and that poor people should want paychecks, not handouts. Gingrich went on to say that he wants to help poor people "learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job."

The Gingrich statement presents all sorts of problems, including its ugly, not-so-subtle racial undertones. But perhaps the biggest problem is this: Almost no one in the United States "owns" his job. In fact, most of us essentially work on a day-to-day basis. Given that unpleasant fact of American life, how are people--poor or otherwise--supposed to accomplish something that, by law, cannot be done in this country?

Here is the reality that Newt Gingrich is ignoring: The overwhelming majority of Americans work under an "at will" arrangement. At-will employment is a legal doctrine that means either party in an employment environment can break the relationship without liability, unless a contract expressly states otherwise.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Montana is the only state where at-will employment does not prevail.

The basic tenet of at-will employment is this: "You can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." Talk to any employment lawyer, and you are likely to hear those words verbatim. The only exception, for the most part, is if an employer violates a federal discrimination law, and those generally are limited to characteristics such as race, gender, age, national origin, religion, or disability.

Having been fired in May 2008 from my job as a university editor, after 19 years on the job and with a spotless work record, I know first-hand how tenuous your hold on any job can be in the US of A.

The bottom line? Most Americans have zero protections in the workplace. If you have a well-crafted employment contract, that should protect you for the term of the contract. If you own the company, you probably own your job. If you fit into any of the discrimination categories above, an employer is likely to think twice before firing you. But I've learned that there is not much reason for many employers, especially large ones, to worry much about discrimination because they are likely to get away with it.

Why? Well, the system is stacked in their favor. Check in your local phone book or do a Web search for "employment lawyers." Look closely for information about the kinds of cases a lawyer takes. Here's a helpful hint: A lawyer who represent plaintiffs, employees who allege to have been wronged in the workplace, usually will call himself a "discrimination lawyer" or something along those lines; a lawyer who represents defendants, employers who have been charged with wrongdoing in the workplace, usually call themselves "labor and employment lawyers."

My unofficial research indicates that for every plaintiffs' lawyer in the employment arena, there are probably 50 defendants' lawyers. And I think that is conservative. The ratio probably is more like 1:100. Plaintiffs' employment lawyers usually are solo practitioners or they work in a small shop of three to five lawyers. Employment defense lawyers tend to work in big firms, with 50 lawyers or more. Who do you think has more pull and resources?

Here is an even bigger kick in the pants for American workers: Discrimination usually is governed by federal laws, so that means employment cases almost always are heard in U.S. courts. Federal judges are appointed at the presidential level, so they tend to come from large, politically connected law firms. And what kind of clients do those firms tend to represent in the employment arena? They represent employers-- the bigger, the better because big companies tend to generate lots of discrimination cases, and that means more cash for the lawyers.

My experience and research indicates that federal judges overwhelmingly favor defendants in employment cases. And since federal judges have lifetime appointments, they are pretty much untouchable and answer to no one. You can be the victim of the most egregious form of discrimination, and a federal judge is likely to ignore the facts and law and rule against you. All you can do then is appeal to a U.S. circuit court--and that is an expensive process, with appellate judges that might be even more predisposed than their trial-court brethren to rule against plaintiffs.

When Newt Gingrich says Americans need to learn how to "own" their jobs, he is full of elephant feces. If you are in a union, you have some protections on the job. But you essentially pay dues in order to "own" union membership and the protection it affords; you don't "own" a job.

Consider my experience: I worked for 19 years at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in various editorial positions. Always got good to excellent performance reviews. Always received merit raises when they were available. Never had any disciplinary issues or warnings under university policy. Always got along with colleagues in the workplace. If anyone should have "owned" his job, it was me.

But what happened? In June 2007, I started this blog about judicial and political corruption in Alabama and beyond. I started it because of an experience my wife and I had with being cheated in state court here in Shelby County, Alabama. About five months later, strange things started happening on the job, including harassment from a boss I had known and gotten along with for pretty much my entire time at UAB. In May 2008, I was fired, less than a year after starting a blog--which I produced on my own time, with my own resources--because my reporting upset someone in Alabama's conservative power structure.

That's not a guess on my part. This recorded conversation with a UAB human-resources official named Anita Bonasera proves I was targeted because of my blog and its content about the Don Siegelman prosecution:

Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case

I have a lawsuit that is ongoing in federal court. But I've seen clear signs that a federal judge named William M. Acker Jr., an 83-year-old Reagan appointee, is repeatedly ruling contrary to law, cheating me in order to favor the powerful elites behind UAB.

So tell us again, Newt, how is it that we can "own" our jobs?

Defamation Judgment Against Montana Blogger Reflects the Messy Nature of U.S. Courts

2012-01-18T10:15:00.001-06:00

Crystal L. Cox

Many citizens probably think American courts are orderly places, where questions of facts are reasonably decided and the actual law is scrupulously applied. Those citizens almost certainly have never been involved in a legal case.

I know, from first-hand experience, that our courts are anything but neat and tidy. Everyone involved in the process--parties, lawyers, clerks, judges--is prone to mistakes. Even a case where the judge is competent and honest is likely to involve numerous rulings that are based on mistaken interpretations of fact or law.

Actually, I'm just guessing about that last sentence because I've never been involved in a case where the judge was either competent or honest. I can only assume that such judges do, in fact, exist somewhere.

With all of that in mind, let's examine the case of Crystal L. Cox, the Montana blogger who recently was hit with a $2.5-million judgment in a defamation case. Were mistakes made in the Cox case? I think you can bet on it.

Key documents from the case are available at the Web site for the Citizen Media Law Project.

God only knows how many Americans have been wrongly convicted for "crimes" that were not lawfully proven in a court of law. God also only knows how many Americans have been held liable in civil proceedings that were butchered from start to finish.

I know all about the official ineptness that accompanies all too many lawsuits in U.S. courts. Mrs. Schnauzer and I have a bogus sheriff's deed on our house because of a judgment in a case against me that, by law, could not go to trial. Sherry Carroll Rollins, the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, is living under a divorce decree that was issued by an Alabama judge--even though he had no jurisdiction to hear the case. That's because the case had already been litigated for roughly three years in South Carolina, where Ms. Rollins properly filed it. Ted Rollins, Ms. Rollins' ex husband, belongs to one of America's wealthiest family--and he apparently had the kind of financial clout that can get a divorce case unlawfully shifted from one venue to another. Some people call that "judge shopping." To make matters even worse, Ted Rollins has been a fugitive from justice for failure to pay child support.

With that as a back drop, let's look at the Crystal L. Cox case. My research indicates that both parties probably made mistakes, both before and during the legal action. More importantly, we see clear signs that the judge made mistakes--and that means the judgment against Cox almost certainly should be overturned on appeal. Here are the leading characters and some mistakes they appear to have made:

Crystal L. Cox
Cox has been the subject of two unflattering pieces in the mainstream press. One is titled "When Truth Survives Free Speech," by David Carr, of The New York Times. The other is titled "Why An Investment Firm Was Awarded $2.5 Million After Being Defamed By A Blogger," by Kashmir Hill, of Forbes.

Carr and Hill level a number of criticisms at Cox, but here are two that jump out at me:

(1) Cox was practicing search engine optimization (SEO), not journalism--Cox states in court documents that she holds some 400 Web-site domains. Why? Hill hints that it is an intentional effort to dominate search results for her targets. And in the case that wound up in court, Cox' target was Obsidian Finance Group and one of its principals, Kevin Padrick. Writes Hill:

Obsidian’s tech team found dozens of sites that appeared to have been created by Cox to write about Obsidian, says Padrick, and over 1,900 others that she had created to write about other people and companies. This is not the work of a journalist, but the work of someone intent on destroying reputations.

I don't know why Cox creates so many sites; I haven't spent much time studying search-engine optimization. But I think she would be better served to focus her reporting on a handful of sites, perhaps two or three. If nothing else, it would make it easier to follow her work.

(2) Cox offered her services to Obsidian and its law firm--Hill published an e-mail in which Cox offers an Obsidian lawyer her services to protect online reputations and promote business--for a handsome monthly fee. Hill apparently views this as an attempted shakedown.

Hill, however, does not report the whole story. Court documents indicate that Cox' e-mail was a response to a cease-and-desist letter from the attorney--and I have not seen the contents of that letter. The tone of Cox' e-mail does call her motivations into questions. But records show it did not come out of the blue; it was a response to a communication she had received. Either way, Cox would have been wise not to mix journalism with her business pursuits. This e-mail might have helped swing a jury against her, even though it has nothing to do with whether her reports on Obsidian and Padrick were defamatory or not.

Kevin Padrick
Forbes and The Times portray Padrick as an innocent figure, an attorney who nobly served as trustee in a bankruptcy case involving an Oregon firm called Summit Accommodators. A close look at the record indicates that is not the full story.

In various blog posts, Cox had called Padrick a "thug" and a "thief." The Times' David Carr said he could find nothing to substantiate that. Here's what Carr wrote about Padrick:

Mr. Padrick, a lawyer who is a member of the bar in four states and has never been disciplined or investigated from anything I could find, said he spent a lot of sleepless nights wondering how he ended up as Ms. Cox’s bête noire.

I had to laugh at that one. I've been screwed repeatedly by lawyers who have clean disciplinary records. A lawyer who is with the right firm, or has enough financial or political clout, almost certainly will never be investigated for anything. A clean record does not mean a lawyer is a paragon of virtue.

Cox presented a substantial number of documents on her Web sites that indicate something smelled about the Summit Accommodators bankruptcy. In the following post, Cox presents links to about 20 documents that strongly hint at wrongdoing in the bankruptcy case--and these come from individuals closely connected to the case, not Cox herself. Two issues stand out:

(1) Padrick and his firm had worked for Summit Accommodators--Records show that Padrick and his firm, Obsidian, had signed a consulting contract with Summit Accommodators. Summit agreed to pay Obsidian a $100,000 retainer. How could Padrick serve as an impartial trustee when he had worked for one of the parties involved?

(2) Numerous parties in the bankruptcy case had objected to Padrick's fees--Records show that various parties to the Summit bankruptcy had filed an objection to the fees being charged by Padrick, Obsidian, and their law firm, Tonkon Torp. At the time the objection was filed, Padrick and associates had charged $992,231.22 for his services as trustee. The objection states this was an average of $185,000 a month and could wind up with a total of $11.1 million over the expected five-year term of the case.

The reporters from Forbes and The Times interviewed Padrick, but neither apparently asked him about the fees he was charging in the Summit bankruptcy. Neither asked about his clear conflict of interest. Were Forbes and The Times mainly interested in knocking a citizen journalist for investigating the kind of touchy subjects that the mainstream press largely has abandoned? In other words, do the mainstream critiques of Cox' work come with a heavy dose of sour grapes?

U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez
Judge Hernandez made numerous questionable rulings leading up to the jury verdict against Cox, and these stand out:

(1) Cox role as a journalist--Hernandez found that Cox was not protected by Oregon's shield law because she did not qualify as a journalist under the law. Specifically, Hernandez found that Cox, as a blogger, was not engaged in a "medium of communication," as defined by the law. Here is what the Oregon shield law says on the subject:

"Medium of communication" has its ordinary meaning and includes, but is not limited to, any newspaper, magazine or other periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system.

Hernandez ruled that Cox was not engaged in any of the listed media. But the law clearly states that the definition of media "is not limited to" those that are listed. The judge almost certainly screwed up here.

(2) The bankruptcy case was not a matter of public concern--Cox raised First Amendment protections by asserting the Summit bankruptcy was a matter of public concern. In a finding that defies all logic, Hernandez ruled against her. Wrote the judge:

Padrick was not a public employee or a public official. Summit Accommodators was not a public body or public corporation. Thus . . . , the statements here did not relate to the evaluation of the performance of a public agency or official.

Hernandez' finding makes zero sense. Bankruptcy courts are public forums, generating public documents, funded with public (taxpayer) dollars. Padrick was appointed trustee by a judge, who is a public official. Hernandez almost certainly got this wrong, and the judgment against Cox should be overturned on First Amendment grounds, if nothing else.

A summary of our findings: (1) Crystal Cox should focus more on journalism and less on search-engine optimization--and she should be careful in her communications with opposing counsel; (2) Kevin Padrick, given his clear conflict of interest, never should have accepted the appointment as trustee in the Summit bankruptcy. If Padrick is going to charge outlandish fees for his services, he should expect harsh scrutiny; (3) Judge Hernandez' faulty rulings allowed a case to go to a jury when, under the law, summary judgment probably should have been granted in Cox' favor.

Many court cases in the U.S. are comedies of error. The Crystal L. Cox case is no exception.

Making a Facebook Connection With a Musical Giant of the 20th Century

2012-01-17T13:37:00.022-06:00

The Guess Who

When I first heard of Facebook, I thought it sounded like a goofy idea and a colossal waste of time. Roughly 3,220 friends later--with quite a few likes and pokes in between--I've become a fairly serious "bookie."

What's the coolest thing about Facebook? Well, it's been fun to reconnect with old friends from Kickapoo High School and the University of Missouri. It's been great to "meet" a lot of smart people--and by "smart people," I mean people who agree with me on political and social issues.

But maybe my coolest Facebook moment came the other day when I heard from a friend who just happens to be one of the musical giants of my lifetime. I'm talking about Burton Cummings, the lead singer of The Guess Who and the creative force behind some of the most unforgettable songs of my youth.

If I made my personal list of the 100 greatest songs of the rock-and-roll era, it surely would include "Share the Land," "American Woman," "No Time," "These Eyes," and "No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature." Burton Cummings sang lead and wrote or co-wrote all of those songs.

For me to hear from Burton Cummings via Facebook is a little like a Beatles fan getting an e-mail from Paul McCartney.

It's not that Burt and I are exactly "friends" on Facebook. But I "liked" his page quite some time ago, and that entitles me to notices about his latest activities--and at age 64, he's still turning out splendid music as a solo artist.

That point was made clear the other day when I received a video via Facebook of Burt performing a song that is so new it hasn't been released yet. It's called "Market My Letters," and it's such a haunting, beautifully written tune that I had to share it with Legal Schnauzer readers. You don't hear great piano songs on the radio much anymore, unless it's an oldie from Elton John or Billy Joel. But Burt's new piece is about as good as it gets for a piano song. If you know someone who has a special appreciation for keyboards, I would encourage you to send them this clip:

"Market My Letters" has an other-worldly, 18th century feel to it. In fact, it reminds me of "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald," by another Canadian musical treasure, Gordon Lightfoot.

Speaking of Gordon Lightfoot, that reminds me that my buddy Burt has quite a sense of humor. Here is his impression of Gordon Lightfoot, singing Rod Stewart's "Maggie May." The video quality leaves something to be desired, but it's still a hoot:

Does my pal Burt still have serious musical chops? Here is a live performance of "No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature," the opening number for his 2011 solo tour in Canada. His backing band is The Carpet Frogs, from Toronto:

Finally, I stumbled upon a video that offers a behind-the-scenes look at two rock legends. Burt performed for a while last summer on a double bill with the Steve Miller Band. Here are Miller and Burt preparing for a joint performance of the Steve Miller hit "Swingtown." These guys have been icons for roughly four decades, but they still take their work seriously. Maybe that's why their songs endure. Enjoy:

Did a Conservative Newspaper Help Pave the Way for a Serial Child Molester?

2012-01-17T06:38:00.006-06:00

John Archibald

Someone needs to send an emergency medical team to The Birmingham News building, home to one of the most lazy, corrupt, and conservative newspapers in the country. Several members of the editorial team apparently need irony transplants--stat!

First in line should be columnist John Archibald after he wrote a Sunday piece titled "Shelby County Shares in the Shame." Next should be editor Tom Scarritt, who presumably signs off on the pablum that Archibald produces.

With whom should Shelby County share in the shame? That apparently would be Jefferson County, home to Birmingham and the site of numerous financial and legal woes over the past decade. In fact, Archibald has used truckloads of ink to chronicle alleged wrongdoing in Jefferson County, while ignoring rampant corruption that has been plainly visible in its sister county to the south.

In his Sunday column, Archibald dresses down Shelby County officials for failing to notice that they had a serial child molester in their midst. In fact, Archibald is downright apoplectic that no one in authority took action when allegations arose in 1991 against fourth-grade teacher Daniel M. Acker Jr. We recently learned, some 20 years later, that Acker has confessed to molesting at least 21 girls. He has been charged, so far, with four counts of sexual abuse and now resides in the Shelby County Jail.

Where were Acker's confessions in the early 1990s? They were nowhere to be found. He denied the charges then, and after an investigation, a grand jury refused to indict and the Shelby County Board of Education returned him to work.

Norma Rogers, the superintendent at the time, said the board voted over her objections to reinstate Acker. Why did that happen? Rogers says it was largely because "all of these church people" came to Acker's defense. It probably did not hurt that Acker's father, Daniel M. Acker Sr., is a long-time member of the Shelby County Commission.

So a guy with the right connections, in the white hierarchy that governs Alabama's most conservative county, gets off--and then proceeds to go on a molestation spree that lasts roughly two decades. John Archibald can't figure out how this happened?

