Nation's No. 1 Legal Blog Shines A Glaring Spotlight On U.S. Judge Bill Pryor's Connections To Gay Porn

The No. 1 legal blog in the country yesterday picked up on our reports about photographs of U.S. Circuit Judge Bill Pryor that appeared in the 1990s at a gay porn Web site.

Above the Law (ATL), founded by Yale Law grad David Lat and based in New York City, helped unmask Pryor with a post titled, "Underneath His Robes: Nude Photos of a Federal Judge?"

ATL's piece didn't do much to advance journalism on the story--in fact, its reporting on the Pryor matter borders on pathetic. But journalism is not ATL's primary purpose. The blog is renowned for its snarky, gossipy take on inside legal news--and its audience of mostly lawyers, judges, legal analysts, and reporters eats it up. The Chicago-based social media/marketing firm Cision ranked Above the Law No. 1 on its 2012 list of the Top 50 Independent Law Blogs in North America.

(Legal Schnauzer ranked No. 37 on that list; best I can tell, we are the only entry not connected to a law firm, university, publishing firm, or interest group.)

Because of ATL's wide reach in legal circles, Bill Pryor must have found the site's coverage particularly painful. Has the Pryor story become the subject of much discussion at law firms, big and small, around the country? Above the Law indicates the answer is yes:

Circles around the water coolers in offices of the federal judiciary are very busy today. It seems that a rumor is circulating about a prominent conservative judge who allegedly posed for nude photographs before heading to law school. The photos, which made their way to badpuppy.com, one of the largest gay pornography sites on the worldwide web, depict a handsome young man staring into the camera, expressionless, his genitalia fully exposed.

Before zeroing in on Pryor, ATL notes that he is not the first judge to face scrutiny because of sex-related missteps:

If true, this would not be the first time that a respected jurist has inadvertently revealed what lies underneath their robes. Judge Wade McCree of Michigan bared it all when one of his sext messages was leaked to the public. Madam Justice A. Lori Douglas blushed red as a Canadian maple leaf when nude photographs of Her Honor engaging in bondage acts surfaced online.

On the other hand, if the gossip that is making the rounds is true, it would likely be the first time that a federal judge seated on one of the United States circuit courts has been caught with his pants around his ankles — or in this case, with no pants at all . . .

Who is this pantless judge? That would be Bill Pryor, the conservative boy wonder from Mobile, Alabama, who now makes his home in the Birmingham suburb of Vestavia Hills--and has his federal duty station at the Hugo Black U.S. Courthouse downtown:

The judge implicated in this affair is William Holcombe Pryor Jr. of the Eleventh Circuit, who also serves on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Though we have no way to confirm if the accusations are true, we can’t help but notice a resemblance between Judge Pryor and the attractive young man in the pictures (meaning that Judge Pryor is quite the judicial superhottie).

David Lat, by the way, is gay, so that explains ATL's funky approach to the Pryor story, describing him as "quite the judicial superhottie." I would beg to differ with that description of Pryor, but then my perspective is quite different from that of David Lat and his staff.

ATL notes that the story originated with Legal Schnauzer (and yours truly, Roger Shuler), even running one of the photos that we unearthed, providing a discreet black screen over Pryor's genital region. ATL repeats Pryor's assertion to us that the photos are not of him, and then invites readers to decide for themselves.

I get a kick out of ATL's off-center take on legal affairs, and its attention to the Pryor story has got to be a major embarrassment to more than just the featured judge--it's a huge black mark on the entire federal judiciary. I was, however, disappointed with--though not surprised by--the poor journalism on display in the ATL story.

Bill Pryor at ATL

In an apparent effort to be "fair and balanced," Above the Law decided it couldn't report about Bill Pryor's history in gay porn without taking a few swipes at me. ATL reporter Staci Zaretsky points to an attack Web site that calls me a "Cyber Bully" and a "Wannabe Journalist"--never mind that I have a degree from what many professionals consider the No. 1 school of journalism in the country, at the University of Missouri; never mind that I have more than 30 years of professional experience in the field.

Zaretsky also claims I might have an "axe to grind" because I've "lost" a couple of lawsuits in the Eleventh Circuit, Pryor's court.

Here is exactly how ATL addressed these issues:

It’s worth noting that Shuler may have an axe to grind against the judiciary. Other posts on his website refer to federal judges as corrupt, and he’s filed and lost lawsuits in Judge Pryor’s court, the Eleventh Circuit (see here and here). There’s a website dedicated to exposing the supposed truth behind some of Shuler’s scurrilous tales, which notes that he has been sued for defamation and accuses him of being a “Wannabe Journalist, Pseudo Court Commentator and Cyber Bully.”

If Zaretsky had bothered to do the slightest bit of legwork--like picking up the phone and calling me, or sending an e-mail--she would have discovered that, in fact, it's not "worth noting" these issues. And here is why:

(1) Zaretsky's notion that I "may have an axe to grind" should be offensive to anyone, of either gender, who has been victimized and chosen to fight back. Let's apply Zaretsky's thinking to one of the ugliest subjects of all--rape. Imagine a victim who fights back against a rapist with everything she's got--and even proceeds to identify him in court, with all of the stress and blow back that often entails. Does that victim have "an axe to grind" with the man who raped her? Is her axe particularly sharp because she had the audacity to unmask him in a public forum?

(2) Zaretsky provides links to documents from two lawsuits that I've "lost" in the Eleventh Circuit. One was a lawsuit my wife and I filed against debt collectors who violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The other was my First Amendment/age discrimination lawsuit against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and other defendants connected to UAB, where I worked for almost 20 years before being unlawfully terminated because of my reporting on this blog.

(As regular readers know, that last sentence is not a guess on my part; I have tape-recorded statements from UAB human-resources official Anita Bonasera admitting I was targeted because of my work here about the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. See video at the end of this post.)

Zaretsky tries to make hay over my characterization of several federal judges as "corrupt." But had she bothered to check the case files and relevant law on the two cases cited, she would have found that the judges on those matters did act in a "corrupt" fashion. U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon butchered the FDCPA case, and as I've reported in a number of posts, that is a matter of public record--it's not just my opinion. The same applies to U.S. District Judge William Acker Jr. and his hatchet job on my UAB case.

Had Zaretsky researched my blog a little bit, she would have found that I've accurately reported the corrupt actions of federal judges on cases that have nothing to do with me. (In fact, only a small percentage of our posts here are about cases involving my wife or me.) Perhaps the best-known examples involve Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama) in the Siegelman case and Judge Henry Wingate (Southern District of Mississippi) in the Paul Minor.

Am I a lone whack job, a "disgruntled litigant," howling at the moon by myself about corrupt federal judges? Not exactly. Scott Horton, a Harper's columnist and Columbia University law professor, has written extensively about the unlawful actions of Fuller and Wingate. (See here and here.) Andrew Kreig, a University of Chicago law graduate who is director of the Washington, D.C.-based Justice-Integrity Project, has written numerous reports about Fuller and other corrupt federal judges. (See here and here.) My reports about the Minor case were cited in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's 2007 investigation on Bush-era political prosecutions.

(3) Zaretsky's reference to a Web site that claims it's dedicated to "exposing the truth" about my reporting is an example of lazy, shallow journalism, of the lowest order.