I know how it happened. John Archibald, and the white conservative hierarchy that runs his newspaper, helped make it happen. I know how that works from first-hand experience, and I will explain in a moment.

But first, let's get a load of Archibald's outrage about the Daniel M. Acker Jr. case:

I mean, if Joe Paterno was guilty of failing to do enough to stop Penn State's style of abuse, throngs of people in Shelby County are every bit as culpable for failing to stop this.

The school board, principals and parents. Churches, pastors and congregations. They are guilty. As are all those people who knew nothing of the facts of Acker's case, but rallied in his name and bought flapjacks to help him pay his lawyers.

They share the shame. They share the blame.

Who else shares the shame and the blame? John Archibald himself--and his editors at Alabama's largest newspaper.

Tom Scarritt

Archibald and Scarritt have known for years about widespread wrongdoing in Shelby County. I know because I told them. I had individual meetings with both of them, a few years apart, and went armed both times with public documents that proved corruption among certain judges, lawyers, and law-enforcement officials in Shelby County. This was not a matter of me being a "disgruntled litigant"--and it was not open to interpretation. I had information that showed exactly how judges and the county sheriff repeatedly violated clear law in order to favor certain attorneys and parties. I also had information that showed this was not just "misconduct." These actions constituted crimes under federal law.

Neither Scarritt nor Archibald was remotely interested in what I had to say. Neither even bothered to look at the documents I offered.

What impression did I leave with? It appeared that Scarritt and Archibald were more than happy to write about alleged wrongdoing involving Democrats, especially those with dark skin in Jefferson County. But allegations against white judges in a suburban, conservative stronghold? Not interested--not a little bit.

Even now, 20 years too late, The Birmingham News is reporting about the Daniel M. Acker Jr. case in a peculiar way. Archibald makes multiple references to a report on Acker from the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) in the early 1990s. Here is one example:

In 1993 the Shelby County School Board had the chance to remove Acker from the classroom. Former Superintendent Norma Rogers knew in her gut the fourth grader who claimed Acker touched her breast was telling the truth. She read a Department of Human Resources report that concluded there was "reason to suspect" Acker touched the girl. Rogers recommended the school board fire him.

My understanding is that DHR reports on child-abuse allegations are confidential and very difficult to obtain--even for victims. But Archibald writes the following:

On a test paper given in his fourth grade class, Acker had asked this question: "What color is (the victim's) underwear?"

And then--this is all in the DHR report--Acker sent home this letter of "explanation" to the mother of the child he molested.

"I thought the last question might need some explanation," he wrote. "(The victim) came to me complaining about some boys trying to look up her dress while we were studying. I kidded her, saying the boys must think I was going to have a question about her underwear since that was the only thing they were studying.

"I promise I'm not a pervert, I just have a strange sense of humor."

The implication is that Archibald has a copy of the DHR report. If so, that might be good reporting on his part. But why doesn't he give readers at least some clue as to how he obtained it? Why doesn't he tell us what else is in the report? Why doesn't he seek comments from officials who apparently ignored the DHR report? Archibald seems more interested in titillating his readers than in educating them.

Here are perhaps the big questions: If the Acker case and the DHR report have been out there for about 20 years, why is The Birmningham News just now latching onto the story? What if a victim and a family member went to the newspaper years ago about Acker's activities? What if they shared their story about wrongdoing in Shelby County and were rebuffed, much as I was?

When I met with Archibald he said he wasn't interested in my story partly because he already was working on a much more serious scandal in Shelby County. I'm not sure what could be more serious than rampant corruption throughout the county courthouse and its law-enforcement mechanism, but Archibald assured me he was onto something that involved "high crimes." Was it something connected to the Acker story. Did he get wind of it and, like those he now trashes, decide to look the other way?

Whatever the big scandal was, John Archibald never wrote about it. He apparently took a look and decided to let it slide--much the way county officials let the Acker situation slide in the early 1990s.

You see what I mean about the need for irony transplants at The Birmingham News.

Investigation of Lawyer's Murder Already Is Sending Out a Stench

2012-01-13T06:22:00.002-06:00

Ocie Lee Lynch

The murder investigation in the death of a prominent Talladega attorney already is emitting a foul odor--and a suspect barely has been in custody for 48 hours.

Ocie Lee Lynch, a 30-year-old Birmingham man, was arrested late Tuesday night in the murder of Robert Blake Lazenby, a partner in perhaps the most prestigious law firm in Talladega County. Lazenby died last July from multiple gunshot wounds, and his body was found in the dining room of his Sylacauga home.

What smells funny about the murder investigation at this point? Let's consider two issues raised by a report in The Talladega Daily Home:

Lynch had an initial court appearance Wednesday morning before Talladega County District Judge Jeb Fannin, who informed him he had been charged with capital murder during the commission of a burglary in the first degree.

When the defendant asked why he was being charged with both crimes, Fannin explained that the burglary in the first degree was the aggravating circumstance that made the murder a capital case.

First, we learn that Lynch appeared before District Judge Jeb Fannin. That's the same Judge Fannin who was overseeing Blake Lazenby's divorce case at the time of the shooting. That's also the same Judge Fannin who denied multiple requests from lawyers for Geanne Lazenby to recuse himself from the divorce case, on the grounds that her husband frequently appeared before Talladega County judges, and their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

We also learn that Lynch is being charged with capital murder because the killing allegedly took place during the commission of a burglary.

We are supposed to believe that a Birmingham man drove 40-something miles to Sylacauga and just happened to choose for burglary the home of a lawyer who was involved in an increasingly rancorous divorce case? We are supposed to believe that this was about a burglary gone awry and had nothing to do with the divorce case?

Early news reports placed the time of death between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m. on July 27. That means any burglary would have been taking place in broad daylight. Burglars certainly have been known to strike during the day . . . but early in the evening, right after normal business hours, when the occupant is likely to come home at any moment?

I'm having a hard time buying that one. As we have reported previously, court documents show that Ms. Lazenby and her lawyers were alarmed that Judge Fannin refused to recuse himself--and they had reason to be concerned; under the law, recusal should have been granted. Documents also show that Blake Lazenby and his lawyers apparently were trying to strong arm Ms. Lazenby into a settlement agreement that she had not approved. We also know that Blake Lazenby's lawyers were trying to subpoena documents that appeared to have little, if any, relevance to the divorce case. They were going after Ms. Lazenby's medical records from at least two different sources, and they were seeking information about a criminal complaint Ms. Lazenby apparently had filed against a man named Earnest Files, of Coosa County.

Who is Earnest Files and why did his name come up in Lazenby v. Lazenby? The answer remains unclear, but here is what we reported earlier:

We checked the Web site for the Coosa County Sheriff's Office and found this item dated April 1, 2011:

Earnest James Files Jr. of Kellyton, AL was arrested on charges of Harassing Communication and Criminal Trespassing. He was processed and released on bond to await trial.

Did Ms. Lazenby file a criminal complaint for harassing communication and trespassing against Earnest James Files Jr.? If so, why did Blake Lazenby's lawyers want that information and why was it relevant in a divorce case?

Does Ocie Lee Lynch have any connections to Earnest James Files Jr.? Is that what led law-enforcement officials to the man who now is in custody?

More information likely will be forthcoming in the next few days. Law-enforcement officials have indicated that more arrests are expected. Officials apparently believe Ocie Lee Lynch engaged in a conspiracy, that he did not act alone. But we doubt it was a conspiracy to commit burglary. Any conspiracy, we suspect, was to commit murder, and it probably was driven by actions related to the Lazenby v. Lazenby divorce case.

Birmingham Man Is Arrested in Shooting Death of Talladega Lawyer Blake Lazenby

2012-01-12T06:27:00.001-06:00

Blake Lazenby

A 30-year-old Birmingham man has been arrested in the July shooting death of Talladega lawyer Robert Blake Lazenby.

Ocie Lee Lynch was arrested late Tuesday night at a house in north Birmingham. Law-enforcement officials had said very little about their investigation after Lazenby was found dead of multiple gunshot wounds in his Sylacauga home. Lazenby's car had been found on fire in the Birmingham suburb of Tarrant.

Lazenby was a partner in Wooten Thornton Carpenter O'Brien Lazenby & Lawrence, perhaps the best known law firm in Talladega. A prominent figure on the statewide legal scene, Lazenby served on several boards for the Alabama State Bar through the 1990s until 2003.

Friends and professional colleagues described Lazenby as a nice guy and a top-notch lawyer. But that apparently was not the entire story. From one of our earlier reports:

Public documents . . . show that Lazenby's life had an element of disarray. He had about 10 speeding tickets on his record and twice was arrested for driving under the influence and driving with an open container. At the time of his death, Lazenby's most recent DUI was due to be heard in court on August 2.

We have reported that Lazenby was embroiled in his own divorce case at the time of this death. We also reported that the divorce apparently had become contentious in the months leading up to Lazenby's death. Geanne Elder Lazenby had moved repeatedly, without success, to have a Talladega County judge recuse himself from the case, on the grounds that her husband's firm frequently practiced before the court. Our research indicates that recusal is standard in such circumstances.

In possible retaliation, Blake Lazenby's lawyers had adopted what appear to be hardball tactics against Mrs. Lazenby. We covered these issues in a post dated September 28, 2011. It is titled "Did Hardball Tactics in a Divorce Case Lead to the Murder of an Alabama Lawyer?" From our report:

Legal Schnauzer has learned . . . that lawyers for Lazenby in his personal divorce case served curious subpoenas to non parties on July 15 and 18. The subpoenas sought information that seemed to have little or no relevance to matters in the divorce case--and they apparently amounted to hardball tactics in a divorce battle that clearly had grown rancorous since it hit the courts in 2008.

Just nine days after the subpoenas were served--and Lazenby's lawyers had filed a notice of discovery by interrogatories and requests for production of documents--their client's body was found in the dining room of his Sylacauga home. He died from multiple gunshot wounds, and his vehicle was found on fire in the Birmingham suburb of Tarrant.

Did the use of rough legal tactics--some might call them abusive--help lead to Blake Lazenby's murder? If I were a homicide detective on the case, I definitely would be asking that question.

Here are more specifics from our earlier report:

One of several curiosities in the case involved Geanne Lazenby's apparent inability to keep a lawyer for long. She went through a Who's Who of Birmingham-area divorce lawyers--Rick Fernambucq, Bruce Gordon, Charles Gorham, Mavanee Bear, Kristel N. Reed, and Gregory Yaghmi. Most of them filed a recusal motion and promptly exited the case, usually not waiting around for a ruling.

Here is another curiosity: The Birmingham firm of Smith Spires & Peddy made an appearance, on June 6, 2011--almost three years after the case had begun. SSP lawyers A. Joe Peddy and Tamera Erskine joined the fray on Blake Lazenby's behalf, even though neither they nor their firm appear to have experience in divorce law.

According to court documents, the tone of Lazenby v. Lazenby got particularly nasty when the SSP lawyers arrived on the scene:

They filed the subpoenas on non parties, and to our eyes, the documents appear to constitute a "fishing expedition," at best. At worst, they appear to have been used for nasty, strong-arm purposes. Who were recipients of the subpoenas, and what information was sought? Here is a summary:

* Custodian of Medical Records, Alabama Women's Specialist, Birmingham--All records pertaining to the treatment and/or diagnosis of Geanne E. Lazenby, including services rendered and financial records.

* Custodian of Medical Records, Craddock Clinic, Sylacauga--All records pertaining to the treatment and/or diagnosis of Geanne E. Lazenby, including services rendered and financial records.

* Custodian of Records, Coosa County Sheriff's Office--All police reports and investigative documents related to any allegations or claims made by Geanne E. Lazenby against Earnest Files, DOB: 10/31/1955.

Who on earth is Earnest Files? What did Ocie Lee Lynch have to do with any of this? Details about the arrest are sketchy at this hour. But an article from al.com indicates Lynch probably did not act alone. Does that mean Lynch was hired as a trigger man in a plot connected to the divorce case? It's too early to say, but our guess is that Blake Lazenby's death had something to do with his role as a party or a lawyer in a legal case:

Lynch is charged with capital murder in connection with the shooting death of 54-year-old Blake Lazenby, according to a press release issued by the Sylacauga Police Department today.

Lynch is being held in the Talladega County Jail without bond, according to the press release.

"We hope to be able to provide more information as the case against Lynch and other defendants involved develops," Chris M. Carden, interim Sylacauga police chief, stated in the press release.

CEO of Campus Crest Communities Was a Fugitive From Justice for Failure to Pay Child Support

2012-01-11T06:05:00.050-06:00

The CEO of a company that completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in 2010 was a fugitive from justice for more than two years for failure to pay child support.

Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, had a bench warrant for his arrest issued on October 17, 2002, in Greenville, South Carolina. Judge Robert N. Jenkins issued the bench warrant after Rollins had been found in contempt for failing to pay $4,500 a month in unallocated family support to Sherry Carroll Rollins and the couple's two children.

Campus Crest Communities is a developer of student housing, with strong ties to Alabama. The company is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, but its primary corporate law firm is Birmingham-based Bradley Arant. Also, the company has announced plans to develop a $26.3-million apartment complex near the Auburn University campus.

Should investors and current/future Campus Crest tenants have faith in Ted Rollins' leadership? Well, his background raises plenty of disturbing questions.

Court records show that the South Carolina bench warrant remained in effect for roughly 31 months and was not lifted until May 13, 2005, after the divorce case had unlawfully been shifted to Alabama.

Sherry Rollins and her daughters, Sarah and Emma, now live in Birmingham. They qualify for food stamps because of the grotesquely unlawful divorce decree that Shelby County Judge D. Al Crowson issued--even though he had no jurisdiction to even hear the case. Did Ted Rollins benefit from his ties to the powerful Bradley Arant firm? Those ties certainly seemed to work in his favor.

Why was the warrant against Ted Rollins lifted? That is unclear because there is no record in the court file that he ever paid the full amount of family support that was due while the bench warrant was in place. In fact, he didn't even come close.

As we reported recently, records indicate that Ted Rollins remains a deadbeat dad and still owes from $200,000 to $350,000. We have sent Rollins written questions on this issue, and he has refused to answer them.

The bench warrant states as follows:

It is ordered that the Sheriff of Greenville County, or his authorized deputy, is hereby authorized and directed to arrest and incarcerate Defendant Theodore Wayne Rollins and confine him in the Greenville County Detention Center for a period of 6 months, or until his obligations under this Court's Contempt Order dated October 17, 2002, are fully satisfied.

Records show that Ted Rollins did not fully satisfied his obligations for a period of more than 30 months. So why was he never arrested and jailed?

For that matter, records show that Ted Rollins still owes at least $200,000 in court-ordered payments. And his failure to make the payments has helped place his ex wife and daughters on food stamps. He also caused them to be kicked out of their home during the pendency of the divorce case, in direct violation of a judge's order.

Why is Ted Rollins a free man? Is it because he belongs to one of America's wealthiest family and can essentially buy his way out of jail time? It certainly looks that way.

It also looks like Campus Crest Communities is being run by a man who was a fugitive from justice for more than two years.

On its Web site, Campus Crest outlines a high-minded set of corporate values. It includes this statement:

"The student is the heart and soul of Campus Crest and the source of our inspiration, dedication and drive. Every day, we strive to go above and beyond to provide unparalleled service to them, their parents and the institutions they attend. With each class that graduates, we are helping build the future and we take that responsibility very seriously."

Campus Crest takes its responsibilities seriously? That's funny because public documents indicate its CEO should be in jail for failure to pay child and family support--and failure to maintain an "undisturbed" home for his wife and children during the divorce case.

I recently asked Ted Rollins' lawyer to provide documents showing that his client paid court-ordered support in South Carolina. I've received no reply. I asked Ted Rollins to explain his failure to pay court-ordered support in South Carolina. I've received no reply.

Consider just this one issue I raised in an e-mail to Ted Rollins:

The South Carolina court ordered you to maintain mortgage and insurance payments on the family home. Sherry Rollins states that the monthly mortgage payment was roughly $4,500. A judge had ordered you to make sure that Ms. Rollins and your daughters had "undisturbed use of the home throughout the pendency of the case." The case went on for roughly another 33 months, and payments obviously were missed because Ms. Rollins was kicked out of the house and wound up having to provide for her own shelter--and the shelter for your daughters.

Why did Ted Rollins fail to provide "undisturbed use of the home," as ordered by a South Carolina judge? Why did Rollins allow his wife and two children to be kicked out of their home, contrary to an order from a South Carolina judge? Why was a bench warrant for Ted Rollins' arrest lifted when he clearly violated court orders on multiple grounds?

Mr. Rollins and his lawyer, Chad Essick, are quick to send threatening letters to me for reporting on the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case--and I suspect I will receive another one. But they seem to be in no hurry to answer questions such as the ones above.

What kind of values does Ted Rollins really possess? What kind of values does Campus Crest Communities really possess?

Here is the South Carolina bench warrant for Ted Rollins' arrest:

Ted Rollins Bench Warrant

Alabamians Are Blinded By the Light of College-Football Glory

2012-01-10T11:56:00.002-06:00

Nick Saban and his players celebrate
their latest national title.

For the second time in three years, the University of Alabama is the king of college football. The Crimson Tide took care of business by throttling LSU 21-0 last night in the BCS National Championship Game at the Superdome in New Orleans.

When paired with Auburn's title last year, it means the state of Alabama is home to the last three national champions--and no state ever has done that before.

A state that ranks near the bottom in many socioeconomic indicators clearly is No. 1 in the realm of college football. That means almost all of our citizens today are cheering wildly, crowing incessantly, or both.

Those who believe in separation of church and state might want to visit Alabama and check it out. College football is our state religion--and Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa and Jordan-Hare Stadium in Auburn serve as our treasured cathedrals. Church and state in Alabama are "inextricably intertwined," as lawyers are prone to say, and that's just how our citizens like it--especially when the football church keeps churning out national championships every year.

Alabama fans should revel in their national title, and Auburn fans should puff out their chests with knowledge that they played a major role in a history-making "three-peat." But when sanity is restored in our state--and it might take a while--Alabamians should ponder this thought: The two men who played the largest roles in shaping our football powerhouses both have ties to massive financial fraud.

The head coaches--Nick Saban at Alabama, Gene Chizik at Auburn--provide the stern but agreeable public faces for the programs. But they are just caretakers--with one down year or a big contract offer from another employer, they could be gone with the wind.

Paul Bryant Jr. (Alabama) and Bobby Lowder (Auburn) have been the real power brokers behind the programs. Both have deep ties to the financial industry, both have served as university trustees, and both have given money and made decisions that turned UA and AU into national powers--long before Nick Saban or Gene Chizik arrived on the scene.

UA fans today are heaping adulation on Trent Richardson, A.J. McCarron, Courtney Upshaw, and other Crimson Tide stars. AU fans are dreaming about the exploits last year of Cam Newton, Nick Fairley, Mike Dyer, and other Tiger standouts--and wondering when Chizik will make another title run. (Memo to Gene: It had better be soon.)

That's the way it should be. Sports are meant to be a pleasant diversion--and it's certainly more pleasant when your team wins than when it loses.

Paul Bryant Jr.

But Alabamians should not be blinded by the fact that we've put our universities--and millions of public dollars--in the hands of people like Paul Bryant Jr. and Bobby Lowder.

As we have reported here on numerous occasions, Bryant and one of his companies, Alabama Reassurance, have unmistakable ties to an insurance-fraud scheme that netted a 15-year federal prison sentence for a Pennsylvania lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart. The mainstream press in our state has happily ignored the story, and that's probably the way our citizens want it--as long as the national titles keep rolling in.

Lowder, the former CEO of Colonial Bancgroup, was a prominent player in the largest bank collapse of 2009. A Florida man named Lee Bentley Farkas has been sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for his role in the failure of Colonial Bank.

Alabamians like to keep score, so let's check the scoreboard on the financial dealings of the money men behind UA and AU football: Paul Bryant Jr. and his company conducted business with a man who is serving a 15-year federal prison sentence; Bobby Lowder and his company conducted business with a man who is headed to the federal slammer for 30 years.

College football fans in Alabama should enjoy the glory while they can. If federal authorities ever take a close look at the money flowing in and out of the two programs--and the sources from which it comes--it could all take a mighty tumble.

A Culture of Republican Corruption Spawns a Serial Child Molester

2012-01-09T06:30:00.032-06:00

Daniel M. Acker Jr.

The corrupt environment that has been at the heart of my reporting for four-plus years now has helped produce a serial child molester. That's how ugly things have gotten here in Shelby County, Alabama.

Daniel M. Acker Jr., a retired elementary-school teacher in Alabaster, has been charged with four counts of sexual abuse and is being held in the Shelby County Jail. According to press reports, Acker has confessed to molesting more than 20 girls during his 25-year career.

From Don Siegelman to Paul Minor to Julian Assange, we have reported on legal cases with national and international implications. But this blog started largely because of a blatant cheat job my wife and I experienced from a lawsuit filed against me in a property-related matter by a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity. It all took place in the Shelby County Courthouse--in the judicial hellhole of Columbiana, Alabama--where pretty much all public officials are white, conservative, Republican, and (best I can tell) corrupt.

What does the Daniel Acker Jr. case have to do with the culture of corruption that I have witnessed first hand? It has everything to do with it. In fact, an environment of white/conservative privilege wound up "enabling" a guy who had shown signs of being a child molester for roughly two decades.

Acker Jr.'s father, Daniel M. Acker Sr., is a long-time member of the Shelby County Commission. I wrote just last week about the commission, the Shelby County Sheriff's Department, and their roles in a bogus warrant on drug charges that was issued against a black minister from Montevallo.

I was not surprised that Kenneth Earl Dukes was a victim of what amounts to racial profiling in Shelby County. And I'm not surprised that Daniel M. Acker Jr.'s unsavory activities were more or less covered up for about 20 years because he has strong ties to the county's white, conservative power structure.

In announcing last week's arrest, Alabaster Deputy Police Chief Curtis Rigney said an investigation had been conducted in 1992 on molestation allegations against Acker. That resulted in no criminal charges. Reports the Shelby County Reporter:

Rigney said a “similar investigation” was conducted by the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department in 1992, but no indictments were issued as a result.

In October 1992, Acker was placed on leave by the Shelby County School System and relieved of his teaching duties while allegations of child abuse were under investigation. In November 1992, the accusations against Acker were presented to a Shelby County grand jury, which did not indict him.

On Feb. 8, 1993 the Shelby County Board of Education held a termination hearing against Acker. After a lengthy hearing to consider the evidence in the case against Acker, the board voted unanimously not to terminate him. Acker was then reinstated as a fourth-grade teacher.

So let's review how things are done in Shelby County, Alabama. A black man, who has done nothing wrong, has a bogus warrant issued against him for drug charges. A white man who decides to write a progressive blog after witnessing rampant official corruption has the full property rights to his house stolen. (For good measure, that white man--me--is unlawfully terminated from his job at a state university after bringing corruption to public attention.) Another white man, one with strong ties to Shelby County's white/conservative power structure, is investigated for child molestation and allowed to keep his job for another 20 years or so--before finally being arrested, after confessing to the abuse of at least 21 girls.

This subject obviously hits close to home, so allow me to repeat: I was fired at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) because I write a blog that has helped expose misconduct in the political prosecution of former Democratic governor Don Siegelman. Daniel M. Acker Jr. was investigated on child-molestation charges and then allowed to keep his job.

I was fired for doing absolutely nothing wrong under any law or any rule or provision of the university where I worked. Daniel M. Acker Jr. kept his job for roughly 20 years and was only terminated after confessing to the sexual abuse of more than 20 students who were under his care.

We both were state employees, working at public institutions in the education sector. Do you sense a double standard at work in Karl Rove's Alabama?

By the way, there is no doubt that I was fired at UAB because of my reporting--on my own time, with my own resources--about the Siegelman case. A university human-resources official named Anita Bonasera admitted that in a phone conversation I tape recorded after I had been placed on administrative leave. You can listen to it here:

Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case

Acker Jr.'s arrest made the front page of last Friday's Birmingham News. The story is starting to show national and international legs, with reports in The Chicago Tribune, The New York Daily News, The Washington Post, and The Daily Mail of London.

Will there still be an effort to give Acker Jr. gentle treatment for what appear to be a series of hideous crimes? I suspect the answer is yes. We certainly can expect to see an effort to limit the damage to Acker Jr. himself, with no inquiry into the official inaction that allowed him to operate as a predator for 20 years or more.

Barry Alvis

Barry Alvis, of the North Shelby County firm W. Barry Alvis & Associates, is representing Acker Jr. Barry Alvis used to be a partner with Lindsey Allison in a firm that now is called Allison May & Kimbrough. Lindsey Allison is chairperson of the Shelby County Commission, where she serves with Dan M. Acker Sr. You can see that the Shelby County power structure is incestuous to its core.

Barry Alvis now has a firm with his wife, Lara McCauley Alvis, who used to work in the Shelby County District Attorney's Office. In fact, my wife and I consulted with her (she was Lara McCauley then) before filing a criminal trespass complaint against Mike McGarity, the troublesome neighbor who had ignored repeated warnings to stay off our property.

Lara McCauley signed off on the complaint against McGarity, never bothering to tell us that Shelby County judges go easy on the accused when he is represented by a favored attorney, such as the wildly corrupt William E. Swatek. Ms. McCauley also never bothered to tell us that we could be vulnerable to a malicious prosecution lawsuit if McGarity was acquitted, even if he confessed to the crime.

And that is exactly what happened: McGarity confessed to criminal trespass (we have the trial transcript to prove it), was acquitted, and proceeded to sue me, the victim of his crime.

Lara McCauley Alvis played a prominent role in the cheat job I have experienced. Now she and her hubby, Barry Alvis, are representing a man who has confessed to molesting at least 21 girls. I've learned this about Shelby County Courts: Just because a defendant confesses to a crime, it does not mean he will be found guilty.

Daniel M. Acker Jr. could not have chosen a more "connected" criminal-defense law firm in Shelby County. Thanks to that firm's ties to Lindsey Allison and other power brokers, I strongly doubt that true justice ever will be served in a monstrous case of child sexual abuse.

Here's the big question hanging over the Acker case: True justice likely will come only in the civil arena. Will the victims and their families be able to find an Alabama lawyer who is willing to sue the Shelby County sleaze balls who allowed this to happen? If so, what will the discovery process reveal about the widespread official corruption that has a grip on this conservative, "family values" stronghold?

Black Minister In Alabama Files Lawsuit Over Bogus Warrant On Drug Charges

2012-01-05T06:10:00.016-06:00

Kenneth Earl Dukes

A black minister in Alabama has filed a federal lawsuit after a warrant mistakenly was issued for his arrest on drug charges.

Kenneth Earl Dukes lives in Montevallo, which is in Shelby County. That's the county where I live--and the jurisdiction where Mrs. Schnauzer and I have had our lives turned upside down by court-related corruption. I long have suspected that the rampant corruption in Shelby County is driven by deep-seated prejudice in official circles--based on race, religion, and political affiliation.

If you are non-white, non-evangelical, or non-Republican, you can be the target of grotesque discrimination. The Kenneth Earl Dukes case helps drive that point home--and I won't even pretend to be objective in my reporting on this story. I hope Rev. Dukes takes Shelby County's conservative hierarchy to the legal cleaners, perhaps with some pickings left over for me, Mrs. Schnauzer, and quite a few others I know who have been victimized in the "justice" system at Columbiana.

Dukes first sought a public apology after the Shelby County Sheriff's Office wrongly posted his photograph on the "Most Wanted" section of its Web site, saying he was charged with a drug crime. How could this happen to Rev. Dukes? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one: He's black, and in the minds of the Shelby County power structure, he fit the profile of a criminal.

That's much the same reason my wife and I were targeted for a massive cheat job in Shelby County Court. We don't have children, we aren't Republicans, we don't wear our religion on our sleeves, and we don't belong to an approved suburban mega-church. In Shelby County, Alabama, that can mean you have no dignity, no worth, and no rights.

Rev. Dukes apparently found that out, and when a sufficient apology was not forthcoming, he decided to sue. From a report at al.com:

A Montevallo minister who had a warrant mistakenly issued for his arrest on a drug charge and his picture posted on the sheriff's office most-wanted list has filed a federal lawsuit against the Shelby County Drug Enforcement Task Force.

Kenneth Earl Dukes, through his attorney, contends his constitutional rights were violated in 2010 when a member of the task force relied upon a confidential informant who picked Dukes' photo out of a lineup, which led to a warrant being issued for his arrest.

The suit contends that no investigation was conducted to confirm information given by the informant.

Why did Shelby County officials feel no need to conduct an investigation to determine whether Rev. Dukes was facing a legitimate criminal charge? Answer: In their white, conservative minds, they already were certain about it. "Hey, the guy's black, how much more proof do you need?"

How close does this hit to home? I addressed that in an earlier post about Kenneth Earl Dukes:

This is just the latest example of the dangers of being black or a Democrat in heavily Republican Shelby County, where I live and where the legal travails described on this blog began. Mrs. Schnauzer and I have a pretty good sense of how Pastor Dukes feels. After all, we had full ownership rights to our house stolen by the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, and we still are trying to get them back through the federal courts.

Would Kenneth Earl Dukes have had a bogus arrest warrant issued against him, with his picture plastered on the Shelby County Sheriff's Web site, if he had been a white Republican? Not on your life.

Regular readers know that Mrs. Schnauzer and I had the full ownership rights to our house stolen by Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry. This is the same Sheriff Curry who's had multiple race-based federal lawsuits filed against him and his sleazy department. (More on those lawsuits coming up in future posts.)

We captured the bogus sheriff's sale of our house on video, and we still are fighting to get our property rights back in federal court. I explained in detail on this blog how the sale could not lawfully take place--but it took place anyway. (You can check out videos related to the sale below.)

Why did that happen? Because we stood up to William E. Swatek, a corrupt Shelby County attorney who has a 30-year history of ethical violations with the Alabama State Bar. Swatek also has strong ties to the Alabama Republican Party and former Governor Bob Riley, through his son Dax Swatek, a GOP political consultant and former Riley campaign manager.

That's why our rights meant nothing in Shelby County, much the way Rev. Dukes' rights evaporated because of the color of his skin.

People often refer to places like Shelby County as an "old boys' club." But it does not involve only "boys." White, conservative women of a certain kind can join the club. Lindsey Allison, a local attorney and long-time member of the Shelby County Commission, seems to be a card-carrying member of the boys' club. My guess is that Lindsey Allison is aware of massive amounts of court-related corruption in her domain, and as a lawyer, she has an ethical duty to report it.

Lindsey Allison

Does she follow through on that duty? No, she does not, and I know about that first hand. After the Kenneth Earl Dukes story first broke last March, news reports stated that he had gone to a meeting of the Shelby County Commission to voice concerns about actions of the sheriff's department. That seemed to be a good time to contact Lindsey Allison and see if she was at all concerned about the violations of fundamental civil rights that are all too common in Shelby County. After all, I live in District 7, meaning Lindsey Allison is my representative on the Shelby County Commission.

Specifically, I wanted to know if Allison would take information I had about corruption involving various Shelby County judges and lawyers and report it to the proper tribunal, as she is required to do by the ethics rules of the Alabama State Bar.

That prompted one of the most smug, condescending responses I've ever heard from a public official. Lindsey Allison informed me, in so many words, that she didn't care one iota about corruption that takes place right under her up-turned nose. She claimed she had no duty to report misconduct because she had no first-hand knowledge of any.

That's not what the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct say. Ms. Allison might want to acquaint herself with Rule 8.3, which states:

A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of Rule 8.4 ["Misconduct"] shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

The knowledge does not have to be first-hand; it has to be unprivileged. That clearly is what the rule says.

I told Ms. Allison that I could provide her with reams of information about misconduct by Shelby County judges, specifically G. Dan Reeves and former presiding judge J. Michael Joiner (now on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals; he got promoted for being a corrupt, cross-eyed pig.) I told Ms. Allison that this information was contained in public documents and was indisputable.

Her reply? It wasn't her duty, and she wasn't interested. When I asked Ms. Allison if she was familiar with Bill Swatek and his reputation, she pretty much hung up on me.

That kind of attitude says a lot about why Rev. Dukes, in essence, was unlawfully "profiled" in Shelby County. You might call his crime "living while black."

Meanwhile, people like Lindsey Allison make a cozy living, largely from ensuring that Shelby County's massive loads of dirty laundry never get aired.

Kenneth Earl Dukes and his attorney, Martin Weinberg, seem intent on shining some much needed light on this corrupt little world. The cockroaches undoubtedly will be scurrying for cover.

Want an up-close look at how corruption is practiced in Shelby County, the kind that Lindsey Allison likes to ignore? Check out these videos of our house being stolen, in broad daylight. The first addresses the facts and law of the case. The second shows the actual sheriff's sale.

This is the environment in which Rev. Kenneth Earl Dukes had his reputation trashed, simply because he has black skin.

The Family Behind Orkin Pest Control Has Connections to Massive Accounting Fraud

2012-01-04T06:06:00.010-06:00

John W. Rollins Sr.

Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, has been the subject of numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, focusing on his questionable legal tactics and business practices. Rollins has strong ties to Alabama because of a curious divorce case he brought in Shelby County against Sherry Carroll Rollins, even though the case had been initiated by Ms. Rollins in South Carolina--and litigated there for three years. Also, Ted Rollins' primary corporate law firm is Birmingham-based Bradley Arant, and he has a $26.3-million student-housing development planned for Auburn University.

Alabama residents have plenty of reasons to scrutinize Ted Rollins, and that point was driven home recently when we discovered that the Rollins family has ties to massive accounting fraud. In fact, the case unfolded throughout the 2000s, it involved both civil and criminal penalties, and it sounds an awful lot like the scandal that engulfed Birmingham's own HealthSouth.