A 30-second glance at the Web site in question would have revealed that its author is so "dedicated" that he doesn't reveal his identity. It also would have shown that the site offers not one citation to fact or law that counters any of my reporting. Most importantly, Zaretsky easily could have found out that the site is sponsored by someone connected to Campus Crest Communities CEO Ted Rollins, and it started in response to my accurate reporting about Rollins' ties to child abuse, perjury, failure to pay child support, and more. That doesn't even include my reporting about a state investigation in North Carolina based on a citizen's complaint about Rollins' possible child sexual abuse of his stepson--the same stepson who was the complainant when Rollins was convicted for assault.

(4) Finally, Zaretsky claims I have been sued for defamation, without bothering to learn that I haven't been served with any such lawsuit. Given that a court takes jurisdiction only when a defendant has been lawfully served, it's difficult for a complaint to get very far without service--and it's a matter of fact that service has not taken place in the alleged legal action against me.

Did Zaretsky make an effort to research any of that? I guess not, apparently because she was too busy referring to Bill Pryor as a "judicial superhottie."

I give Above the Law high marks for building a substantial audience and bringing attention to the Bill Pryor scandal. As for journalism . . . well, the site's performance is dismal in that regard.

Here is just one example of facts ATL chose to ignore in its hurry to appear "fair and balanced" by attacking the reporter who broke the Bill Pryor story:

MS Federal Judge Henry Wingate Has An Ugly Habit Of Allowing Cases To Gather Dust On His Docket

Henry Wingate

The federal judge who presided over the Bush-era political prosecution of former Mississippi attorney Paul Minor has a history of letting cases sit for months, even years, with little or no action on them.

We have shown in a series of posts on the Minor criminal case that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, based in Jackson, Mississippi, is breathtakingly corrupt.  That issue takes on added urgency now that Minor has been released from prison and is facing a lawsuit from insurance giant USF&G that grew out of the criminal prosecution--and Wingate is in the dubious position of presiding over that case, too.

A lack of ethics is not the only troubling feature of Henry Wingate's "judicial temperament." A recent report from the Jackson Free Press (JFP) indicates the judge is lazy, incompetent, or both. In a piece by R.L. Nave, JFP reports that it obtained a March 22, 2013, report showing Wingate has a backlog of cases that is far larger than those of other judges. 

The report shows Wingate had 49 cases on his docket, with 97 different motions pending longer than six months. Wingate's backlog far exceeds that of the judge with the second highest number of motions older than six months—Judge Carlton Reeves, with 17 six-month-old motions pending as of March. Judge Keith Starrett had six motions pending, while the other 11 federal judges had no cases older than six months, the report shows.

What does this mean for parties who come before Wingate? Nave spells it out in the JFP report:

On June 26, 2002, Roger Johnson was alone in a recreation room at the Hinds County Detention Center when a group of fellow prisoners attacked him. Johnson, who is serving a 30-year-sentence for armed robbery at East Mississippi Correctional Facility in Meridian, filed a lawsuit in federal court against then-Hinds County Sheriff Malcolm McMillin and jail guard Delanio Sanders for failing to protect him from the assault.

That was May 2004.

Since Johnson filed his suit, Hinds County has a new sheriff, and Mississippi has a new governor, but one aspect of the lawsuit hasn't changed: It remains on the civil docket of U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate.

The judicial and legal establishment is well aware of Wingate's tendency to sit on cases.  In 2010, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals scolded Wingate for taking more than six years to enter a final judgment in a civil case. From a law.com article about the Fifth Circuit's finding in the case:

In a footnote to its decision released earlier this month, the panel said, "the district court sat on the verdict for six and one half years before it entered a judgment. It is truly regrettable that the plaintiff has been denied his just recovery for these several years by the lack of judicial diligence."

If you live in the Southern District of Mississippi, Henry Wingate has the authority to take away your freedom--even if you committed no crime, as was the case with the Minor prosecution. He also has the authority to take away some, or all, of your assets--money and personal property that perhaps you have lawfully accumulated over your entire life.

We have put this sort of power in the hands of a man who cannot show the slightest hint of "judicial diligence"? That is a frightening proposition, and even lawyers in Wingate's district know it. From the JFP article:

The JFP contacted several attorneys who declined to speak on the record about Wingate's lack of urgency in dispensing with his cases, but the consensus among attorneys who practice in federal court seems to be that drawing Wingate is undesirable.

One attorney, who practices in federal court and did agree to speak but asked that we not use his or her name, said Wingate's delays "have a very harmful impact" on plaintiffs who are seeking relief through the courts.

"The old adage that 'justice delayed is justice denied' is very apt here," the attorney said.

Federal Judge Henry Wingate Doesn't Make An Effort To Apply The Law Correctly In Paul Minor Civil Case

U.S. Judge Henry Wingate

Paul Minor, one of the most successful plaintiffs' lawyers in Mississippi history, has been released from prison on his Bush-era conviction for "crimes" that do not exist under actual law. Minor's legal problems, however, are far from over. With U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate still in charge of his fate, things could go from bad to worse for Paul Minor.

How could Wingate, a black Republican who apparently qualifies as Mississippi's version of Clarence Thomas, still be in charge of Minor's fate? After all, Wingate presided over multiple criminal trials in the Minor matter; how could he possibly serve as an impartial arbiter in a related civil matter?

The answer is, "He can't, but he's doing it anyway--in what's left of our so-called U.S. justice system."

As part of the fallout from the criminal case, insurance giant USF&G sued Minor and his one-time client, Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Mississippi. The basic claim is that Minor and the bank benefited from actions that were found to be unlawful. The civil case was filed in 2003, but it was put on hold pending the criminal matter. When Minor was released from prison earlier this year, the civil case kicked into high gear.

A reasonable citizen might ask, "How could the same judge hear both cases? He's heard the evidence, he's issued orders on various matters . . . how could he possibly be an impartial arbiter in the civil matter when he's already ruled on pretty much the same issues in the criminal matter?"

Under the law, such a citizen is asking all of the right questions. Per 28 U.S. Code 455, a federal judge must disqualify himself in "any proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." That means Wingate was required by law to step down from the Minor civil case, without being asked. But so far, the judge has resisted all of Minor's efforts to get him off the case.

Even if Wingate had handled the criminal case in an impeccable manner, he should not be hearing the related civil matter. But Wingate's recalcitrance becomes especially troubling when you consider that he butchered the criminal case in almost every way imaginable.

Here are just two of many posts we've written about the botch job Wingate committed on U.S. v. Minor, et al:


Henry Wingate: Portrait of a Corrupt Judge (January 28, 2008)


Judge In Paul Minor Case Continues His Evil Ways (June 14, 2011)


We are not alone in our critique of Wingate's actions. Columbia University law professor Scott Horton called some of Wingate's rulings in the criminal case "breathtaking" and "unconscionable" in a 2007 article for Harper's.

USF&G's lawyers, from the Jackson, Mississippi, firm of McCraney, Montagnet, Quin & Noble, almost surely know they have no legal basis for the civil claim. They apparently have the judge in their hip pocket, however, so the case is proceeding apace.

Consider just some of the facts and law connected to the criminal case:

* USF&G claims that it was the victim of a fraudulent scheme involving Minor and former Mississippi Chancery Judge Wes Teel in the underlying Peoples Bank case. But USF&G voluntarily settled the case, and Teel did not even issue a final ruling in the matter. He did favor Peoples Bank at summary judgment on the issue of liability, but that finding was in line with prevailing Mississippi law at the time. Where is fraud in a case that USF&G voluntarily settled?

* At the heart of USF&G's civil complaint is the contention that it was the victim of a bribery scheme involving Minor and Teel. But the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned all of the bribery-related convictions in 2009. The remaining convictions essentially rested on an honest-services fraud charge.

* In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Skilling v. U.S., 28 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), honest-services convictions can stand only in cases where bribes or kickbacks are involved. As already shown, the bribery convictions in the Minor criminal case were overturned. And kickbacks were not even alleged.

That leaves us asking this question about the USF&G civil case: Where's the beef? The case rests on . . . well, almost nothing. But the firm is seeking $12.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages anyway.

Minor probably has grounds to seek Rule 11 sanctions against USF&G lawyers for bringing a nonmeritorious case for the purposes of harassment. He also probably has grounds for an abuse of process claim against USF&G and its attorneys.

With Henry Wingate on the case, what are the chances that a Ronald Reagan appointee would hold an insurance company and its lawyers accountable for bringing a baseless civil complaint?

The chances are slim, but the public should pay close attention to Henry Wingate's actions in USF&G v. Minor. It's a classic study of a federal judge who is so arrogant that he doesn't even try to hide his favoritism toward a corporate litigant. And the corporation seems happy to benefit from the law being bent like a pretzel.

U.S. Supreme Court's Reputation Sinks Into Toilet With Its Refusal To Review Paul Minor Convictions

Paul Minor

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that it would not grant certiorari review in the case of Paul Minor, a former trial lawyer from Mississippi. Citizens who closely followed the Bush v. Gore debacle after the 2000 presidential election already know the high court's reputation is in tatters. Any doubters ought to be convinced by the refusal to consider the Minor convictions, which probably are due to be overturned on at least a dozen grounds.

No. 1 on the list, for purposes of the SCOTUS petition, was that the high court's ruling in a 2010 case involving former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling means the jury instructions in Minor were incorrect, and the convictions no longer rest on good law.

Minor's legal team, led by criminal-justice expert Albert Alschuler, makes a powerful argument to that effect in a 237-page petition filed with the high court. (The full petition can be viewed at the end of this post.) There can be no serious debate that Alschuler is correct, and here is why: Minor and two codefendants--former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield--were tried under the federal honest-services fraud statute and convicted on alleged violations of Mississippi state bribery law. But SCOTUS used Skilling v. U.S., 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) to establish a uniform national standard in honest-services cases and found that they must be grounded in federal law, not state laws.

Even the government has conceded in briefs and oral arguments that Skilling made the jury instructions in Minor incorrect, and that means the argument for overturning the convictions is about as close to cut and dried as the Supreme Court will ever find. So why did the justices refuse to hear the case? The message to the public seems to be this: "Even though this case was decided by bad law, and both sides agree on that, we simply can't be bothered with it. Next."

Is it any wonder that many Americans have lost faith in once-exalted institutions?

If the rule of law still meant anything in the US of A, the Minor convictions would be overturned on the Skilling issue alone. But Alschuler's petition for certiorari review provides alarming evidence that problems with the Minor case go way beyond that. That evidence reaches the level of frightening when you consider that Whitfield remains in federal prison, and Minor soon will be sent from a Pensacola prison to a halfway house in New Orleans to carry out his term. Teel was released in 2012 after completing his sentence.

Courts that are riddled with corruption and incompetence have ugly consequences for real Americans. Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield have received a graduate education in that fact of postmodern life.

Were these gentlemen convicted in a trial court that was fair, impartial, and firmly grounded in the law? Upon reading Alschuler's petition, a reasonable person can only respond, "Hell, no!" The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, apparently could not be bothered to read the petition.

The most shocking revelations come in pages 8-11, where Alschuler addresses the instructions that U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate gave the jury.

First, Alschuler points out that the instructions included the following language:

. . . you can fix it in your mind that when you see honest services, that you know we are talking about an alleged violation of the bribery laws of the State of Mississippi.

We now know that Skilling made that language an inaccurate statement of the law. In essence, the U.S. Supreme Court's own actions, in Skilling, made those words outdated and unlawful. Will the high court fix the problem on behalf of the Minor defendants--and other citizens who might someday find themselves convicted based on bad law? Nope.

Problems with the jury instructions in Minor go way beyond Skilling-related issues. Alschuler drives that home with this:

The instructions continued, "[T]he government must prove . . . that the particular defendant entered into a corrupt agreement for Paul S. Minor to provide the particular judge with things of value specifically with the intent to influence the action or judgment of the judge. . . ." They added, "To constitute the offense of offering a bribe, there need not be a mutual intent on the part of both the giver and the offeree or accepter of the bribe."

That language is likely to leave even a highly educated person scratching his head. One can only wonder how it affected the average federal juror in Mississippi. To put it bluntly, the instruction makes no frickin' sense--and Alschuler points that out with this not-so-subtle statement:

The court made no effort to reconcile its statement that an agreement was necessary with its statement that no mutual intent was required.

How do two people reach an agreement without having mutual intent? God only knows. But we send citizens to prison based on jury instructions such as these. And we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court that let it happen.

In a rare example of a lawyer communicating candidly about the ineptness of a federal court, Alschuler writes on page 26 of his petition:

". . . the district court's direction was cast in extraordinarily confusing language. It is virtually impossible to divine the instruction's meaning, but it appears to require an agreement between two people about what one of them will later intend. . . . The jurors could only have thrown up their hands."

No serious individual could argue, either before or after Skilling, that the Paul Minor case was correctly decided; even the government doesn't argue that. And yet, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the honest-services convictions, and the U.S. Supreme Court washed its hands of the matter. It all is one more sign that Americans should have no confidence in their justice system.

SCOTUS, in essence, is sending this message: "Welcome to the 'wild, wild West' of American justice. It's the environment we have, and it now bears our stamp of approval. If some of you decide to take matters of justice into your own hands, have at it--and good luck."

Paul Minor-SCOTUS Petition2 by Roger Shuler

Obama Department Of Justice Finally Takes A Stand, By Cracking Down on Traffic-Ticket Fraud In Philly

If  you asked average Americans to describe President Barack Obama's philosophy on justice issues, you probably would be greeted with blank stares.

That would happen partly because many average Americans don't keep up with justice issues. But it also would happen, in part, because Obama has taken precious few strong stands on fundamental matters of right and wrong. In fact, the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ), under Attorney General Eric Holder, is known mostly for having amoeba-like qualities--it's a shapeless blob that doesn't stand for much of anything. And Holder is making a strong case for himself as the most ineffectual attorney general in U.S. history.

But a breaking story out of Philadelphia has provided insights into what we might call "The Obama Doctrine" on justice issues, and here it is:

"We won't do a thing about cases involving war crimes, financial fraud, or prosecutorial misconduct. But, by God, we are going to make the world safe from traffic-ticket scofflaws."

That seems to be the take-home lesson from last week's report that nine current or former traffic-court judges in Philadelphia have been indicted for conspiracy and fraud, involving a widespread scheme to fix traffic tickets for those who are well connected. A court clerk and two businessmen also were indicted. Here is a description of the charges, from a report at philly.com:

The charges, outlined in a 77-count indictment, described "a well-understood conspiracy of silence" that created two distinct courts: one where typical citizens paid for their infractions, and a second where offenders with the right connections won acquittals or saw their fines or cases disappear. . . .