Stockholders filed securities lawsuits and wound up with settlements worth about $44.5 million. At least two executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and one was sentenced to 70 months in prison.

Ted Rollins, as we have noted, belongs to one of the wealthiest families in the country, the folks behind Orkin Pest Control and other profitable enterprises. Orkin operates under the banner of Rollins Inc., which is based in Atlanta and headed by brothers Randall and Gary Rollins, Ted's cousins. According to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, Randall and Gary Rollins each had stock wealth in 2005 of more than $700 million. That probably means they both have stock worth of more than $1 billion by now--and God only knows their total net worth.

How did the Rollins family get so filthy rich? Well, it looks like they used some under-handed business practices along the way.

The Rollins accounting scandal involved a company called Safety-Kleen, which was the result of several mergers in the 1990s. John W. Rollins Sr., Ted's father, was the man behind all the shuffling. Here is how one publication described the process that left Safety-Kleen under the Rollins umbrella:

In May 1997, Rollins Environmental, Inc. ("Rollins"), the largest hazardous waste incineration company in North America, acquired Laidlaw's hazardous and industrial waste division and changed its name to LES. LES' financial strategy was to grow through acquisitions. LES acquired Old Safety-Kleen in April 1998 for $2.1 billion, with LES paying $18.30 in cash per share and 2.8 LES shares for each Old Safety-Kleen share (including those tendered in response to earlier offers). As part of the Merger, certain Defendants who held executive positions with LES assumed similar positions with the new combined entity, effectively assuming management control over the Company. On June 22, 1998, LES announced that effective July 1, 1998, it would begin doing business as "Safety-Kleen."

John W. Rollins Sr. died in 2000, but he apparently created a culture at Safety-Kleen that played fast and loose with numbers. How did the scheme work? Federal prosecutors described it when they indicted four Safety-Kleen executives in 2002:

The government alleged that the executives misled investors by materially overstating Safety-Kleen's revenue from at least November 1998 through March 2000 to meet Wall Street's pro-forma profit projections.

According to the complaint, Safety-Kleen executives used inappropriate accounting adjustments and other gimmicks after realizing they wouldn't meet projected cost savings of $500 million related to the April 1998 merger with Canadian-based Laidlaw Environmental Services.

To meet quarterly earnings estimates, they improperly recognized revenue, operating expenses and reserves. The executives also fraudulently recorded $38 million from speculative derivative transactions, the government said.

By using the improper accounting adjustments, Safety-Kleen overstated its quarterly earnings by 40 percent to 158 percent from 1998 to 2000, the government said.

Safety-Kleen later restated its financial results downward by $534 million for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 after the accounting troubles surfaced. The Columbia, S.C.-based firm reported a fiscal 2000 loss of $833 million.

The bottom line? A Rollins company engaged in more than $500 million of accounting fraud. Among those named in lawsuits related to the fraud were John W. Rollins Jr. (Ted Rollins' brother) and Henry B. Tippie, an Austin, Texas, resident who long has been hailed as the financial guru behind many of the Rollins enterprises. Tippie is such a wizard with numbers that the business school at the University of Iowa is named for him. Yep, Iowa has the Henry B. Tippie College of Business--even though its namesake has clear ties to massive accounting fraud.

Henry B. Tippie

Interestingly, neither Tippie nor Rollins Jr. wound up being targeted for criminal prosecution. The fall guys would be Controller William Ridings, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and other charges in 2002, and Chief Financial Officer Paul Humphreys, who pleaded guilty to securities and bank fraud charges in 2007.

Humphreys was sentenced to a 70-month term in federal prison.

The Humphreys indictment makes it clear that Safety-Kleen's problems started when it was acquired by Rollins:

When Rollins acquired Safety-Kleen in 1998, the merged Company predicted to the investing public that within one year of the merger, the Company would realize combined annual earnings of approximately $500 million because of "synergies" and cost savings resulting from the combination of the two companies. After the merger, however, the Company’s operations did not meet those predictions.

In an attempt to show the Company was meeting the predicted earnings and to meet the earnings numbers expected by Wall Street analysts and the public, Humphreys and others participated in an unlawful scheme to falsify Safety-Kleen’s general ledger and its financial statements. In furtherance of the scheme, they artificially inflated the earnings disclosed by Safety-Kleen in its Form 10-K annual reports, Form 10-Q quarterly reports, quarterly results press releases, and quarterly results conference calls.

What kind of environment produced Ted Rollins? It's one where executives use buzzwords ("synergies") to create expectations they can't match, then they falsify financial statements to inflate the earnings that are disclosed to investors and regulatory agencies.

It's an environment of smoke and mirrors, of schemes and scandals, of fraud and fakery. It's the kind of environment that almost ruined HealthSouth. And Ted Rollins has brought that business style to Alabama. Our citizens would be wise to pay attention.

Chief Justice Draws Guffaws With His Claim That Federal Courts Operate Honestly

2012-01-03T06:40:00.015-06:00

John Roberts

John Roberts, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, says in a year-end report that he has "complete confidence" that federal judges behave in an ethical fashion. One prominent legal journalist calls the Roberts report a "whitewash." We would call it a sign that Roberts is living on Fantasy Island. More importantly, it's a sign that oversight is needed in courts because judges clearly cannot be trusted to police themselves.

Roberts' report comes at the end of a year marked by questions about the ethical standards that apply to federal judges, including those on the nation's highest court. Critics have argued that at least two justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan, have conflicts that should force them to step down from hearing any constitutional challenges to President Obama's health-care law. But we've seen no sign that either justice will recuse him or herself-- and in our current system, such decisions are left up to the judge.

Questions related to Obamacare only skim the surface of ethical problems with the federal judiciary. We have shown that Bush-era political prosecutions, such as those involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, were enabled by numerous unlawful rulings from federal trial-court judges. We also have shown that federal appellate judges unlawfully upheld those rulings, apparently more interested in protecting their judicial brethren than in ensuring that the law is applied correctly and fairly.

In my own legal world, 2011 was filled with examples of federal district judges ruling contrary to law on matters that are clear and simple--and with judges from the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta mostly upholding findings that are contrary to long-standing precedent. In the first few months of 2012, I will be presenting ample evidence from my own legal battles that show our federal courts are infested with corruption.

A key issue in my experience has been discovery. Specifically, federal judges have repeatedly allowed opposing parties to get away with not turning over relevant documents in discovery--or in one case, a federal judge actually ruled on summary judgment when no discovery had been conducted in the case at all. That simply cannot be done under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but an 83-year-old Reagan appointee did it anyway. We encourage you to stay tuned in 2012 for indisputable evidence that our federal courts are a cesspool.

So how does John Roberts reach his conclusion that all is hunky-dory in our federal courts? Answer: He's trying to protect his turf, and he isn't interested in making sure courts actually serve the public and uphold the law. Andrew Kreig, a journalist, lawyer, and director of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, puts it in stark terms:

The federal courts function honestly, according to the annual report on the federal judiciary that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued Dec. 31 in the middle of the New Year's holiday weekend. Noting at the outset the disgrace that bribery brought to baseball in 1919, Roberts said the federal judiciary needs no reforms because its members seek to address their duties in an ethical manner. Roberts said he had "complete confidence" in the integrity of judges, including his colleagues on the Supreme Court. As chief justice, Roberts presides over both the nine-member Supreme Court and the administrative office of the federal judiciary. His report focused heavily on the need for public confidence in the judiciary. But he recommended nothing more than what he called continued self-discipline by judges.

"Whitewash" is the most obvious description of the Roberts report by those of us documenting flagrant abuses of the public interest by judges. Our Justice Integrity Project, among many others, has documented judges who have been enriched or otherwise co-opted by benefactors and political allies, while protected by cronies and toadies.

Kreig even hints that Roberts released his report late on New Year's Eve so that it would largely slip under the radar of the mainstream media:

The Roberts report was released at 6 p.m. Saturday night on Dec. 31, thus guaranteeing minimal attention from the public aside from those reporters provided advance copies

What does it tell us that John Roberts has confidence in the system he oversees? Absolutely nothing, of course. Roberts' confidence in the system is not the issue. The issue is this: Should the American public have confidence in the federal judiciary? The answer is no.

What might make a difference? Kreig offers a suggestion:

Reform is simple: Oversight hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, with aggressive investigation by the FBI of corruption complaints against dishonest federal judges, whether high or low, Democrat or Republican. Little scrutiny exists currently except for the most obvious crimes.

The Los Angeles Times was one of the few mainstream news outlets that picked up on the Roberts report. The Times makes clear that Roberts wants no part of any serious reforms:

The chief justice gently batted aside several suggestions for change. He said the justices as a group have not and should not review a decision by one of their colleagues on whether to drop out of case. Such a policy “would create an undesirable situation in which the court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate,” he wrote.

He also noted the high cost of one justice stepping aside.

If one of the nine justices were to withdraw from the healthcare case, the outcome could be a 4-4 tie vote. That would leave the law in a muddle because the healthcare’s individual mandate has been deemed unconstitutional in one regional circuit and upheld in another. A justice cannot withdraw from a case “as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy,” Roberts wrote.

In the end, Roberts sounds like a mafioso, instructing others to stay off his turf:

The chief justice also warned Congress to keep its distance. Twice, he cast doubt on whether lawmakers can impose an ethics rules on the high court, a separate branch of government. While the justices choose to abide by the current ethics rules, he said, “the limits of Congress’s power to require [them] have never been tested.”

Under the current system, John Roberts and his colleagues in the federal judiciary answer to no one. And they want to keep it that way.

A "Culture of Domination" Helps Produce Child Sex-Abuse Scandals

2012-01-02T09:53:00.003-06:00

Jerry Sandusky at Penn State

What was the top news story of 2011? My choice would be the growing list of child sex-abuse scandals, which started at Penn State and quickly grew into a story that is national and international in scope.

Why is this my No. 1 story? The death of Osama bin Laden, the earthquake/tsunami in Japan, and Arab-world unrest led the Associated Press' list of top stories. The Penn State story did not even make the AP's top 10, coming in at No. 11.

So why am I going with the child sex-abuse scandals? They are driven by what one columnist has called a "culture of domination." And that culture, I submit, drives many other stories about unrest in societies around the globe. The protests that marked the Arab spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States, for example, are efforts to strike back at the few who try to dominate the many.

Of all the words written about the child sex-abuse scandals of 2011, perhaps the most profound come from Chicago-based journalist Robert Koehler. In a piece titled "Saluting Rapists," Koehler gets to the mindset at the heart of sex-abuse scandals. And I would argue that he describes a mindset that is present in many other forms of dysfunction.

First, Koehler dispenses with terms like "abuse" and "molestation" to describe these cases. He says they are cases of rape--and the perpetrators are rapists:

Sex scandals are a media staple, of course, but in recent weeks we’ve been rocked by a new wave of sex abuse scandals--rape scandals--the dark, disturbing power of which, as always, lies in the likelihood that there are a lot more revelations and accusations still to come, more authority figures’ reputations to be shattered, more honor-steeped traditions to be exposed as hollow.

Koehler focuses heavily on the child sex-abuse cases that have grown from the North American sports machine, encompassing Penn State football, Syracuse University basketball, Canadian hockey, AAU basketball, and even a famed sports journalist. But Koehler does not stop there. He also examines sexual abuse among adults, especially in the military. At the heart of it all, Koehler writes, is a special kind of human ugliness:

When sex is hidden in the shadows--when it’s something you can’t talk about (but you can brag about)--it easily becomes one more tool of domination, wrapped in an unspeakable shame that preserves its secrecy. The crime of rape is the crime of predation, the crime of “I own you.” And it is an institutional failure first--on college campuses, in the U.S. military--as evinced by breaking news stories reporting not merely allegations of sexual molestation over a long period of time, but of their quiet cover-up by those in charge, granting de facto impunity to the victimizers. The pattern is always the same.

By fascinating coincidence, two recent developments highlighting the endemic problem of sexual abuse in the U.S. military are in the news just as the child-molestation scandal in college sports programs and other macho domains has begun to widen.

At both Penn State and The Citadel, the military college in South Carolina, the sex abuse allegations emanate from their summer camp programs for boys, reopening the ghastly concerns first forced upon the public a decade ago by the sex-abuse revelations that shook the Catholic Church. If such institutional paragons of traditional values can’t be trusted, are children safe anywhere?

Koehler asks this disturbing question: What kind of values really are at the core of America's sports programs, its military, its churches?

Maybe it’s time to look at the values themselves--beginning with those of our military culture, which is the model, and indeed the metaphor, for every other form of domination culture: The prime value is winning, achieving dominance over some sort of enemy or “other.” Around this core of dominance, we construct a fortress of honor, righteousness, cleanliness of mind and spirit. We revere the fortress, but in its dark interior, our natural impulses are ungoverned and often manifest themselves in perverse mockery of the values we salute.

I would argue that domination cultures are present, too, in our courts, our law firms, our board rooms, our financial centers, our universities. Each of them presents the image of a fortress, into which the public often cannot see. And the desire to dominate can take many forms, including the sexual. Writes Koehler:

My belief: As long as such values as honesty, empathy and love are subservient to conquest and domination, both inside and outside the military, nothing will change.

I agree that change will be difficult. But exposing the problem is the first step. I suspect that child sex abuse will be a topic of frequent inquiry here at Legal Schnauzer in 2012.

A Toast to Clark Griswold, Our Man of the Year

2011-12-30T06:17:00.011-06:00

Clark Griswold

Time magazine has named its Person of the Year, and that reminds us that we need to announce our equivalent award.

We would call it Person of the Year, too, but our winner isn't a person; he's a dog. Our winner is a guy, though, so we will call him Man of the Year.

His name is Clark Griswold, and he's a Dutch shepherd mix who lives with his humans in Elbert County, Colorado. Possibly without his knowledge, Clark has become an Internet sensation, bringing joy and laughter to the 81,863,350 people (at last count) who have viewed the "Ultimate Dog Tease" video on YouTube.

For accuracy's sake, we should note that 81.86 million individuals probably have not viewed the video. We feel certain that many have watched it more than once. Heck, I've watched it about 50 times myself--and I still LOL every time.

Anyone who can bring that much joy to the world, especially in a sucky year like 2011, deserves our admiration and gratitude. That's why Clark Griswold is our Man of the Year--and it's why we wanted to share the back story of the Talking Dog Video That Went Viral.

First, let's view the video. It's 1:21 of sheer brilliance. It's funny, clever, touching, insightful . . . well, the list of adjectives goes on. Every word is perfectly written, the voices couldn't be better, its timing is impeccable, the set-up is stunningly creative (and simple). It's like the perfect little song that will live forever--sort of the "Surfer Girl" of videos. I don't think it's an overstatement to call this a masterpiece. Let's take a look:

I love this video so much that "What was in there?" "The maple kind?" and "Covered it with what?" have become catch-all questions for any occasion in our household.

Mrs. Schnauzer: I went to the grocery store . . .

Me: What was in there?

Mrs. Schnauzer: and I bought some cereal . . .

Me: The maple kind?

Mrs. Schnauzer: and I brought it home, opened the box, poured the cereal in a bowl, and . . .

Me: Covered it with what?

At that point, the bowl goes flying past my head. But it's worth it every time.

How did the greatest video in the history of the Internet come to be? A lot of moving parts had to fall into place. Clark, who is now about two years old, was adopted from a shelter at Colorado Puppy Rescue. His family quickly learned that he liked to "talk," looking at them and moving his mouth, with all sorts of doggy sounds coming out. They took a video of Clark "talking," and a family friend sent it to Andrew Grantham, a voiceover producer who lives in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Here is a story from a Colorado TV station about Clark's trip to fame:

Grantham proved to be the genius who could make Clark a star. You might say he's Clark's Phil Spector. It all was sort of a happy accident. From The Hamilton Spectator:

Grantham let the Star in on a little secret about the Clark video: He wasn’t planning to make a video the night he came across it. Grantham was just sorting through some of the videos pet owners had submitted. Then he saw Clark.

“I just picked it out and thought, ‘I want to play with this one today,’ and within a couple of hours, that one was done,” he says from Halifax.

Grantham imagined a story where a hungry man--"Food: You know, I just couldn't stop thinking about it"--engages his dog in a conversation about bacon ("the maple kind"), juicy steaks, and chicken covered with cheese and cat treats. Each time the dog thinks he is going to reach gastronomic heaven, someone else winds up with the prize.

It's kind of like life itself. Maybe that's why so many people identify with poor Clark. He's the lovable, noble, gullible guy who never quite gets what his heart desires.

Real life, however, has turned out pretty well for Clark, post video. He has his own Facebook page, with a burgeoning fan base. He and his humans have signed a number of endorsement contracts, and commercials that feature Clark are in the works.

To fully appreciate Grantham's creation, you have to watch the original raw video of Clark, followed by the voiceover version. I keep asking myself, "How did this guy in Canada take that raw footage and imagine a way to turn it into a classic that will last forever?"