The indictment alleged that a practice was more the rule than the exception--judges or their assistants shredding documents, shifting cases to friendly judges, and hiding behind code words. Instead of bluntly asking a colleague to quash a ticket, judges allegedly asked for "consideration" on certain cases and then watched them disappear. 

Consideration, the indictment said, was reserved for friends and relatives, ward leaders, and contractors or merchants who could trade favors of their own. Requests came by phone, in person, and in notes dropped in a box at a local bar.

A reasonable citizen might ask, "Why is this a federal matter?" Public-corruption cases almost always involve the use of federal wires or mail systems, and often include the exchange of money, so that gives the DOJ jurisdiction.

Perhaps the bigger question is this: Why did the Obama Justice Department spend three years investigating traffic tickets in Philadelphia while it has ignored far more serious wrongdoing around the country?

Let's consider just a few of the stories we've reported here at Legal Schnauzer:

* Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman sits in a Louisiana federal prison because of bribery charges that were brought almost one full year after the statute of limitations had expired. The prosecution team, led by Bush-era U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, engaged in rampant misconduct; powerful evidence points to juror misconduct; and U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller gave jury instructions that did not match the applicable law.

* Mississippi lawyer Paul Minor and former state judge John Whitfield sit in federal prisons because U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate gave jury instructions on honest-services fraud that did not come close to matching the actual law. Another former state judge, Wes Teel, has been released after serving his sentence for a crime he did not commit.

* Bonnie Cahalane, a Clanton, Alabama, resident, recently spent almost five months in jail because of an alleged debt connected to her divorce case. Alabama law plainly states that a litigant is not subject to contempt of court or imprisonment because of a property-related debt from the dissolution of a marriage. Chilton County Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds threw Ms. Cahalane in jail anyway and has unlawfully forced her to place her house for sale.

* Sherry Rollins, a Birmingham resident, and her two daughters have spent more than seven years under an unlawful divorce judgment issued by Shelby County Circuit Judge D. Al Crowson. The order wildly favors Ted Rollins, the CEO of Campus Crest Communities and Ms. Rollins' former husband. Ted Rollins also just happens to belong to one of the nation's wealthiest families, the folks behind Orkin Pest Control. Sherry Rollins initiated divorce proceedings in Greenville, South Carolina, where the family lived, and the case was litigated there for three years. Ted Rollins somehow got the venue changed when it appeared he was going to receive unfavorable outcomes in Greenville. Crowson took the case, even though black-letter law shows he had no jurisdiction.

* U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr. granted summary judgment in my employment lawsuit against the University of Alabama System, even though I was not allowed to conduct any discovery. Black-letter federal law says summary judgment cannot be considered, much less granted, when the opposing party has not been allowed to conduct adequate discovery. Acker flagrantly violated his oath to uphold the law by denying the right to conduct discovery that would prove my case.

Three of the cases noted above originated in federal courts, so the DOJ clearly has jurisdiction to investigate those matters. The two others--the Cahalane and Rollins cases--involve state-court public corruption and probable use of federal mails or wires, which also would invoke federal jurisdiction.

All five cases involve wrongdoing that is far more serious than that alleged in Philadelphia. But has the Obama DOJ looked at any of these cases? We've seen no sign of it. And those are only a few such cases that we've raised here--on one blog, in one state.

To be clear, we are all for nailing corrupt traffic-court judges. Those are publicly funded positions, and they should not be sullied by bribery and fraud. But the Obama DOJ would be taken much more seriously if it addressed corruption across the board, especially in cases that involve serious abuses of the public trust.

How flimsy is the Philadelphia case? Two of the indicted judges are charged with fixing one traffic ticket each.

Can we all say, "Good grief"?

Meanwhile, Mark Fuller, Henry Wingate, Sibley Reynolds, Al Crowson, William Acker Jr., and countless other judicial thugs continue to serve.

We are glad to see the Obama DOJ has awakened to the problem of courtroom corruption. But the Philadelphia story appears to be a classic case of worrying about the wart on your butt while your pants are on fire.

Mainstream Media Does A Dismal Job Of Reporting On Profound Issues Raised By Paul Minor Appeal

Albert Alschuler

Whenever Alabama winds up near the bottom in a national quality-of-life ranking--and it happens a lot--our citizens tend to exhale and exclaim, "Whew, thank God for Mississippi!"

There's a good reason for that: If Alabama ranks No. 49 in an issue involving, say, health status, education, or justice, you can bet that Mississippi probably ranks No. 50.

I recently discovered a new reason to say, "Thank God for Mississippi!" It didn't seem possible that the mainstream media (MSM) in any state could be worse than ours here in Alabama. But based on last weeks' coverage of the latest appeal in the Paul Minor case, Mississippi appears to "have us beat."

Albert Alschuler, a national expert on legal issues connected to honest-services fraud, filed a brief on December 31 with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Minor case in light of the high court's 2010 ruling in a case involving former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling.

The court found in Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) that the federal honest-services statutes reach only cases of alleged bribery and kickbacks. Skilling was decided after Minor's original petition for certiorari review had been filed. As such, Alschuler argues, it represents "an intervening change in law" that merits review under Supreme Court Rule 10(a).

Paul Minor, one of the most successful plaintiffs' attorneys in Mississippi history, was convicted on Bush-era corruption charges, along with former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. Minor and Whitfield remain in federal prison, while Teel was released last year after completing his sentence.

The Minor case was one of the most high-profile federal prosecutions in Mississippi over the past decade. And it raises critical issues about the U.S. election process, including the First Amendment right to financially support the candidates of our choice. But you would never know that from last week's coverage about the Minor appeal in the Mississippi MSM.

First, a reasonable person might expect that Mississippi newspapers would consider the Minor case important enough to assign staff reporters to the latest story. That would seem especially true in Biloxi, where Minor live and worked, and in Jackson, where the trial was conducted. But our research indicates both the Biloxi Sun Herald and the Jackson Clarion-Ledger used a wire report provided by Associated Press.

A reporter named Jack Elliott Jr. wrote the Associated Press story out of Jackson, and he did not distinguish himself with this effort. Perhaps Elliott has done fine work on other stories, and in his defense, news about the Minor appeal was released on December 31--and that means the AP bureau probably had a skeleton crew working on New Year's Eve. Whatever caused it, Elliott's story was a sorry piece of journalism that did almost nothing to help readers understand a case that has national implications.

The incompetence at the Biloxi newspaper started right off the bat, with a headline that read "Minor Appeals Miss. Sentence to US Supreme Court." (The AP writer, by the way, almost certainly did not write that headline; it probably was written by someone on the newspaper's copy desk.) How many ways does that title get it wrong? First, it was a federal sentence, not a state sentence under Mississippi law. More importantly, Minor's brief makes it clear that he is not just appealing his sentence; he is seeking to have his convictions overturned on all counts. (The full brief can be viewed at the end of this post.)

The brief states throughout that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holdings on the case merit "summary reversal." That means, according to Minor's counsel, the convictions are unlawful and are due to be overturned. Here is a reference from page 4 of the brief:

Skilling's holding was clear: The law of honest-services fraud does not vary from state to state. The Fifth Circuit's disregard of this holding warrants summary reversal.

Inexplicably, the AP story makes no mention of the ruling in Skilling. The first sentence in the "Statement of the Case" found in Minor's brief states that the appeal is based primarily on a change in the law on honest-services fraud, brought about Skilling.

It's the crux of the entire appeal. Failing to address that is like writing on World War II without mentioning Adolph Hitler. In fact, we see no signs that the AP reporter even looked at the latest Minor brief. His report makes multiple references to "Minor has argued . . ." or "Minor said . . ."; those are apparent references to issues raised in earlier court documents.

It appears Elliott based his story on clips that are several years old and do not address the issues that Alschuler now has placed squarely before the nation's highest court.

Alschuler spends considerable time in his brief on the most important issue in the Minor case--flawed jury instructions. Minor's counsel shows how U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate repeatedly butchered jury instructions in the trial court. And Alschuler lays out tortured arguments on the issue before the Fifth Circuit that are downright comical.

The take-home point is this: Jury instructions in the Minor case were hopelessly wrong before the Skilling ruling was issued; they are even more off target in the post-Skilling environment.

That means the Minor defendants were convicted of "crimes" that do not exist under actual law. It means their convictions are due to be overturned across the board, even without taking Skilling into consideration.

You might think it is important for the public to understand issues that caused three citizens to be imprisoned because of convictions that are not even close to being lawful. You might think the mainstream press in Mississippi would take seriously its obligation to educate readers on matters that go straight to constitutional protections.

But based on Associated Press coverage of the Paul Minor appeal--and the sorry efforts of other reporters and editors in Mississippi--you would be wrong.

Paul Minor-SCOTUS Petition2

Mississippi Attorney Paul Minor Gets A Second Crack At An Appeal Before The U.S. Supreme Court

Paul Minor

Paul Minor, the Mississippi lawyer who is in federal prison from a Bush-era prosecution that closely mirrors that of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, has filed a second petition to have his appeal heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. (See a copy of the petition at the end of this post.)

The nation's highest court declined to hear Minor's initial petition for certiorari review in 2010. But that petition came before the court's ruling in a case involving former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling, redefining the federal law on honest-services fraud.

In Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), the court established a "uniform national standard" for honest-services fraud, and it includes only cases that involve kickbacks and bribes under federal law. Minor and two codefendants, former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, were convicted under jury instructions that said the right to honest services is defined by Mississippi bribery law.

The Minor defendants filed motions with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to have their convictions overturned because Skilling represented "an intervening change of law that rendered the indictment and jury instructions erroneous." The Fifth Circuit denied those motions in August 2012, and Minor now appeals that ruling.

Minor and Wingate remain in prison after being sentenced in September 2007. Teel was released after completing his sentence in 2012.

Minor's second petition to the high court is governed by Supreme Court Rule 10(a), which holds that certiorari review is appropriate when a court of appeals has "so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings . . . as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power."

Albert Alschuler, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Law School, represents Minor in the current appeal. Alschuler is the author of a friend-of-the-court brief the Supreme Court cited favorably in Skilling.

Minor's new brief argues that the Fifth Circuit, in failing to overturn his conviction, failed to abide by the controlling authority of the Supreme Court's finding in the Skilling case:

Skilling's holding was clear: The law of honest-services fraud does not vary from state to state. The Fifth Circuit's disregard of this holding warrants summary reversal. . . . 

The Fifth Circuit's contradiction of Skilling will produce serious inequalities in the application of federal law. State bribery laws differ substantially from one another, both nationally and within the circuit. The Fifth Circuit not only has upheld honest-services instructions grounded on state bribery law; relying on its decision in this case, it also has held honest-services instructions based on federal bribery law erroneous. . . .  

In light of both of these rulings, courts within the circuit will ground honest-services instructions on state law until the Court corrects the error. No other circuit has suggested that state law still defines the right to honest services after Skilling.

Here is a copy of Paul Minor's second petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Paul Minor-SCOTUS Petition2

Federal Judge William M. Acker Jr. Says Up Front That He's Going to Cheat Me--And Then He Does It

Judge William M. Acker Jr. (right)
with Stanford professor Jack Rakove

You have to admire U.S. District Judge William M. Acker Jr.--in a macabre kind of way. From personal experience, I know that judicial corruption is not unusual in the American justice system; in some parts of the country, I would say it's the norm.

But Acker, an 84-year-old Reagan appointee in the Northern District of Alabama, applies an unusual twist to the crooked game: He tells you up front, in open court, that he's going to screw you--and then he does it.

How do I know? He did it to me, in the lawsuit I filed over my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). And I have an official court transcript to prove it.

Not content to state publicly that he was going to unlawfully rule against me at every turn, Acker also admitted that he'd had communications with someone connected to the opposing party. That's in the transcript, too.

Don't you just love that kind of brazenness? When you are 84 years old, with a lifetime appointment and pretty much no oversight over what you do, I guess that's how you behave.

A transcript of the hearing in which Acker makes his intentions clear is available at the end of this post. The judge's words are likely to shock any reader with a functioning conscience. But let's compare Acker to some of his brethren on the federal bench--say Mark Fuller, from the Middle District of Alabama, and Henry Wingate, from the Southern District of Mississippi.

If you have followed the story of Bush-era political prosecutions, you will recognize the names of Fuller and Wingate. They presided over the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases, respectively. Our research indicates that Fuller and Wingate acted with consistent righteousness in public, while knowingly sending innocent men to federal prison. By comparison, I think I prefer Acker. He makes no pretense about being fair, objective, or obedient to the law. He tells you to your face, "I'm going to screw you over and over, so deal with it and learn to enjoy it." In the "through the looking glass" world of American courts, that kind of brutal honesty is oddly refreshing.

Not that I'm going to bend over and take it. I filed a complaint against Acker with the Judicial Conference of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., 351-364. That's how I wound up with a copy of the hearing transcript, which I intend to share with the world. Also, the transcript is part of the record in my appeal before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

How did Acker make good on his vow to cheat me? As I reported in a recent post, he granted summary judgment without giving the opposing party (me) an opportunity to conduct discovery. That simply cannot be done--under clear and simple procedural, statutory, and case law. If the law still means anything in the U.S.--and that's a big if--the Eleventh Circuit will have no choice but to overturn on appeal. But Acker's words will remain a glaring example of how badly our judicial train has gone off the tracks.

The hearing in question took place in Acker's court on December 10, 2010. It's clear from the transcript that Acker is going to convert motions to dismiss to motions for summary judgment--and there had been no discovery in the case. And yet, he granted summary judgment on January 28, 2011, without even a discovery meeting having been held between the parties.

Courtroom crookedness doesn't get much more outrageous than that. But it came as no surprise, given Acker's statements in open court on December 10. One issue on that date was a motion to dismiss from the City of Birmingham, which I had named as a party in my complaint. The record shows that the city attached an affidavit to its motion, and the transcript makes clear that Acker did not exclude it. When a defendant attaches "matters outside the pleadings" to a motion to dismiss and the court does not exclude them, the motion must be converted to a motion for summary judgment and handled according to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)--and that means discovery must be conducted. This process is outlined in Rule 12(d) FRCP, which ends with this sentence: "All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Law doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

I pointed out the requirements of Rule 12(d) to Acker, but he wasn't going to hear it. The give-and-take on this issue can be read in pages 10-15 of the transcript below. But Acker's dark intentions become clear on page 14:

MR. SHULER: Well, I just want to be on record that --

THE COURT: You have your record.