Our hats are off to Clark Griswold, Andrew Grantham, and everyone who brought the Ultimate Dog Tease video to life. Here is the original video that Grantham turned into an Internet sensation. Talk about divine inspiration. Enjoy:

The Grass Roots Live On With a Classic Sound from the '70s

2011-12-29T06:25:00.080-06:00

Rob Grill

This has been a tough year for our rock-star heroes. We wrote back in August about the death of Dan Peek, one of the founding members of the '70s super group America. As 2011 draws to a close, we can't help but think about The Grass Roots, one of my favorite bands of the late '60s and early '70s.

Two members of The Grass Roots' classic lineup died this year, leaving behind a string of infectious hits in a genre that has come to be known as "sunshine pop." Drummer Rick Coonce, who had settled near Vancouver, British Columbia, died on February 25 of heart failure. Lead singer Rob Grill died on July 11 near Orlando, Florida, from complications of a head injury he had sustained in a fall.

Grill had lived with pain for years from a degenerative bone disorder called avascular necrosis. That's the same condition that ended the career of Alabama's football/baseball superstar, Bo Jackson. Grill soldiered on, serving as The Grass Roots' front man through a multitude of personnel changes for more than 40 years.

It's never been cool to admit you like The Grass Roots. When I was in high school, the "deep" kids were into bands like Jethro Tull; Led Zeppelin; Deep Purple; The Moody Blues; Yes; and Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. Those bands were OK, but something about The Grass Roots connected with me. (Maybe I just wasn't deep enough for that other stuff.) Their 16 Greatest Hits album remains one of my cherished possessions, and I still break it out regularly to listen to "Sooner or Later," "Where Were You When I Needed You," "Baby Hold On," and much more--and those songs still sound great, even with all the crackling from a vinyl record that has made thousands of trips around the turntable.

How could they cram so many songs onto one vinyl record? Well, the Grass Roots rarely recorded a song that went more than three minutes. No drum solos or guitar excursions with these guys. They were a true singles band. From 1967 to 1972, The Grass Roots were on the Billboard charts for 307 consecutive weeks, a record even The Beatles could not match.

Grill later admitted in interviews that the band cared little about producing great albums; they just wanted to churn out hits. The minute one single started going down the charts, here came another to take its place.

Ask a music aficionado about rock bands with horns, and the answer is likely to include Chicago or Blood, Sweat, and Tears. But The Grass Roots actually were the first major American band to incorporate a brass section into their sound.

What was the appeal of The Grass Roots? The New York Times summed it up nicely in its obit of Grill:

The band’s style married elements of folk-rock, soul, blues and R&B. Its songs, whose close-knit harmonies evoked the British pop groups of the period, were bouncy, accessible and eminently danceable, often backed by an upbeat brass section.

“The Grass Roots weren’t the hippest band on the block,” The Boston Globe wrote in 1989. “But they were—and remain—a sure-fire guilty pleasure, a blissful package of pure pop.”

The Grass Roots grew from unusual roots. Originally called The 13th Floor, they were hired as a studio concoction to record songs for the production/songwriting team of P.F. Sloan and Steve Barri. Perhaps that is why the band has always had a faceless quality.

I had an experience with that when Mrs. Schnauzer and I went to the 2006 City Stages festival in Birmingham. Taylor Hicks had just won American Idol, and he was one top attraction. But the real draw, for me, was The Grass Roots.

The Hicks show started late and ran long, and Mrs. Schnauzer was determined to see all of that. But I had to leave to catch The Grass Roots on another stage. After all, I had been wanting to see them live for 34 years. As I settled into a prime spot near the front of the stage, a short, older guy with long hair came bopping down a sidewalk, about an arm's length from me. He was talking to himself and seemed genuinely content in his own little world.

"Who's the space cadet?" I wondered to myself. When the band took the stage and broke into their opening song, "Wait A Million Years," my mouth fell open. The "space cadet" was Rob Grill. I had not even recognized one of my all-time favorite singers. I still regret that I missed out on a chance to tap Grill on the shoulder and briefly thank him for all the years of great music.

Grill was the only member of The Grass Roots' classic lineup on stage that day. Has the band experienced a few personnel changes over the years? According to their Wikipedia page, The Grass Roots have had 33 members from 1966 until now--and I'm pretty sure that's leaving out a few.

One founding member, guitarist Creed Bratton, is best known now for playing himself on TV's The Office. Bratton left The Grass Roots in 1969, but he played on their four earliest albums and on about eight charting singles. Here he is on "Let's Live for Today," the band's first major hit. That's Bratton next to drummer Rick Coonce (at 1:30), with Grill and Warren Entner out front:

Bratton came from a folk background, and he left when the band started moving in a pop/R&B direction. He was replaced by keyboardist Dennis Provisor, who became an integral part of The Grass Roots sound. Here is the band with "Heaven Knows," featuring Provisor on keys, with some outlandish '70s "threads":

What's the quintessential Grass Roots song? "Midnight Confessions" was their highest charter, at No. 5. But my vote would go to "Temptation Eyes." The song has a slight edge--at least by Grass Roots standards--and is right in Grill's vocal wheel house. It even has a guitar solo, a rarity in a Grass Roots song:

I have to include one song from 1972's Move Along, which most Grass Roots fans consider to be the band's best studio album. "The Runway" from that album proved to be the band's last single to hit the Top 40. I can recall buying a 45 of the "The Runway" and wearing out the grooves on it. Here is a stereo version of a song that rocks in classic Grass Roots style. Dig those horns:

For all of the hits they produced, The Grass Roots missed on several. Some of the band members, especially Provisor, were solid songwriters. But most of the band's hits were penned by outside writers. That's probably why the band has not been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which is a gross injustice IMHO.

As The Grass Roots developed a reputation for turning unknown tunes into hits, they got innundated with material. But sometimes, their ears and judgment betrayed them. They passed on "Loves Grows Where My Rosemary Goes," which reached No. 5 for the British group Edison Lighthouse in 1970. They passed on "Drift Away," which reached No. 5 for Dobie Gray in 1973--and was reincarnated by Uncle Kracker in 2003. It's hard to imagine anyone singing that song better than Dobie Gray, but I still wish The Grass Root had recorded it.

Another that got away was "Don't Pull Your Love," which went to No. 4 for Hamilton, Joe Frank, and Reynolds in 1971. This song sounds so much like The Grass Roots that I thought it was them for years.
It was written by Dennis Lambert and Brian Potter, the songwriting team that wrote or produced numerous Grass Roots hits--along with "Rhinestone Cowboy," by Glenn Campbell; "Ain't No Woman (Like The One I've Got)," by The Four Tops; "One Tin Soldier," by Coven (from the movie Billy Jack), "Nightshift," by The Commodores; "Baby Come Back," by Player; and "We Built This City," by Starship.

The Grass Roots have been good sports about the songs that got away, and often play them in concert. Grill said in interviews that he wanted fans to know what a Grass Roots version of those songs would sound like. I know, from having seen the band in 2006, that their versions sound pretty darned good.

Here is the current lineup of The Grass Roots, with Mark Dawson replacing Grill on bass guitar and lead vocals. This is from a July 2011 show in Iowa, roughly one week before Grill's death. No original members are in the band these days, but the music lives on and Dawson does a nice job of filling in for one of the great singers in rock-and-roll history.

If The Grass Roots pass this way again, I plan to be there. Here's The Grass Roots version of "Don't Pull Your Love." Enjoy:

Newt Gingrich Is A Matrimonial Saint Compared to Campus Crest CEO Ted Rollins

2011-12-28T06:43:00.016-06:00

Newt Gingrich

The political world is aflutter with reports that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich lied about key elements of his 1980 divorce. But we can show that Gingrich is a paragon of matrimonial virtue compared to a Wall Street titan who has left his ex wife and two daughters on food stamps in Alabama.

Newt Gingrich might be a scuzzbucket in the spouse department, but he's got a ways to go if he's going to catch Ted Rollins, the CEO of Campus Crest Communities. Rollins' company completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO late last year, based on its projected strength as a developer of student housing near universities across the country.

Investors probably were attracted by the fact that Rollins belongs to one of America's wealthiest families, the folks behind Orkin Pest Control and other profitable enterprises. Court records show that Rollins owns multiple private jet craft and has engaged in business ventures with his cousin, R. Randall Rollins of Atlanta. Randall Rollins is chairman of Rollins Inc., the parent company for Orkin, and his stock worth in 2005 was estimated at a cool $763.8 million. Gary Rollins, Randall's younger brother and president of Rollins Inc., had a 2005 stock worth of $791 million.

It seems a safe bet that the overall wealth for both Randall and Gary Rollins has easily topped the $1 billion mark by now. And that gives us some idea of the financial waters in which Ted Rollins swims.

So why are Sherry Carroll Rollins (Ted's ex wife) and their daughters (Sarah and Emma) on food stamps in Birmingham, where they now live? The answer seems to be this: Ted Rollins came up with schemes in his divorce case that Newt Gingrich could not even imagine.

To be sure, Gingrich did not behave honorably in his first divorce. And public records show that he has been lying about what transpired in that case. Reports CNN:

Newt Gingrich claims that it was his first wife, not Gingrich himself, who wanted their divorce in 1980, but court documents obtained by CNN appear to show otherwise.

The Republican presidential candidate, now in his third marriage, has been peppered with attacks and questions about his divorce from Jackie Gingrich for the past three decades.

Questions about his past--and what that past tells voters about his personal behavior--have re-emerged as he has returned to the political scene 13 years after he resigned as speaker of the House.

A new defense that has arisen as Gingrich entered the presidential race this year is the insistence that she, not he, wanted the divorce.

How should the Gingrich campaign spin these latest revelations, which threaten to sink his bid for the White House? I have a suggestion: Shower the press with details about the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case--it has connections to Gingrich's home state of Georgia; that could be the hook. Newt will look like George Bailey, the famed Jimmy Stewart character from It's A Wonderful Life, compared to Ted Rollins.

Ted Rollins

How might the Gingrich campaign proceed? Well, it could compile a brief "scorecard of marital sleaze" and show how Newt stacks up against our guy, Ted. Here's how it might look:

* Jurisdiction--By all accounts that we've seen, the Gingrich divorce case was filed in the proper jurisdiction and never left there. In Rollins v. Rollins, Sherry Rollins filed for divorce in Greenville, S.C.--where the family lived--and the case was litigated there for roughly three years. Infidelity was one of the grounds cited in Ms. Rollins' divorce complaint. When judges in Greenville issued several unfavorable rulings for Ted Rollins, the case mysteriously got shifted to Alabama, contrary to volumes of law saying that can't happen.

Marital Sleaze Scorecard: Ted Rollins 1, Newt Gingrich 0

* Housing--Support for a wife and two daughters was an issue during the pendency of the Gingrich case. Jackie Gingrich stated in a court filing that Newt failed to provide sufficient funds for food and utilities. That's bad, but it's nothing compared to Ted Rollins' actions. A South Carolina judge ordered Ted to make sure that Sherry Rollins and the children had "undisturbed possession" of the marital home while the divorce case was pending. Did Ted Rollins follow that order? Nope. A bank kicked Sherry Rollins and the children out of the house when the mortgage went unpaid, and that's when they fled to Alabama, where Sherry Rollins had family.

Marital Sleaze Scorecard: Ted Rollins 2, Newt Gingrich 0

* Deadbeat Dad--Documents obtained by CNN indicate that Jackie Gingrich and her children struggled to make ends meet during the 1980 divorce case. But records also show that Newt Gingrich made a relatively modest salary then, so there was not a lot to go around. Ted Rollins, on the other hand, owns multiple private planes and has been involved in a number of apparently successful business ventures. Public records, and interviews with Sherry Rollins, show that Ted Rollins failed to make court-ordered support payments for some 33 months.

Marital Sleaze Scorecard: Ted Rollins 3, Newt Gingrich 0

* Court Orders--Documents obtained by CNN show that Newt Gingrich failed to abide by provisions of his final divorce judgment. That's bad, but Ted Rollins made a habit of violating court orders while his divorce case was ongoing. Rollins violated orders regarding shelter, discovery, legal expenses, child support, alimony . . . well, you get the idea.

Marital Sleaze Scorecard: Ted Rollins 4, Newt Gingrich 0

* Child-Support Forms--More information on the Gingrich divorce case is likely to surface in the coming days, but for now, we see no sign that Newt Gingrich provided false information in a sworn document. Ted Rollins, on the other hand, signed an Alabama child-support document (called a CS-41), stating that he made roughly $50,000 a year--and his only source of income was from a mortgage company in Brentwood, Tennessee. A guy who flies around in private jets and has family ties to multiple billionaires makes 50 grand a year? Does anyone in his right mind think that document, signed under oath, was truthful and accurate?

Marital Sleaze Scorecard: Ted Rollins 5, Newt Gingrich 0

As you can see, Ted Rollins is pitching a shutout on our Official Marital Sleaze Scoreboard (brought to you by Hooters). Gingrich is way behind and appears to have little chance of catching up.

Our advice to the Newster: Figure out a way to compare yourself to Ted Rollins. Your "family values" will be glowing by comparison. It just might save your presidential campaign.

Case of the Montana Blogger Hits Close to Home Here in Alabama

2011-12-27T06:55:00.030-06:00

Crystal L. Cox

Journalists are supposed to approach a story with an objective mindset. But I must admit that I have fallen short of that standard in reporting on Crystal L. Cox, the Montana blogger who was hit with a $2.5-million defamation judgment earlier this month.

Cox apparently upset some powerful folks out west with her reporting on alleged corruption in bankruptcy courts and the real-estate industry. One of those powerful folks, an Oregon attorney who had served as trustee in a bankruptcy case, sued Cox.

The bankruptcy case involved a company with three executives who are facing federal fraud and money laundering indictments, so a powerful stench was in the air from the outset. But a federal jury found that Cox had published defamatory reports about Kevin Padrick, a lawyer/principal with Obsidian Finance Group of Lake Oswego, Oregon, and trustee in the bankruptcy case of Summit Accommodators.

Why have I struggled to maintain objectivity about the Crystal Cox case? Probably because it hits so close to home. As a citizen journalist myself, I pull for bloggers like Crystal Cox to shine light on corporate and governmental misdeeds--especially since the mainstream media has pretty much given up on its role as a watchdog. Also, I know what it's like to incur the wrath of powerful forces who would prefer that their shady acts remain out of the spotlight. Such forces cost me my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and even cheated my wife out of her job at a Birmingham insurance company--all because I have written accurately and aggressively about official misconduct in our area.

I even know what it's like to face threats of a defamation lawsuit. Unlike Cox, I have not actually been sued, and I suspect that's partly because I have supported my reports with public documents and citations to actual law and published reports. That's where a bachelor's degree in journalism and 30-plus years of professional experience come in handy.

In essence, the bad guys in our Legal Schnauzer posts know they are bad guys--and they know my reporting is accurate. That doesn't mean they can't sue me, but it does mean they can't win, under the law--and they probably don't welcome the enhanced scrutiny a lawsuit would bring.

My years of experience on the front lines of journalism give me an advantage that not all bloggers have. But I think citizen journalism needs reporters from all sorts of backgrounds. That's why I wanted Crystal Cox to prevail in the lawsuit against her. And that's why I'm trying to figure out why a jury, assuming it wasn't tainted, went against her.

I've seen signs that the judge made several incorrect rulings leading up to the jury verdict. We also have seen reports that indicate Cox got sloppy in her reporting--and might have acted with questionable motives. We will address those issues in an upcoming post. But first, I want to examine the issues that caught Cox' attention and show why they hit so close to home here in the Schnauzer household.

Cox has worked as a real-estate broker and says the industry is set up to protect agents and leave consumers holding the proverbial bag. "Boy, when something bad happens to a real-estate consumer," Cox says in one video, "everybody runs, don't they?" Cox says she wants to help ensure that consumers are protected in real-estate transactions and, ultimately, to get the National Association of Realtors (NAR) out of real estate.

Both of those sound like noble goals to me. Cox says NAR is a powerful lobbying presence that pushes for laws to protect agents and leave consumers vulnerable. In other words, it sounds an awful lot like the American Bar Association and its affiliate state bars, which are notorious for protecting lawyers and screwing clients who file complaints.

Why does all of this hit close to home? For Mrs. Schnauzer and me, our journey through legal hell started with a real-estate transaction that I have described as "curious" and "under the table." Fred Yancey, the football coach at Briarwood Christian High School in Birmingham, sold his house to a guy named Mike McGarity, who just happened to have a substantial criminal record. This left us with a criminal for a next-door neighbor, setting off a series of events that has turned our lives upside down over the past 10-plus years.

A real-estate agent named Phyllis Tinsley was in the middle of the Yancey/McGarity transaction, and here's how we described it in an earlier post:

Here's a brief overview of what happened when Fred Yancey sold his house to Mike McGarity:

* There was never a for-sale sign in the yard;

* There was never an ad in the local newspaper or in our main area "shopper" publication;

* The house was never listed with the local Multiple Listing Service (MLS), according to an appraiser I consulted;

* Even though the house was never listed, a real-estate agent named Phyllis Tinsley was involved in the deal. At the time, Tinsley worked for Prudential Realty, but she now has her own real-estate company. Her husband, Roye Tinsley, is a real-estate appraiser.