MR. SHULER: -- it has to be converted, and I think we all here know that.

THE COURT: I suppose with all the work you have done on this and other cases that you know what a petition for a writ of mandamus is. Have you run into one of those yet?

MR SHULER: That shouldn't be needed.

THE COURT: That would be the way to get an immediate review of my disagreement with you. You better look that up. . . .

MR. SHULER: Isn't that a waste of judicial resources when everybody here --

THE COURT: You know, I give pro se parties slack because they are due it. You are about halfway between a pro se party and a represented party. You are still pro se, so I have got to cut you some slack, but I don't have to give you free legal advice, some of which I have already given you. So I think I'm stopping there on that for the question of the City of Birmingham. They are going to be out, one way or the other. . . .

So there you have a federal judge admitting that he's not going to follow the law. But Acker does not stop there. Near the end of the hearing, on page 27 in the transcript, he returns to the issue of a writ of mandamus:

THE COURT: . . . But if you file something before I do it, I will read it, and it will be in the file, and the record will be made. But as of now, we are just making the record for today. And don't forget to look up the mandamus rule. Look that up.

To fully grasp what Acker is doing here, you have to understand the purpose of a writ of mandamus. The filing of a petition for such a writ is governed by Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP). It is a form of appeal while the case still is in the trial court. That's why it is called an "extraordinary writ"; the process is designed to address close questions of law or fact, not to serve as a pinch hitter for a trial judge who is too crooked to rule correctly on simple procedural issues.

The transcript, read in full, shows there was no legitimate reason for Acker to warn me twice that I would need to learn about the mandamus process. But Acker knew two things about mandamus petitions: (1) They are time consuming; and (2) They are expensive, with an appellate docketing fee of $450 every time you file one.

In so many words, Acker was telling me: "I'm going to screw you on every little detail of this case, and you are going to have to spend months of your time and thousands of your dollars just to make the simplest step forward in your case. I will drain you of your resources simply because I can--and no one can stop me."

Why would a federal judge act in such a flagrantly corrupt and vicious fashion toward a party he does not know? Acker provides the answer on page 28 of the transcript, after I ask him how much time I have to file a reply to an opposing party's motion:

THE COURT: I think I'm going to give you until after Christmas so I can wish you a happy Christmas by giving you the time for Christmas. I know that UAB and the people over there are anxious about this, and I want to accommodate them, too, but I think I'm going to eliminate the anxiety for me between now and Christmas by giving (you) at least that much time.

How could Acker know that UAB is anxious about the case? It could only be because someone connected to the university told him--and this is the kind of prejudicial communication that is strictly prohibited by judicial ethics rules.

How about this? Acker references "the anxiety for me" regarding this issue. Was someone pushing so hard about UAB's anxiety that it was causing anxiety for the judge? I see no way to reach any other conclusion.

And that points to any number of federal crimes, including obstruction of justice.

I already can hear apologists in the legal community claiming there are other explanations for Acker's comments. But the truth is this: Acker told me up front that he was going to cheat me--and it was due to unlawful pressure from someone associated with the opposing party. It's right there in black and white.

I've seen a lot of courtroom shenanigans, but even I was shocked that a judge would be so lazy, arrogant, and stupid to make these statements in open court.

UAB Acker Transcript

Newt Gingrich Bashes Federal Judges For All the Wrong Reasons

Judge William M. Acker Jr., right, with
 Stanford Professor Jack Rakove

Newt Gingrich has made the bashing of federal judges a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Gingrich actually has picked an excellent target--but for all of the wrong reasons.

Federal judges deserve serious scrutiny, and they rarely get it. Just in the Hugo Black U.S. Courthouse here in Birmingham, I've seen ample evidence that suggests corruption is widespread among federal judges. And that's where Gingrich goes off the tracks.

The Newtster frequently rails about "activist judges" who make decisions that are "out of the step" with the country. In other words, Gingrich does not like judges who make discretionary rulings with which he disagrees--and he usually is pointing a finger at U.S. circuit judges, the ones who rule on appellate cases.

But judges who make tough calls on close issues of law--or even on matters "of first impression"--are not the major problem with our justice system. In our constitutional democracy, appellate courts are supposed to make close calls in a way that might not always be popular, ensuring that the "tyranny of the majority" does not strip away rights of those in the minority.

Our real problem is one that is less high-minded and occurs regularly at the lower levels of our system--in the U.S. district courts. I'm talking about cases where federal trial judges knowingly and intentionally rule contrary to clear, bedrock law.

We've seen this happen in high-profile criminal cases, including the political prosecutions of Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi. Federal judges Mark Fuller and Henry Wingate, respectively, issued jury instructions in both cases that were not in line with the actual law. That meant both Siegelman and Minor were convicted of "crimes" that do not exist.

Judicial skulduggery is not limited to criminal cases involving public figures. I've seen it happen time and again in civil matters involving regular folks. And I've witnessed corrupt rulings by federal judges from all sides of the cultural and political spectrum.

Let's consider two federal judges here in Birmingham--William M. Acker Jr. and Abdul Kallon.

On the surface, Acker and Kallon could not be more different.

Acker is a white, 84-year-old Reagan appointee with a prune face and a faux folksy manner that he uses in an effort to hide the fact he's a nasty, weaselly son of a bitch. Acker could not be more old-school Alabama. Multiple sources have told me that, as a young man, Acker attended the Dixiecrat convention at Boutwell Auditorium in 1948. That's the convention where Strom Thurmond was nominated for president, and it means a racist heart probably beats beneath Acker's black robes. Before being appointed to the federal bench, Acker was active in Republican Party politics and practiced at the old-line Dominick Fletcher Yeilding firm, which dates to 1943.

Abdul Kallon

Kallon is a black, 42-year-old Obama appointee, who grew up in Sierra Leone and went on to graduate from Dartmouth College and University of Pennsylvania School of Law. At first glance, Kallon sounds like a classic immigrant success story. But he apparently is a man with little in the way of principles. Kallon worked at the Birmingham firm Bradley Arant, defending employers in discrimination cases, when Obama plucked him out of obscurity--apparently at the recommendation of then Congressman Artur Davis.

For all of their differences, Acker and Kallon share one common trait--they are profoundly and flagrantly corrupt. And in my experience, their unlawful rulings always favor the big and the powerful over the small and the powerless. In other words, they love corporations and institutions and despise individuals who have been wronged.

Aren't those charming traits for federal judges who are charged with upholding our constitutional rights?

I've witnessed their crookedness first hand, time and again, and I will spell it out here at Legal Schnauzer in clear terms. And that's the scary thing about Acker and Kallon. They get the simplest, most basic rulings wrong--and they do it over and over again, always screwing the little guy. These aren't just "mistakes." These are unlawful rulings that are made intentionally, in order to ensure that regular folks will have their constitutional rights trampled.

Upon reading this, I'm sure some will claim that I'm engaging in sour grapes, that I'm a "disgruntled litigant" who is unhappy because Acker and Kallon ruled against me. That's the typical line that many lawyers use to obscure the ugliness they know exists in our taxpayer-funded courts.