* Phyllis Tinsley told my wife that she happened to see a for-sale-by-owner sign at McGarity's house in Cahaba Heights and stopped to talk with him. That, Tinsley said, is how she found a prospective buyer. And how did she find a prospective seller? She happened to be in our neighborhood and knocked on Fred Yancey's door. Lo and behold, he was looking to sell his house!

Maybe real-estate agents sell houses this way all the time. But it sure seems like a strange way to do it to me--awfully inefficient.

Did Ms. Tinsley just stumble upon Mike McGarity, without anyone telling her he was interested in buying, and then stumble upon Fred Yancey, without anyone telling her he was interested in selling?

Phyllis Tinsley's version of events never has added up to us. We long have suspected that someone engineered the deal to keep Fred Yancey on the sidelines, winning lots of football games at Briarwood Christian School. If we had to suffer because of the criminal next door . . . well, it doesn't appear Coach Yancey and his Briarwood benefactors really care about that.

I also don't have a hard time buying Crystal Cox' stories about corruption in bankruptcy courts. I am intimately familiar with a bankruptcy case involving a Birmingham attorney. Public documents show that one of the attorney's former clients challenged the discharge of debts, and in the process, showed that the lawyer had filed a false bankruptcy petition. In short, the lawyer had hidden assets in a bankruptcy case, and this can be a federal crime. It's covered under 18 U.S. Code 152.

The trustee in the case was Thomas E. Reynolds, an attorney with the Birmingham firm Haskell Slaughter. Overseeing the case was Thomas B. Bennett, chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Alabama. Did Reynolds or Bennett do anything about an apparent crime that took place under their noses? No, they did not. The attorney's debts were discharged, post haste. And that little problem of hiding assets? Reynolds and Bennett looked the other way.

Does bankruptcy-related fraud happen often? An article from tampabay.com indicates it is pretty much rampant--and such crimes rarely are prosecuted.

Crystal Cox might have made some mistakes in her reporting. But our guess is that she was snooping into some dark corners that desperately needed light. And that's why powerful forces wanted to shut her up.

(To be continued)

Our Four-Legged Friends Help Provide A Genuine Christmas Spirit

2011-12-24T13:33:00.005-06:00

We spent the past 12 months writing largely about human depravity--the kind that leads to legal actions and, too often, to innocent parties getting cheated in courts of law.

Covering the "justice" beat in postmodern America can make one a tad cynical about the human condition. So what to do in this season that is supposed to be marked by thankfulness and good cheer?

Here in the Schnauzer household, we turn to our four-legged friends. We give thanks for Murphy Abigail Shuler, the wonderful miniature schnauzer who inspired this blog and gave us so much joy for 11 years, before her death on January 14, 2004. We give thanks for our current "babies," the brother/sister Tonkinese combo of Baxter and Chloe. They are a never-ending source of wonder, curiosity, and amusement. They remind us every day that there is a loving God up there somewhere--although his presence often is obscured by the actions of warped humans who seem to feed on creating misery and torment for others.

We also are thankful for those who, through the wonders of YouTube, create videos that makes us smile--or even LOL--at the antics of our animal friends. One expert at this is Andrew Grantham, a resident of Halifax, Nova Scotia, who created the greatest video in the history of the Internet and gave new meaning to a character named "Clark Griswold."

Just a few days ago, Grantham released his latest creation, a charming combination of talking animals and "The Twelve Days of Christmas":

Want to sense the deep meaning of the season, the kind that should last all year long? Check out this video of a mother cat comforting one of her kittens, who seems to be having a nightmare. It has drawn more than 39 million views, making it one of YouTube's top 10 videos for 2011:

We can't leave this subject without a return visit from one of our favorite interest groups--"The Holiday Dogs of Hungary." Merry Christmas!

Is This Now the Scariest Arrest Photo in the History of Mankind?

2011-12-23T06:38:00.011-06:00

Randy L. Curmin

I used to think actor Nick Nolte would forever hold the record for the scariest arrest photo ever taken. But it looks like we have a new champ--and I don't think he's going to lose the title any time soon.

Yep, I'm starting to think that Randy L. Curmin, of Johnson City, Tennessee, has left our guy Nick in the dust. Check out Curmin above, and you will immediately be impressed by the Don King/finger-in-the-light-socket thing he's got going on with his hair. Adds to the dramatic effect, doesn't it?

How would you like to wake up to that mug in the morning? Wow!

How did Mr. Curmin earn his spot on the police blotter? It took some effort. Reports the Johnson City Press:

Police charged a man with aggravated assault Wednesday morning after he allegedly waved around a butcher knife at people and made a threat that someone needed to die, according to a police report.

Johnson City police were called to 103 S. Beech St. just before 8 a.m. Wednesday where they were told that Randy L. Curmin, 30, of that address, had been in an argument with Sherry Young over his treatment of their dog that had become sick in the house, according to a police report.

Nick Nolte

Just when we thought Mr. Curmin could not appear more "charming," we learn that he apparently was mistreating the family dog.

I would have guessed that Curmin was too busy styling his hair--applying gel, mousse, and other "product"--to get upset at a dog. But looks like I was way off target.

Here's more from the Johnson City Press:

Young was trying to calm down her two-year-old daughter when Curmin reportedly retrieved a butcher knife from the kitchen. According to the report, he looked at Young and her daughter and said “somebody has to die today.”

Curmin then went into the bedroom where the dog was. The dog reportedly yelped and then was quiet.

Young got scared that he had killed the dog, so she left the house with her daughter and called police.

Police found the knife on top of the TV in the bedroom.

The guy in the photo above was waving a butcher knife and saying "somebody has to die today"? I can see how that might cause alarm.

There is one happy note to this story. The dog, it appears, will be OK:

Curmin told police he did not recall what happened, according to the report.

The dog was not killed, according to police.

There's more good news:

Curmin was charged with two counts of aggravated domestic assault.

He was taken to the Washington County Detention Center, where he was being held on $50,000 bond.

I hate to deprive Nick Nolte of an honor he has held with distinction for so many years. But Randy Curmin has turned the "scary arrest photo" into an art form. I don't see anyone taking the award from him in our lifetimes. Nick will just have to step aside.

Sort of gives you that warm holiday feeling, doesn't it?

Judge's Ruling on Montana Blogger's Case Has Been Widely Misinterpreted

2011-12-22T09:42:00.000-06:00

Crystal L. Cox

A federal judge recently found that a Montana blogger could not claim protections afforded mainstream journalists, and that ruling led to a $2.5-million defamation judgment against the blogger.

News outlets have reported that the ruling, by U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez of Oregon, has implications for bloggers across the country. In fact, the story hit close to home here recently when I had an e-conversation with a prominent figure in the progressive blogosphere. This was a gentleman I do not know well, but I have admired his work from afar for years, and he stated that his organization now might be at heightened risk because of the Montana blogger's case.

That's when I decided Legal Schnauzer needed to provide clarification on this issue. It's true that Judge Hernandez' ruling might set off a chain of events that someday could have broad implications for non-traditional journalists. But that process could take 10 years or more, and Hernandez' finding could be completely overturned along the way. For now, the ruling has implications for only one blogger--and that's Crystal L. Cox, the Montana woman who was on the wrong end of the $2.5-million judgment.

In fact, the outcome might not even have much impact on Cox. She has stated that she doesn't have the necessary funds to pay the judgment. And Kevin Padrick, the Oregon lawyer who sued Cox, acknowledges that he is not likely to receive much, if any, of the judgment.

So what should the public make of the Crystal L. Cox ruling? In my judgment, not a whole lot. Should people pay attention to Crystal L. Cox and her work as a citizen journalist? In my judgment, they should.

Cox, a feisty resident of Eureka, Montana, bills herself as an investigative blogger, real estate broker/owner, and real estate whistleblower, among other things. She blogs at a host of sites, including crystallcox.com, crystalcox.com, investigativeblogger.com, industrywhistleblower.com, and obsidianfinancesucks.com.

Reporting on Obsidian Finance Group landed Cox in legal hot water. Obsidian is based in Lake Oswego, Oregon, and according to its Web site, the firm "is particularly adept at finding unique financial and structuring solutions to the most difficult problems." Kevin Padrick, a lawyer by training, is a senior principal and co-founder of Obsidian.

Padrick served as a trustee in a bankruptcy case involving Summit Accommodators, a company that "helped property owners conduct real estate transactions in a way to limit taxes." Summit apparently was not above board in its activities. Three executives face federal fraud and money laundering indictments.

Cox determined that Padrick was not above board either. In a post dated December 22, 2010, she referred to Padrick as a "corrupt thug, thief, and a dirty lawyer"--and that was just in the headline. This is from the body of the post:

Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance LLC is a Criminal, he has broken many laws in the last 2 years to do with the Summit 1031 case and regardless of the guilt of the Summit 1031 principals, Kevin Padrick is a THUG and a Thief hiding behind the Skirt tails of a corrupt un-monitored bankruptcy court system and protected by Corrupt Bend DA and Corrupt Bend Oregon Judges.

Was Cox' reporting on target? I'm not sure, but I've read enough public documents from bankruptcy court here in Birmingham to make me think these proceedings often are rife with corruption.

Did Cox get careless with her reporting? Did she come to sweeping conclusions that she could not back up? That's possible. Cox writes on so many different Web sites that it's difficult to make an assessment of her reporting. She appears to have some ability as a researcher, but she makes frequent use of inflammatory language and some of her work is written in a disjointed style, on a complicated topic, making it hard to determine what she has or has not proven.

Kevin Padrick

This much is clear: Padrick and his colleagues at Obsidian did not appreciate Cox' reporting efforts. They claimed her posts were false and defamatory, that she had hurt their business. A federal jury in Oregon wound up agreeing with them.

What's my take? Cox might have made some missteps in her reporting, but I'm guessing she was poking around in some seriously dark corners. I'm also guessing that the jury verdict might not hold up if Cox is able to mount an appeal.

Why do I say that? Judge Hernandez made two key conclusions that appellate judges might not agree with--(1) That Cox was not protected by shield laws that keep mainstream reporters from having to reveal their sources; and (2) That Cox was not protected by an Oregon law that requires a party to demand a retraction before seeking damages for defamation in court.

How did the judge reach these conclusions? From a report at Raw Story:

U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon’s shield law, which allows journalists to protect their sources.

“Although the defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system,” he wrote in his decision. “Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.”

Hernandez also argued there was no proof that Cox adhered to journalistic standards and noted that she had no professional qualifications as a journalist. He also noted that the shield law does not apply to defamation cases and that the bankruptcy case was not in the public interest.

The post was defamation, Hernandez said, because a reasonable person would be led to believe the blog post was factual. But Cox refused to reveal her source and could not back up her facts.

How is a bankruptcy case, conducted in a court that is financed with taxpayer dollars, not in the public interest? I have no idea where the judge came up with that one.

I intend to follow Crystal L. Cox' work. She appears to base much of her reporting on public documents, as we do here at Legal Schnauzer. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism and 30-plus years of professional experience in the field, and Cox does not have those sorts of credentials. But I think it's important to avoid "news elitism," to avoid assuming that people like Crystal Cox can't do serious journalism. Cox' experiences seem to have taught her that the real-estate industry has set up rules to protect its own interests, at the expense of the public interest. I have come to similar conclusions about the legal industry.

Ms. Cox probably could use the guidance of a seasoned editor. But she has stated that she does not intend to let the $2.5 million judgment stand in the way of her reporting. Is that a good thing for the cause of transparency? I suspect that it is.

As for the findings of the federal judge in Oregon, the public should keep this point in mind:

Marco Hernandez is a district judge, and his rulings have absolutely no precedential value. Legal precedent can only be set by appellate courts, and even then, different circuits do not always incorporate the findings in other circuits.

If Crystal Cox is able to appeal the jury verdict to the Ninth Circuit, which covers Oregon, it might be upheld or it might be overturned. Either way, there is no guarantee that other circuits will follow the Ninth's lead on similar cases. Issues raised in the Crystal Cox case might someday land before the U.S. Supreme Court. But who knows if any of us will live long enough to see that.

The Associated Press has reported that the Cox case has "implications" for bloggers around the country. But that is not true. It has implications, as of now, for one blogger, in one case, in one federal district court.

And Crystal Cox, to her credit, does not plan to go away quietly.

Here is a video of Cox discussing the real-estate industry and some of the potential pitfalls of buying a house. To my ears, she makes a lot of sense--and her voice needs to be heard, not silenced:

Abramoff Bolts From Radio Interview When Confronted By Tribal Leader

2011-12-21T06:22:00.003-06:00

Jack Abramoff

The rehabilitation of Jack Abramoff hit a snag this week when the confessed GOP felon bailed out during a radio interview that included a surprise encounter with a Native American lobbyist and whistleblower.

Abramoff appeared Monday on the San Francisco-based Peter B. Collins Show, one of several media stops since the release this fall of Abramoff's book. Monday's interview seemed to be going smoothly, with Abramoff proving genially evasive on a number of questions, including some about Alabama politics. But the tone changed when Collins welcomed Tom Rodgers to the conversation.

Rodgers, who is part Blackfoot Indian and part Irish, runs a Washington lobbying firm and is credited as one of three Native American whistleblowers who helped expose Abramoff's crimes. Shortly after Collins introduced Rodgers--and Rodgers launched into one of several questions he wanted to ask Abramoff--the audience could hear a click and then a dial tone.

Collins interrupted Rodgers, who apparently did not understand what had happened. "Tom, Jack Abramoff hung up on us," Collins said.

"Jack hung up?" Rodgers said. "Wow!"

"I guess there are limits to his ability . . . to confront his own wrongdoing," Collins said to Rodgers. "You were very polite in the way you were addressing him. He seemed to be willing to talk to me about many issues, but I guess talking to you, ear to ear, was too much for him."

The interview can be heard at this link to the Peter B. Collins Web site. (The Alabama segment starts at about the 25:00 mark.) A followup about Abramoff's hasty exit can he heard at this link.

Abramoff apparently sensed that Rodgers' arrival meant the heat was about to get turned up. And he was right about that. Rodgers said he had planned to focus his questions on two primary subjects:

* Allegations that Abramoff and fellow GOP felon Michael Scanlon had gone to a Native American council with a plan to take out life insurance on tribal elders and apply those death benefits to lobbying bills.

* Allegations that Abramoff and his associates had paid news reporters for favorable coverage or placement.

Rodgers joked about his role in the Collins interview, saying he thought it was "about time an Indian gets to ambush a white guy."

Peter B. Collins

Did Abramoff bail out, without even a goodbye, when he sensed that things were about to turn ugly for him, derailing his effort to rebuild a shattered image? That's how it looks from here.

"I thought there was an opportunity here for Jack Abramoff to really come clean about the way he manipulated one tribe against the other in an effort to super serve his high-paying clients . . . ," Collins said. "These issues with Native Americans are at the center of the misdeeds he partially admits to, and partially accepts responsibility for, in his book and on this rehabilitation media tour he's on right now."

Until being confronted by Rodgers, Abramoff proved adept at deflecting questions on a number of topics, including his role in using $20 million from Mississippi Choctaws to defeat gaming initiatives in Alabama.

Abramoff denied playing any role in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. "The only operation I put in motion was to beat him in the election," Abramoff said. "I don't want anybody to go to prison. Am I remorseful we went after him politically? He was on the other side from what our clients wanted. Our clients didn't want to have gambling in Alabama."

Susan Ralston, who worked for Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig, went on to serve as a deputy under Karl Rove in the Bush White House. And powerful evidence suggests that Rove led the effort to target Siegelman.

Did Abramoff, Collins asked, ever enlist Susan Ralston to run interference or communicate messages that helped lead to the Siegelman prosecution? Abramoff said he had not.

What role did Abramoff play in helping Bob Riley get elected in 2002? "I don't know about that. I wasn't involved at that level. All I did was direct our people to activate the coalition we had built to beat gambling."

Was Michael Scanlon, who used to work for Riley, involved in the 2002 election? "Very much so."

Did Scanlon participate in the efforts to prosecute Don Siegelman? "I doubt it. I've never heard of anything like that."

How do Abramoff's answers hold up in the wake of his retreat once Tom Rodgers arrived?

Rodgers himself provided some perspective. "If you look at the whole pattern of interviews, there is an enormous amount of deflection, a very limited acceptance of any personal responsibility. . . .

"The fact he could not participate in this dialogue means any apology still rings hollow."

Is Someone Trying to Set Me Up for an Arrest on Bogus Criminal Charges?

2011-12-20T06:30:00.023-06:00

Jarrod Massey

Why would a star witness in the Alabama bingo prosecution, which is set to begin a retrial on January 30, 2012, want to communicate with your humble blogger?

I've been asking myself that question since I received an e-mail from Jarrod Massey in late October. Massey, a former lobbyist for pro-gambling interests, pleaded guilty to various federal charges and testified against other defendants in the first trial--which ended with zero convictions on August 11.

Why would Massey want to talk with me? I can think of only one reason: Someone in officialdom is using him to help set me up for an arrest on bogus charges. Is this a case of The Schnauzer simply being paranoid? Perhaps. But I consulted a friend who has a legal education and extensive experience in government. His verdict? He thought it sounded like someone was trying to lure me into a conversation with Massey so that I could be framed for witness tampering or obstruction of justice.

I value this friend's opinion, and I know that both federal and state prosecutors in Alabama can be grotesquely corrupt. I also know that my reporting has agitated some powerful figures in our state and beyond. That's why I got fired from my job at UAB after working there for 19 years. It's also why I have received numerous anonymous e-mails that could be interpreted as death threats.

Suffice to say, that I have not returned Jarrod Massey's messages, and I don't plan to any time soon. Nothing against Mr. Massey personally; I've never met him and know very little about him. If something is fishy about his e-mails, I'm not sure he realizes it. Perhaps he is just doing what he's told.

That a star witness would contact a journalist, while the witness is waiting for a high-profile case to be retried, raises all sorts of questions. But first, let's look at what's been on Jarrod Massey's mind. Here is his first e-mail, which arrived on October 27:

from: Jarrod Massey jarrod.massey@aol.com
to: rshuler3156@gmail.com
date: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:49 AM
subject: Points of Mutual Interest
mailed-by: aol.com
Important mainly because of the words in the message.

Mr. Shuler:

I am sure you recognize my name, but if not I am the Jarrod Massey implicated in the federal bingo investigation. In light of your post today on your blog I want to be clear before I state anything further that I have absolutely no interest in discussing Judge Thompson's recent order or anything for that matter directly related to pending trial points. It is out of an abundance of caution that I state this in writing as a pretext to my comments to follow.

I would however welcome an opportunity to discuss my past associations with Dax Swatek. In summation, he is a very unscrupulous sort who is well protected by the Riley net and his linked-at-the-hip connection to Billy and Leura Canary and the Bradley Arant law firm. This of course is nothing you are not already familiar with. I can point you in the right direction for your information gathering purposes. You'll find it quite interesting.

If you are interested in having a discussion in person feel free to contact me on my mobile at 334.467.3337 or at home 334.270.0894 to schedule.

Sincerely,

Jarrod Massey
jarrod.massey@aol.com

When I did not respond to that message, Massey followed up with another one on November 1:

from: Jarrod Massey jarrod.massey@aol.com
to: rshuler3156@gmail.com
date: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:29 AM
subject: Fwd: Points of Mutual Interest
mailed-by: aol.com
signed-by: mx.aol.com
Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.

Mr. Shuler:

I assume you are not interesting in discussing? If so, please contact me by phone as referenced below. I am starting a job this week that has somewhat odd working hours. The best time to reach me will be post 9:30pm in the evenings or 7:00-11:00am daily.

Jarrod Massey
jarrod.massey@aol.com

As you can see, Massey is quite familiar with some frequent characters on my blog. He knows I have written extensively about Dax Swatek, Bob Riley, Bill Canary, and Bradley Arant. I have no doubt that Dax Swatek is an unscrupulous individual, and I feel certain that Jarrod Massey could shine light on him and other bad actors.

But let's consider the environment in which these communications took place. I'm not an expert on the process that surrounds a federal criminal case, but here is my understanding of some key issues:

* Prosecutors generally want a witness to stay underground until it's time to take the stand. Anything the witness says to an external party, such as me, could come back to bite the prosecution on its collective fanny.

* For that reason, it's hard to comprehend that prosecutors would want Jarrod Massey to communicate with a journalist--unless the prosecutors had an ulterior motive in mind.

* When a witness has entered a guilty plea and agreed to testify against other defendants, he is at the mercy of prosecutors. If he pleases them, they can push for a greatly reduced sentence. If he displeases them, they can turn on him in an instant. I see no way that Jarrod Massey would contact me on his own, without approval of federal (or maybe state) prosecutors. And that tells me that prosecutors are using Jarrod Massey to serve some agenda.

We should keep in mind that the content of this blog already has cost me my job--and yet I am still writing; in fact, I'm writing about even more sensitive subjects now than I was before I got unlawfully terminated at UAB. So what else can corrupt forces do to shut me up? I can think of only two alternatives--try to cook up a bogus arrest or assassinate me.

That sounds melodramatic, I know. But given the string of mysterious deaths in our state over the past 12 to 18 months, I don't rule out anything.

As for Jarrod Massey, I would be happy to talk with him someday, once he is out from under the thumbs of federal prosecutors. I'm sure the two of us could have an enlightening conversation. But for now, he could have pictures of Dax Swatek, Bob Riley, Bill Canary, and the whole Bradley Arant law firm having sex with goats . . . and I'm not interested.

Is Republican Greed Driving an Alabama "Marriage" Made In Hell?

2011-12-19T06:08:00.012-06:00

David Bronner

Wherever he goes in Alabama, David Bronner likely is the smartest guy in the room. The Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA), under Bronner's direction for the past 38 years, probably is the best-managed entity in our state.

Wherever Leura Canary goes in Alabama, or any other state, she likely is the most corrupt person in the room. As U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama during the George W. Bush years (and two years of the Obama administration), Canary is best known for ramrodding the Don Siegelman case, which is likely to stand as the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

So why would a smart guy like David Bronner want to hire a slime ball like Leura Canary to work in RSA's legal office? Our guess is that Bronner actually wants no part of Leura Canary. But since Republicans took over the Alabama Legislature in January 2010, they have been trying to get their grimy hands on an RSA investment nest egg that reportedly tops $32 billion, making it the 43rd largest pension fund in the United States.

If Canary actually winds up joining the RSA staff in January 2012, as was recently reported in The Montgomery Independent, it almost certainly will have nothing to do with her legal skills, which appear to be pretty much nonexistent. Instead, it will represent Bronner's effort to compromise with Republican thugs and keep them from pilfering Alabama pension funds.

How thuggish have Alabama Republicans been acting toward Bronner? The answer appears to be "pretty darned thuggish," even by GOP standards. And that makes us wonder if we should take a second look at a curious death connected to David Bronner, one that we generally have not included in our coverage of mysterious deaths that have darkened the political landscape in Karl Rove's Alabama.

Montgomery journalist Bob Martin wrote about Canary's likely hiring at RSA--a story that originated with the Inside Alabama Politics (IAP) newsletter--and noted the pressure that Bronner was facing:

Bronner told IAP he will hire Canary in January to “beef up” his legal department and because she will bring courtroom experience to his legal staff and replace the retiring Lindy Beale, who has handled legislative and legal matters, and Bill Kelly who will transfer from the legal office to handle another RSA Division.

Two capitol observers told me they believe Canary is being hired because of other reasons; one of them being that Bronner needs to improve RSA’s relations with the Republican-controlled legislature.

Readers who have followed the Siegelman case quickly will note something curious in Martin's last sentence. It strongly hints that Leura Canary is seen as a political figure who will do the bidding of certain Republicans. Did the bogus prosecution of Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy help her earn that reputation?

Martin does not disclose other possible "reasons" that Bronner would hire Canary. But Martin's words suggest that such a hire would be made while Bronner holds his nose to ward off an overpowering stench. Martin's words also suggest that, figuratively speaking, Republicans have a gun cocked and pointed at Bronner's head--and the big losers could be Alabama pensioners and anyone with investments in RSA.

Why would Alabama Republicans resort to thuggish tactics? For one, it's in their DNA; they can't help themselves. Second, with Mississippi Choctaw gambling funds seemingly drying up, they need another source of revenue for their underhanded political endeavors. RSA represents a $32-billion pot of gold that could make certain GOPers very powerful--and very rich. Third, and most importantly, Republicans have not been able to infiltrate RSA through the legislative process.

Almost from the moment they took over the legislature, Alabama Republicans started pushing a pair of bills that would have given politicians more control over RSA. Here is how an editorial at al.com explained it:

Two bills that were unsuccessful in the recent session, HB524 and HB525, would have drastically changed the makeup of RSA's two Boards of Control--one for retired teachers and one for retired state employees. Generally, the bills would have required more board members to be appointed by the governor and other politicians, and fewer members to be elected by the retirees.

Bronner fought the bills and has come out the winner--so far. But what kind of price has he had to pay. The Bronner family suffered a tragic loss earlier this year, shortly after Republicans took over the Alabama Legislature and began a full-court press on David Bronner and RSA funds.

Allison Bronner, David Bronner's youngest daughter, was found dead at her Birmingham home on March 3, 2011. Allison Bronner, 25, was a third-year student at the University of Alabama School of Law and reportedly worked at a Birmingham firm and planned to focus on securities law. She was described as an outstanding student--bright, energetic, and engaged in numerous charitable and community activities. She reportedly had received multiple job offers in Washington, D.C.

Allison Bronner

The Crimson White, the University of Alabama's student newspaper, reported that Allison Bronner apparently died of natural causes related to a recent illness. We've seen no other details in the press about health problems she might have experienced.

Is there any firm information that points to suspicious activity connected to Allison Bronner's death? We don't know of any at the moment. But when someone dies unexpectedly and has connections to Alabama's power structure--given our state's toxic political environment over the past 10 to 15 years--questions should not be summarily dismissed.

As for the GOP's RSA-related bills, they failed to pass in the 2011 legislative session--in fact, they did not come close to passing. But it appears GOP leaders have not given up on the idea of sticking their hands in the RSA cookie jar. We suspect that's why Leura Canary might wind up on the RSA payroll--for her "legal expertise," of course.

Does Bronner have strong feelings about the possibility of mixing politics with control of RSA? Yes, indeed. Consider this July 2011 article on the subject from al.com:

Bronner said allowing political appointees “will have a devastating effect on the RSA.”

“It potentially opens the funds to criminal activities like those that have occurred in Illinois, New York and California,” Bronner wrote in the July edition of The Advisor, his monthly newsletter to RSA's 330,000-plus members. “Much less looking back at some of the past Alabama governors, who would have used the RSA as their political piggy bank.”

Bronner is known as opinionated guy who doesn't pull punches. You can see how he earned that reputation.

Was Bronner thinking of former GOP Governor Bob Riley when he referenced those who might use RSA "as their political piggy bank"? I think you can bet on that. After all, Riley is famed as the beneficiary of $13 million in Mississippi gaming funds that were laundered through GOP felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon.

Abramoff has admitted in his new book, Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist, that he spent $20 million in Alabama to protect Mississippi Choctaw interests.

Gee, I can't imagine why Bronner would be concerned about the Alabama GOP engaging in "criminal activities."

So why does Bronner want to hire Leura Canary, who long has been one of Bob Riley's staunchest allies? Answer: he doesn't. But for now, Bronner probably sees it as the best way to ensure that Republicans don't steal pension funds intended for Alabama teachers and state employees.

Alabama pensioners, and investors from around the globe, would be wise to pay attention to this story. Our guess is that the GOP is trying to pull off a political version of the Enron scam. David Bronner is doing his best to fight them off.

Ted Rollins' Lawyer Once Again Crawls Out of the Woodwork

2011-12-15T06:12:00.003-06:00

Ted Rollins

A North Carolina lawyer who represents Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins has reappeared after our post yesterday about Mr. Rollins' status as a deadbeat dad.

We reported that court documents show Ted Rollins owes $200,000 to $350,000 in unallocated family support, which includes child support. We further showed that Rollins has been behind on support payments for more than six years and was under a contempt order from South Carolina for more than 30 months.

It's unclear why the contempt order was lifted because records show that Ted Rollins never has paid the full amount ordered by a judge. Also, a judge ordered Ted Rollins to ensure that his ex wife, Sherry Carroll Rollins, had undisturbed possession of the marital residence in Greenville, South Carolina, while the divorce case was pending. Did Ted Rollins follow that order? No, he did not. The mortgage apparently went unpaid, and Ms. Rollins was kicked out of the house and forced to flee with the couple's two daughters, Sarah and Emma, to Alabama.

How did Ted Rollins get away with that? What kind of person leads Campus Crest Communities as it builds student-housing complexes on college campuses across the country?

The public record provides a troubling answer to that question: Ted Rollins' company completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO last year, and he owns multiple private jet craft, but he is a deadbeat dad.

That cannot be disputed, but Rollins and his attorney dispute it anyway. Chad Essick, of the firm Poyner Spruill, threatened me with legal action, for the second time, yesterday. Mr. Essick apparently enjoys ripping off threatening missives without bothering to check what the public record reveals about his client.

Like many lawyers I've encountered, Mr. Essick seems to have no interest in facts, law, or justice. He's Ted Rollins' highly paid bully, so he threatens anyone who dares to report accurately about the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case, which represents the most grotesque example of judicial/legal corruption I have encountered--and I don't make that statement lightly.

So let's see what Mr. Essick had to say, in an e-mail sent at 9:41 a.m. on December 14, 2011:

Mr. Shuler,

It is my understanding that you have been making statements to my client, Ted Rollins, as well as others, that Mr. Rollins is currently a fugitive from justice. I am putting you on notice that this statement is patently false, and to the extent you continue to make such statements, appropriate action will be taken. Furthermore, I’ve also been notified that you have made statements that Mr. Rollins is a “deadbeat dad” and does not meet his obligations to his children. These statements are also false. In my letter dated October 17, 2011, I made you aware that Mr. Rollins makes all of his court ordered child support payments and provides support for his children above and beyond what he is obligated to pay by the Alabama courts. The mere fact that you disagree with the decisions of the Alabama courts in no way makes Mr. Rollins a “deadbeat dad” that fails to meet his obligations to his children. The continued publication of false and misleading information will not be tolerated.

Chad Essick

Here is my reply, sent at 10:16 a.m. yesterday:

Mr. Essick:

Your understanding is flawed. Records from South Carolina show that Ted Rollins was a fugitive from justice for more than 30 months. Records further show that Mr. Rollins never paid the full amount he had been ordered to pay by a South Carolina court.

I asked Mr. Rollins about these matters, which I am entitled to do under the law. As for your contention regarding Mr. Rollins currently being a fugitive from justice, that was incorporated in a question I asked him directly, with no publication to a third party.

As for the "deadbeat dad" issue, I published that in a post this morning--and it is true, based on public documents in South Carolina and Alabama, plus my interviews with Sherry Rollins. If you wish to speak with Ms. Rollins and ask her how much she has received of court-ordered payments, feel free to do so. If Mr. Rollins can produce documents proving that he paid his South Carolina obligations, I would be happy to write a post showing that. I asked him about the amount owed prior to publication, and he refused to respond to my questions.

The public record shows that Ted Rollins owed substantial amounts from a court order in South Carolina, and he has never paid it. That is fact, and I will continue to report on relevant matters. I also will give Mr. Rollins every opportunity to respond to my questions on these matters--as I have done throughout my research.

Anyone who files a groundless legal action against me will be countersued for abuse of process and any other applicable torts--and I will seek sanctions and costs.

Roger Shuler

I sent Ted Rollins a list of written questions via e-mail on Dec. 2 regarding public documents that show he is a deadbeat dad. I asked him to respond by Dec. 6 if he wished to have his answers incorporated in my article. He did not respond, and the article ran yesterday, Dec. 14.

Isn't it interesting that Ted Rollins refuses to be interviewed on these matters--and refuses to answer questions in writing, even after stating that he would be "more than happy" to do so--and then sics his lawyer on a reporter for writing factually about Rollins v. Rollins?

Isn't it also interesting that a lawyer dashes off threatening letters, claiming certain reported items are not true, when public documents show that they are true?

I'm reporting on matters of public record. It's available in the Alabama court records for anyone to see. Why are Ted Rollins and Chad Essick uncomfortable with that? My guess is they do not want the public to know, or understand, that our court system was grossly abused in the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case.

Chad Essick is following an old maxim of the legal profession: "If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither one is on your side, pound on the table."

Mr. Essick is "pounding on the table." That's all he and Ted Rollins can do when confronted with the truth about Rollins v. Rollins.

Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, Is A Deadbeat Dad

2011-12-14T06:06:00.017-06:00

Campus Crest Communities, a Charlotte-based developer of student housing, completed a $380-million Wall Street IPO in late 2010. So why do court documents show that CEO Ted Rollins is a deadbeat dad?

Rollins derives a handsome income from convincing college students and their parents to live in one of his 30 or so properties near campuses around the country. Rollins also appears to make a nice income from various investments and family enterprises.

But documents from Rollins' divorce case show that he stiffed his own children on support payments over a 33-month period from 2002 to 2005.

Rollins' teen-aged daughters, Sarah and Emma, now live in Birmingham with their mother, Sherry Carroll Rollins. Judges in the divorce action found that Ted Rollins owns multiple private jet craft and belongs to one of America's wealthiest families--the folks behind Rollins Inc., the parent company for Orkin Pest Control and other profitable businesses.

Why would a man of such means be a deadbeat dad? Why have support payments that were due more than six years ago still not been paid? We will put those questions, and others, to Ted Rollins in writing--although he has a tendency to not respond to our e-mails.