For the record, I will expose Acker and Kallon by dealing in real facts, real law, and real rulings. I will show how rulings from Acker and Kallon conflict with black-letter law. When I am finished, the objective reader will see that these two men are not fit to preside over a corner lemonade stand, much less a federal courtroom.

It's pretty much impossible to touch a federal judge; they have lifetime appointments, they can almost never be sued, and they receive little scrutiny from the mainstream press. That's because it takes some legwork to understand what scoundrels like Acker and Kallon are doing, and most reporters are too lazy or disinterested to do it.

I am not lazy, and I am extremely interested, so I will show you exactly how judges like Acker and Kallon waste your taxpayer dollars--and violate their oaths of office. I also will show that judicial corruption is not limited to our district courts, at the trial level. I've seen ample evidence that the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is more interested in protecting its judicial brethren than in dispensing justice.

Here is a key point to keep in mind: Federal judges are almost untouchable, but they are not above the law. If Acker and Kallon are taking directions from third parties, cheating litigants at the insistence of someone external to the case, that almost certainly constitutes criminal activity. Obstruction of justice and conspiracy are just two possible criminal charges that come to mind.

Will a federal prosecutor ever pay attention? Probably not. Will I pull the masks off Acker and Kallon? You can count on it.

(To be continued)

Verdict in Federal Bingo Trial Shines New Light on the Don Siegelman Case

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson

The outcome of the federal Alabama bingo trial, which produced zero convictions for nine defendants and 37 counts, has been described as "one of the most remarkable setbacks nationally" for federal prosecutors in decades. It also has been described as a "humiliation of epic proportions" for the Obama Justice Department and its Bush DOJ holdovers.

In a narrower sense, the bingo verdict provides proof that the Don Siegelman case, perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history, was unlawfully decided. It also provides proof that at least one other Bush-era political prosecution, that of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, was unlawfully decided.

Ironically, the proof comes from the reporting of The Birmingham News, perhaps the leading mainstream-media cheerleader for federal prosecutors in "public corruption" cases.

Do you want even more irony? The Birmingham News has repeatedly praised the work of prosecutors and judges who ramrodded the Siegelman case--and the newspaper has hinted over and over that, in its view, the Siegelman case was decided correctly.

Isn't it interesting, then, that Alabama's largest newspaper winds up providing proof that the Siegelman case was NOT correctly decided. Do you think the News' editorial higher ups, the leading mouthpieces for our state's corrupt elites, will even notice what they have done? I doubt it.

Since the verdict was announced last Thursday, the News' coverage has reflected this primary theme: The defendants really were guilty, but prosecutors from Washington screwed up the case. As usual, columnist John Archibald carries the water for his big bosses, with a piece titled "Verdict No Surprise: Prosecutors Bungled Bingo Case." Consider this analysis from Archibald:

Federal prosecutors, especially the superstars brought in by Washington, had more slip-ups than a blindfolded banana peeler on a hockey rink.

They stumbled picking a jury and fumbled as they misjudged the role politics would play in the defense strategy. They bumbled as they failed to realize how their star witnesses would ooze on the stand, coming across, after pummeling by the defense, as self-serving, politically driven and racist.

Archibald's attack on the Washington crowd is curious, given that the lead prosecutor on the case is listed as Louis Franklin, out of the U.S. attorney's office in Montgomery. That's the same Louis Franklin who played a lead role in the Siegelman case.

In its non-Archibald coverage, the News also made excuses for prosecutors, especially in an article titled "Vote-Buying Verdict Shows Prosecution Perils." Reporter Kim Chandler tracked down every former prosecutor she could find to point out that the feds had an overwhelmingly difficult task in this case:

Former prosecutor Ron Brunson, who was a prosecutor in the Northern District of Alabama for 15 years said prosecutors must be extremely disappointed to walk away without a single conviction.

Public corruption cases alleging that campaign contributions are bribes are innately difficult, Brunson said. In a robbery or murder case, prosecutors are trying to prove who committed a crime. In this case, he said, "You had to prove there was a crime."

If public-corruption cases are so difficult to prove, how did prosecutors maintain an almost 100 percent conviction rate on such Alabama cases during the Bush years? The list of those who are in prison--or might be headed there--goes on and on: Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy, Sue Schmitz, Gary White, Larry Langford . . .

How did the feds obtain all of these convictions during the Bush years on "innately difficult" cases? Well, The Birmingham News tells us exactly how they did it in the Siegelman case. Reporter Kim Chandler inadvertently provides the scoop in her reporting on the bingo case:

The judge in the bingo trial told jurors that, to convict on the bribery charges involving campaign contributions, they had to find that there was an explicit agreement to trade money for an official action.

Let's digest that for a moment. The judge in the bingo trial was Myron Thompson, a Jimmy Carter appointee from 1980. Chandler tells us that Thompson, correctly, gave the jury the "explicit agreement" instruction from a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court case styled McCormick v. U.S., 500 U.S. 257.

Public documents indicate that all sides in the Siegelman case agree that McCormick is the controlling law for an alleged bribe in the context of a political campaign.

It now is established that Myron Thompson gave the McCormick jury instruction--and it resulted in zero convictions. In other words, the bingo verdict was based on the actual law.

What about the Siegelman case? Well, the judge was Mark Fuller, a George W. Bush appointee. And public records clearly show that Fuller did NOT give the "explicit agreement" instruction that is found in McCormick. We have written about this several times, most recently in a post titled "Siegelman Convictions Hang on the Definition of One Word."

As for the Paul Minor case, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate did not even come close to giving the McCormick instruction. We've known that for a long time, and the Alabama bingo verdict simply adds to the mountain of evidence that Minor and codefendants Wes Teel and John Whitfield were unlawfully convicted.

It's established that the legal issues in the bingo case were identical to those in the Siegelman case. Judge Thompson said as much in public statements leading up to the bingo trial, as reported in an Associated Press article titled "Judge: Issue in Gambling Probe Same as Siegelman."

If the issues were identical, why were jurors given the correct instructions in the bingo trial, while jurors in the Siegelman case were not?

It now is beyond dispute that Don Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were convicted based on unlawful jury instructions. Even The Birmingham News, in a roundabout way, admits it.

What are the chances that John Archibald or Kim Chandler will bring this to the public attention? What are the chances that someone in our "justice system" will take steps to correct what we now know was an unlawful verdict in the Siegelman case?

Our recommendation? Don't hold your breath waiting for either of those events to happen.

Bingo Jury Gives Obama Justice Department a Kick in the Crotch

Milton McGregor (right) and Joe Espy

The era of political prosecutions more or less started in Alabama with the Don Siegelman case during the George W. Bush years. Perhaps it ended here yesterday, in the Obama years, when a federal jury in Montgomery rendered no convictions in an electronic bingo/vote buying trial.

Jurors deadlocked on some charges and found not guilty on all others. That's nine defendants, 37 counts, and zero convictions, for those of you keeping score at home. It was as if the jury sent the U.S. Justice Department this resounding message: "Take your bogus political prosecutions and jam them up your . . . " Well, you get the idea.

Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, called it "one of the most remarkable setbacks nationally" for federal prosecutors in decades. Kreig also nailed it when he wrote, "this was a humiliation of epic proportions for the Obama Justice Department and its Bush DOJ holdovers." Kreig goes on to outline the bumbling that accompanied the investigation:

The government, including the Republican state administration of two-term Gov. Bob Riley spent vast amounts in its investigation, prompted in part by Riley’s public stance of opposing gambling. Riley last year sent 135 police vehicles on a dawn raid to shut down the Country Crossing electronic bingo casino in Dothan, for example. That police raid proved to be a public relations disaster that in effect previewed this week's. A YouTube video of the raid showed that the casino was already closed upon the arrival of what became known as the "Riley's Raiders" police armada, which seemed more suitable for quelling an armed urban riot than raiding a bingo parlor. On top of all the planning that must have gone into the 4 a.m. operation, troopers arrived without a search warrant and therefore had to return to HQ on that basis also.

Kreig, correctly, lays considerable blame for the fiasco at the feet of Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder:

Another matter sure to be analyzed not simply in Alabama but in legal circles nationally, including on this site, was how the DOJ run by Attorney General Eric Holder could come up with so little in a state so notorious for big-dollar official corruption.

One explanation we have heard directly from a prominent Democratic political figure in Alabama is that oversight in the two-party system is effectively dead in certain states such as Alabama. In this view, the Obama administration has decided to let Republicans in Alabama and similar Red States do what they want in hopes the Republicans will similarly smile on Democratic machinations in other parts of the country.

Two defendants were exonerated completely, and the seven others could face a retrial. But we suspect the government would be wise to slink away, lick its wounds, and leave the case alone. Do we want more of our taxpayer dollars wasted on bingo-related witch hunts? I don't think so.

In a post earlier this week--titled "Is Our Country Rotting From the Inside Out"--we outlined how the bingo case clearly was tainted and said that it had the look of a "flat-out sham." Jurors apparently agreed.

This might have been the most blatant political prosecution of them all--and it happened on Obama's watch, which should give progressives considerable pause. The general allegation was that certain individuals tried to buy the votes of state legislators on bills related to electronic bingo. But the investigation, and the trial, focused only on those who were pro bingo. It did not even begin to scrutinize those who were against bingo, led by former Republican Governor Bob Riley and his henchmen.

The case was about a political issue--with two sides, some folks pro and some con. But the federal government looked at only one side. In other words, they weren't prosecuting crimes, they were prosecuting certain people because of their beliefs. That is a textbook definition of a political prosecution. Let's consider a few big lessons from this fiasco:

* It's All About the Bushies--Bingo only became an issue because of Bob Riley's crusade to stamp out Alabama gaming, in an apparent effort to protect the market share of his Mississippi Choctaw benefactors.  Attorneys for defendant Milton McGregor tried to subpoena Riley, and it was quashed--although the judge left open the possibility that Riley could be called. The defense eventually rested without even attempting to call Riley. In my book, that was a sure sign that the case was a fix--and I was not at all surprised by yesterday's verdict.

Let me put on my CT (conspiracy theory) hat and state what I think happened. Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that McGregor lawyers Joe Espy and Bobby Segall conducted pre-trial discovery with Mississippi Choctaw representatives, including Nell Rogers, who was Jack Abramoff's chief contact with the Choctaws. We are told that Rogers' sworn testimony yielded enough dirt on Riley to sink the U.S.S. Missouri. We suspect that gave McGregor enough ammunition to work out a deal that ensured the defendants would go free in exchange for keeping Riley off the stand. Could McGregor wind up suing Riley and others for trying to ruin his business? We suspect that part of the deal is that McGregor "not go there." In other words, lawyers from both sides, with full knowledge of U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, probably worked out a deal to cook the case--with the defendants receiving freedom, and the Riley crowd receiving protection.

I can hear some of you saying, "Schnauzer, you've got to be nuts. Surely our federal justice system is not that corrupt." My response? "I might be nuts, but our 'justice system' definitely is that corrupt--and don't call me "Shirley."

A key point: Bob Riley is not all that big a fish, especially now that he is a mere lobbyist and not a governor. So why all the effort to protect him? The answer, I suspect, is in Riley's political lineage. He has strong ties to Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Michael Scanlon, not to mention U.S. Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. A serious investigation of Riley surely would go down some interesting roads, including one that might lead to the top of the Bush crime family. Bingo lawyers were not trying to protect Bob Riley; they were trying to protect much bigger interests than him. They don't want regular citizens to know about the nastiest sleaze perpetrated by America's corporate elites, which tends to have ties to the Bush family.

* Judges and Jury Instructions Matter--The government got convictions in the Siegelman case, and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, for two reasons: (1) The cases were overseen by corrupt GOP-appointed judges--Mark Fuller and Henry Wingate, respectively; (2) Both Fuller and Wingate gave incorrect jury instructions, ensuring that the Siegelman and Minor defendants would be convicted for "crimes" that do not exist under the actual law.

Myron Thompson, the bingo-trial judge, was appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980. Thompson is hardly a paragon of virtue--after all, we suspect he allowed unlawful deal-making to go on behind the scenes in the bingo case. But at least he made sure, if my suspicions are correct, that innocent people did not go to prison. And that makes him a far cry better than Fuller and Wingate.

Also, we suspect that the jury received a correct instruction in the bingo trial, that a bribery conviction in the political-campaign context requires an "explicit agreement." We have not seen the instruction in the bingo case, but Thompson's public comments indicate he knew about the actual legal requirement for bribery in the political arena. With correct jury instructions in the Siegelman and Minor cases, the verdicts probably would have been like those rendered yesterday in Montgomery.

* Don't Let the Feds Bully You Into Guilty Pleas--The big losers in the bingo case are the three individuals--Ronnie Gilley, Jarrod Massey, and Jennifer Pouncy--who pleaded guilty in exchange for their testimony against the other defendants. They must be thinking twice about those pleas this morning. Again using my CT hat, I suspect certain lawyers worked with prosecutors to pressure the trio to plead guilty--ensuring that the government would not walk away in total disgrace. That means Gilley, Massey, and Pouncy almost certainly pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit--and their lives, as a result, are pretty much ruined. But do you think certain lawyers and prosecutors care about that? Hell, no.

Is there reason to believe the trio, in fact, was innocent? Yes, there is. Perhaps the key moment in the trial came when Pouncy admitted under cross-examination that she had no "explicit agreement" with defendant Jim Preuitt. That pretty much blew up the government's case against Preuitt, and jurors might have figured, "Why should we believe there was an explicit agreement with anyone else?" Evidence suggested that Gilley, Massey, and Pouncy came closer than anyone else to crossing over the boundary into criminal territory. But Pouncy's own words show she had no explicit deal with Preuitt. Given that Pouncy worked for Massey, and Massey worked for Gilley, there is reason to believe that all three of them would have been found not guilty--absent their guilty pleas.

What does the bingo trial teach us in a national sense? If you are a progressive wanting to see someone "primary" Obama--and I definitely am in that camp--this case provides plenty of ammunition. The administration, to Obama's eternal shame, has adopted Bush policies on a number of key justice issues. Would it be nice to have a progressive candidate who actually believes in the 14th Amendment, in the guarantees of "due process" and "equal protection"? It sure as heck would, especially since Obama has shown that he doesn't care one flip about those constitutional issues.

An Alabama jury yesterday sent a loud, clear message. If Obama fails to listen, and we suspect he won't listen, don't be surprised if he winds up being a one-term president.