How big a deadbeat dad is Ted Rollins? To answer that question requires some background--and some math.

Sherry Carroll Rollins filed a complaint for divorce on June 5, 2001, in Greenville, South Carolina, where the family lived. The case was litigated in South Carolina for roughly three years and included a court order requiring Ted Rollins to maintain the mortgage and insurance payments on the former marital residence. A judge found that Sherry Rollins was entitled to "undisturbed use, possession, and occupancy" of the home "during the pendency of this action."

Were Sherry Rollins and the children undisturbed in their home? Not exactly. The mortgage was held by First National Bank of Oneida in Scott County, Tennessee. Former U.S. Sen. Howard Baker was a long-time board member of the bank and also was a close ally to John W. Rollins, the business magnate who was Ted Rollins' father. Court-ordered payments on the home apparently were not made, and officials from First National Bank kicked Ms. Rollins and her children out on the streets. They fled to Alabama, where Ms. Rollins had family.

Ted Rollins

Ted Rollins proceeded to file a divorce complaint against Sherry Rollins in Alabama, even though jurisdiction already had been established in South Carolina and could not lawfully be moved. Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson did not let the actual law keep him from taking the case and giving Ted Rollins a judgment that was so extraordinarily favorable that his ex wife and children now are on food stamps.

Why was Shelby County such a friendly jurisdiction for Ted Rollins? Well, his primary business lawyers are at the influential Birmingham firm of Bradley Arant. It appears that someone made sure Sherry Rollins and her daughters were the victims of legal "home cooking," Alabama style.

Shelby County, of course, is the same locale where Mrs. Schnauzer and I were on the receiving end of numerous unlawful rulings in a bogus lawsuit filed against me by a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity. So I was not at all surprised to learn that another adult, Sherry Rollins, had received a monstrous cheat job in Shelby County. I was slightly surprised to learn that a judge in Shelby County, a conservative outpost that touts itself as a "great place to raise a family," would go out of his way to screw two children.

You might call Al Crowson the "Jerry Sandusky of the Alabama legal world." What would you call Ted Rollins, the man who sat by while his own kids got hammered in court? "Deadbeat dad" probably is not a strong enough term to describe this guy.

To fully grasp the depravity of Ted Rollins' actions, you need to follow me with some math through several steps:

* A second pendente lite order, issued on February 8, 2002, in South Carolina, required Ted Rollins to pay $4,500 a month during the pendency of the divorce case. A pendente lite is a temporary order, issued while discovery is pending, to make sure that parties in a divorce case have support while the case is heard.

* A contempt order, issued on October 17, 2002, in South Carolina, found that Ted Rollins was behind on his court-ordered payments by $70,410--$50,000 in attorney fees and $20,410 in family support. (See contempt order below.)

* After the case unlawfully was moved to Alabama, attorney G. John Durward Jr., wrote a letter to Judge Crowson that claimed his client, Ted Rollins, no longer owed support in South Carolina. Durward attached a South Carolina order stating that Ted Rollins had made a lump sum payment of $14,175 that left him with a support balance of zero. How could the balance be zero when Ted Rollins owed $70,410, and there is no record in the file of him paying that amount? John Durward's letter does not address that issue. (See Durward's letter below, with the accompanying court order.)

* A final judgment of divorce was issued in Shelby County on July 18, 2005.

How do the numbers stack up? When a contempt order was issued against Ted Rollins in October 2002, he was already behind on support by $70,410. From that date until the final judgment of divorce in July 2005 was 33 months--and throughout that time, Ted Rollins was under a court order to pay $4,500 in unallocated family support.

If you multiply $4,500 over 33 months, you find that Ted Rollins owed $148,500. When you add the $70,140 arrearage that apparently never was paid, you get a total of $218,910.

Sherry Rollins states that after she moved to Alabama, she received a payment from the state of South Carolina for $100,000. Why that figure? What was the explanation? She does not know.

As for the other $118,910, Sherry Rollins says that never has been paid--and there is no indication in court documents that it has been paid. Therefore, Ted Rollins is a deadbeat dad.

Rollins and one of his current attorneys, Chad Essick of the North Carolina firm Poyner Spruill, seem to acknowledge this in a recent letter to me. I had e-mailed Mr. Rollins several questions in writing, per his request, and part of the response from his lawyer was this:

You have suggested in your articles that Mr. Rollins does not adequately provide for his children and has missed child support payments. This is entirely false. Mr. Rollins has never failed to make a monthly payment as required by Alabama courts.

Note the clever wordplay from Mr. Essick. He states that Ted Rollins has never failed to make a monthly payment "as required by Alabama courts." He makes no reference to the South Carolina court order, and the payments that Mr. Rollins failed to make there.

In fact, Mr. Rollins still owes $118,910. And that amount almost certainly is conservative.

The South Carolina court had ordered Ted Rollins to maintain mortgage and insurance payments on the family home. Sherry Rollins states that the monthly mortgage payment was roughly $4,500. A judge had ordered Ted Rollins to make sure that Sherry Rollins and their daughters had undisturbed use of the home throughout the pendency of the case. The case went on for roughly another 33 months, and payments obviously were missed because Ms. Rollins was kicked out of the house and wound up having to provide for her own shelter.

How many payments for shelter and insurance did Ted Rollins miss? It's unclear, but since Sherry Rollins was forced to flee to Alabama in 2003, he almost certainly missed at least 24 months. That would add another $108,000 to his unpaid amount, bringing the total to $226,910.

We should note that the first pendente lite order in South Carolina called for Ted Rollins to pay $8,355 a month ($3,355 in child support, $5,000 in alimony). That was reduced to $4,500 a month in unallocated family support, based on a motion for reconsideration from Ted Rollins' attorney. But the court's order on reconsideration never makes it clear why the reduction was justified. The reduction seems odd, considering that a judge had found that Rollins has substantial business interests, multiple private planes, and significant family wealth.

Curiously, Sherry Rollins' lawyer never objected to the reduction in payments. Is that a sign that her own lawyer was working against her? Based on my experiences in court, and a review of the Rollins v. Rollins file, I would say the answer is yes.

If the original pendente lite order had stayed in place, Ted Rollins would have owed $8,355 over 33 months, which comes to $275,715. When the $70,410 is added for the South Carolina arrearage, plus our conservative estimate of $108,000 in missed housing-related payments, that would bring the total to $454,125.

With credit for his $100,000 payment, Mr. Rollins would owe $354,125.

The bottom line? Our figures, based on public documents and statements from Sherry Rollins, show that Ted Rollins owes somewhere between $200,000 and $350,000 in family support. That amount has gone unpaid for more than six years.

How big a deadbeat dad is Ted Rollins? You make the call.

Below is a court order from October 2002, showing that Ted Rollins was behind on his court-ordered support payments by $70,410. After that is a letter and court order, from May 2005, showing that Rollins had made a payment of $14,175 and that--somehow--gave him a balance of zero.

How do you owe $70,410, pay $14,175, and wind up with a fully paid balance? We have no idea.

Court records show that, from October 2002 to May 2005, Ted Rollins was under a court order to pay $4,500 in family support, plus mortgage and insurance payments on the former marital residence. That's roughly 31 months of payments, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that was paid. How do you skip more than 30 months of court-ordered payments and wind up with a fully paid balance? We have no idea on that one either.

The Rollins v. Rollins file is filled with such legal and financial skulduggery. We are left with this overarching question: Did Ted Rollins' financial clout, from being a card-carrying member in one of America's wealthiest family, help him buy some mighty friendly "justice" in Alabama?

Ted Rollins Contempt Order

Ted Rollins Durward Letter

Video: UAB Coach Garrick McGee Proves Evasive About His Criminal Record

2011-12-13T06:03:00.004-06:00

Paul Finebaum

One week ago, former Arkansas offensive coordinator Garrick McGee was hailed as a "home run hire" for UAB. But now the Blazers' new head football coach is in the uncomfortable position of having to explain his criminal record.

As an interview last Friday on the Paul Finebaum Radio Network showed, McGee has a hard time getting his story straight about brushes with the law that date from 1991 to 2007. In fact, McGee's account of a DUI arrest on Christmas Eve 2006 conflicts on several key points with published reports about the incident.

Why does McGee struggle to tell what would seem to be a fairly straightforward story? Why did UAB's highly paid PR executives allow the university's new coach to be so poorly prepared for an interview with one of the most high-profile sports talk-show hosts in the nation? Is McGee coming clean about what really happened on the night he was arrested for drunk driving?

You can decide for yourself by checking out the Finebaum interview at the video below.

As you watch, here is something that is worth keeping in mind. The No. 1 selling point for McGee as a head coach was that he worked under Arkansas head coach Bobby Petrino, architect of perhaps the nation's top college offense.

But what did McGee actually learn under Petrino about the overall management of a college football program? What kind of program does Petrino tend to run?

A Sports Illustrated/CBS News report from March 2011 provides some troubling answers to that question. The six-month investigation showed that one in 14 players at major-college football programs has been in trouble with the law.

The University of Pittsburgh had the most football players with criminal records, according to the SI/CBS report. What two schools were tied for second? The University of Iowa and . . . the University of Arkansas.

Is Bob Petrino running a program filled with thugs at Arkansas? Substantial evidence suggests the answer might be yes. In his previous college stop, at the University of Louisville, Petrino did not leave that program in great shape. Steve Kragthorpe, who followed Petrino at U of L, said he inherited a program that won on the field but was riddled with academic and disciplinary problems. Kragthorpe had come from the University of Tulsa and was stunned by what he found at Louisville. From a March 2008 report at espn.com:

So when Kragthorpe left Tulsa to replace Bobby Petrino at Louisville before the 2007 season, he thought his renovation work was over. The Cardinals were coming off a 12-1 season in which they won the Big East championship and beat Wake Forest 24-13 in the Orange Bowl. Louisville returned 21 starters from that team, including quarterback Brian Brohm and myriad offensive weapons.

Who knew Louisville was actually in worse shape than Tulsa when Kragthorpe arrived?

"I was shocked," Kragthorpe said. "I've never seen anything like this."

Besieged by off-field and discipline problems, a Louisville team that was projected to finish in the top 10 in 2007 somehow limped to a 6-6 record. Kragthorpe dismissed as many as a dozen players he inherited from Petrino. In fact, Kragthorpe is still weeding out the root of what he believes caused last year's team to collapse. In February, starting cornerback Rod Council was kicked off the team after his arrest for allegedly robbing a gas station in his home state of North Carolina.

UAB has hired a coach with a criminal record, with a mentor who has a history of running rogue programs. What were President Carol Garrison and Brian Mackin thinking when they hired Garrick McGee? What were they thinking when they let him go unprepared on the Finebaum show?

Have a listen:

Did UAB Coach Garrick McGee Lie About His Criminal History in Radio Interview?

2011-12-12T06:41:00.006-06:00

Garrick McGee

Garrick McGee, UAB's new football coach, gave a radio interview last Friday in an apparent effort to clear the air about his criminal record. McGee's answers, however, appeared to range from disingenuous to downright dishonest. The interview probably left many listeners scratching their heads and asking, "Why in the world did UAB hire this guy?"

McGee appeared for an in-studio interview with Paul Finebaum, host of perhaps the most influential sports talk show in the South. UAB officials had ignored the issue of McGee's criminal record when they introduced him as the Blazers' head coach last Monday. We reported here at Legal Schnauzer about McGee's brushes with the law that morning and did a followup post on Wednesday.

Mainstream news outlets ignored the issue until The Birmingham News wrote about it in both a feature story and a Kevin Scarbinsky column on Friday morning. McGee appeared on the radio Friday afternoon for an interview that, by Finebaum's standards, was remarkably gentle. Even with the host trying to cut him slack, McGee stumbled over this story. He came off as evasive (at best) and shady (at worst), failing miserably in an attempt at damage control.

In fact, McGee raised more questions than he answered. And perhaps the biggest question is this: How could UAB President Carol Garrison and Athletics Director Brian Mackin hire a head coach with a criminal record and then have him so poorly prepared to answer questions about a subject they should have known was going to come up eventually?

As we reported a week ago, McGee was arrested in 1991 for his role in three burglaries while a freshman at Arizona State University. He wound up pleading guilty to theft and transferring to another school. In late 2006, while an assistant coach at Northwestern University, McGee was arrested for drunk driving while in his hometown of Tulsa, Oklahoma. He wound up pleading guilty to reckless driving.

During the radio interview, Finebaum pretty much gave McGee a pass on the charges from the early '90s. But Finebaum tried to nail him down on the relatively recent DUI charges--and that's when McGee's story went off the tracks, in three key areas.

* McGee said the original charge against him was reckless driving, not DUI. Published reports show that is not true;

* McGee said the traffic stop came after he pulled up on a curb while trying to get out of a tight parking spot. Published reports indicate that is not true;

* McGee said the arrest came the night before he was to conduct a football camp in Tulsa. Based on published reports, that statement is curious, to be sure.

Let's look at each of these issues:

The Traffic Stop

How did McGee's problems in Tulsa begin? Here is the exchange between Paul Finebaum (PF) and Garrick McGee (GM) on that subject:

PF: What did you actually do to get yourself in legal issues?

GM: Well, I was parked in a really bad spot. I was leaving dinner from having a meeting about the organization of this football camp we were putting on the next day. And I was parked in a bad spot and ran off of a curb. There was a policeman there who was parked really close to the parking lot.

PF: Had you been drinking?

GM: Once he pulled me over, he asked me if I'd had a drink with my dinner, and I said I did have a beer with my dinner. He said, 'Well listen, I don't think at all that you are intoxicated, but my job is to take you down here--I've got to do my job.' And I understood that.

McGee's version of events indicates it all took place at or near a parking lot, that it had to do with his actions while trying to get out of a parking space. But The Daily Northwestern, in a January 22, 2007, story titled "McGee Faces DUI, Speeding Charges in Oklahoma," reported:

Northwestern offensive coordinator Garrick McGee was charged last Thursday with driving under the influence and speeding.

Court documents said McGee was stopped on Dec. 24 in Oklahoma.

He is accused of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding 16 to 20 miles per hour over the limit. McGee posted a $1,100 bond.

If McGee was charged with driving 16 to 20 mph over the speed limit, he was doing something more than trying to get out of a parking space. In fact, there is no indication that the traffic stop had anything to do with parking. If McGee was stopped partially for speeding, that means he was driving in traffic when an officer stopped him--and wound up having cause to believe McGee was intoxicated.

The Original DUI Charge

Here is the exchange between Finebaum and McGee on this subject:

PF: You were charged with what?

GM: Well, you know, I was thinking about that because I knew it was going to come up. I'm not sure. I'm sure it's written up somewhere. . . .

PF: You don't remember what you were charged with?

GM: No, I don't actually . . . I think it was, um, reckless driving. I think that's what it was.

PF: So it wasn't DUI?

GM: No, no. . . . It was reckless driving--I think. I'm sure it's written somewhere.

Finebaum seemed flabbergasted that McGee did not know the cause for his own arrest. McGee then denied it was a DUI, saying it was reckless driving and adding the qualifier "I think."

McGee did have one thing right: It is written down somewhere. And here, again, is what The Daily Northwestern reported:

He is accused of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and speeding 16 to 20 miles per hour over the limit. McGee posted a $1,100 bond.

On the Finebaum show, McGee said he was not arrested for DUI. News reports show that statement was false.

The Football Camp Story

Let's return to the reason McGee was in Tulsa in the first place. From the Finebaum interview:

GM: I was leaving dinner from having a meeting about the organization of this football camp we were putting on the next day.

According to press reports, the traffic stop took place on the evening of December 24, 2006. That's Christmas Eve. McGee was going to conduct a football camp the next day, on Christmas?

That seems like a strange day to be holding a football camp. It's certainly possible, and we know of no law that prohibits football camps on Christmas day. But it raises many questions. What was the name of the camp? Who worked with McGee on it? Where in Tulsa was it conducted? Was it held outdoors? It's been known to be pretty darned cold on Christmas day in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

McGee wrestled with other questions from Finebaum:

PF: Did you consider at any point disclosing this at the press conference Monday?

GM: I don't remember exactly what I said because I speak from the heart . . . .

PF: But you didn't say this.

GM: Well, I probably said something like . . . 20 years ago all of my priorities were not lined up, and the decisions that I had made at that point in my life were not in line with the direction I wanted to go. . . . I think I probably said something like that because that's the truth.

PF: With hindsight being whatever it is, would it have been better to just go ahead and get it out of the way Monday, as opposed to what you're doing today?

GM: That moment is to celebrate what's good about the university . . . the direction the program is headed and my vision for the program. . . .

Finebaum got to the core issue when he addressed McGee's honesty:

PF: Do you feel you are being completely open and forthright about your past?

GM: Ummm . . .

PF: I ask because, even now, you seem to be struggling with certain aspects of this.

GM: I'm a person who understands how life works. . . . so not at all do I feel like I'm struggling.

McGee was struggling to answer straightforward questions about his criminal history--and a reasonable person should ask, "Why? Is there something he's not telling us?"