How A Corrupt "Bushie" Operates in Alabama

Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the first prosecutor to go after former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, stepped in some serious doo-doo in a recent post, and we are going to show you why.

But before we do that, let's review what we've learned in our "Malice of Alice" series.

First, we provide background on my attempts to tell Martin about judicial corruption I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts and an attorney with family ties to Karl Rove and the Bush Administration.

Then, we show how Martin sent my allegations to a most curious place for investigation--the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which does not even have jurisdiction to investigate the kinds of crimes I was alleging.

Then, we present Martin's explanation for sending my allegations to the postal inspection service.

Now, we're about to show you how and why Martin has stepped in some serious doo-doo.

But first, let me rephrase that statement: If we ever actually have an honest Department of Justice in our lifetimes, Alice Martin has stepped in serious doo-doo. On the other hand, if the DOJ continues to be run by the Alberto Gonzalezes and Michael Mukaseys of the world, Martin doesn't have a thing to worry about.

As Don Siegelman would say, she's got an "umbrella of protection" to keep her out of harm's way.

But regardless of whether the DOJ ever does anything about it or not, Legal Schnauzer readers are going to know the truth: Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, undoubtedly, blatantly, and corruptly practices political prosecution.

And how does she do it? By sending citizen complaints to the wrong investigative agency and then lying to the citizen about it.

How do we know that Alice Martin lied to us?

Remember the fourth paragraph of my second snail-mail letter to Martin:

I allege, and an investigation will show, that the individuals noted below conspired to commit mail and wire fraud, depriving the citizens of Alabama of their intangible right to honest services under 18 U.S. Code 1346. Because the limitations period begins to run after the last overt act in furtherance of the main goals of a conspiracy (United States v. Fletcher, 928 F.2d 495), all of these acts fall within the five-year mail fraud statute of limitations.

It could not have been more clear: This was about honest-services mail fraud, which is covered under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This is fraud that involves public corruption, and it is distinct from consumer mail fraud, which is covered under other statutes.

But Alice Martin, like the vast majority of lawyers I've encountered, thinks regular citizens are stupid. She figured she could pull one over on me because I don't have J.D. after my name.

Well, Martin is in for a surprise. Because I'm about to use her own words to show that she is a corrupt public official--probably far more corrupt than anyone she has ever investigated.

Just how corrupt, and brazen, is Alice Martin. Recall in her previous e-mail that she said it was "standard procedure" for a complaint alleging honest-services mail fraud to go to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

So being the inquisitive Schnauzer that I am, I thought to myself, "I wonder if that's how it was done in the Don Siegelman cases.?"

I turned initially to the first Siegelman case, the one Martin brought in the Northern District of Alabama. That case, however, was not of much help. It involved Tuscaloosa physician Phillip Bobo and the primary allegations were for conspiracy, health care fraud, and program fraud. Honest-services mail fraud was not a factor.

So I turned to the second Siegelman case, the one Leura Canary brought in the Middle District of Alabama. That's the case in which Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy were convicted, and the primary charges were racketeering, bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and honest-services mail and wire fraud.

In the end, roughly two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman and Scrushy involved honest-services mail fraud. So this was the perfect case to check and see if Alice Martin was telling us the truth.

And what do we learn? Well, consider the last paragraph of the press release (dated October 26, 2005) about the indictment:

The indictment is the result of a joint investigation initiated by federal and state authorities in early 2001 into numerous alleged improprieties in the Siegelman administration. The federal case is being prosecuted by Louis V. Franklin, Sr., the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in this case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Feaga and J.B. Perrine; Trial Attorney Richard Pilger of the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, which is headed by Section Chief Noel L. Hillman; and Assistant Attorney General Joseph Fitzpatrick for the State of Alabama, who is also cross-designated as a Special Assistant United States Attorney for this case. The investigation was conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and agents from the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, with assistance from the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.

The last paragraph tells us who conducted the investigation. Do you see any mention of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service? I don't either.

So is it "standard procedure," as Alice Martin had told us, to have the U.S. Postal Inspection Service lead an investigation involving honest-services mail fraud?

Alice Martin's own press release tells us it is not. Alice Martin's own press release proves conclusively that Alice Martin is a corrupt U.S. attorney--one who intentionally sends criminal complaints to the wrong investigative agency and then lies to the public about it.

And our paper trail on Alice Martin is just beginning.

(To be continued)

Bits and Pieces for $70, Alex

Congress Takes on Siegelman Case
The case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman will be part of an upcoming Congressional hearing into possible selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News and Journal, has followed the Siegelman case closely and has this take on the latest news. So far, the focus appears to be on the Siegelman case, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania. Let's hope the investigation becomes broader than that. As we are showing here at Legal Schnauzer, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi cries out for scrutiny. And my own case, involving unlawful rulings by multiple Republican judges in Alabama, is a classic case of suppression of a prosecution. Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to sweep my case under the proverbial rug. We will be posting more details on that soon.

The Malice of Alice
Speaking of Alice Martin, I thought about her today after reading this story in the business section of The Birmingham News. It's about a local ad agency that has developed a campaign for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The campaign is designed to help raise awareness of various consumer mail-fraud schemes. That's what the postal inspection service does--it looks into consumer fraud. It does not have jurisdiction to investigate white-collar crime, such as honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. But Alice Martin took my detailed complaint about judicial wrongdoing and sent it to the postal inspection service. That's what I mean about sweeping my case under the rug. And I have far more details that I will be posting soon about the malice of Alice.

Dollars and Scholars
In earlier posts, we cited the ongoing investigation at Hoover High School as an example of how expensive a problem can get when lawyers get involved. The Hoover School System hired former federal judge Sam Pointer Jr. to investigate allegations of grade changing related to Hoover's renowned football program, the focus of MTV's Two A Days. So what's the latest legal tab for the Hoover folks? We learn today that it amounts to $151,153, based on 757 billable hours. Don't know about you, but that would put a serious ouch in my pocket book. And don't you think that money could have bought an awful lot of textbooks or computers or band outfits--or shoulder pads and helmets, for that matter?

A True Shocker
The most shocking news of all today is that the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission is actually doing something. This most worthless of Alabama agencies has been investigating Mobile circuit judge Herman Thomas for a variety of ethical violations. Among the charges against Thomas are claims from prisoners that he spanked them. Thomas must have really been a bad boy if he actually screwed up enough to draw the JIC's attention. I've filed multiple complaints regarding corrupt judges in Shelby County, and the JIC never lifted a finger to look into any of them. I figured the commission made the Maytag Repairman look like an overachiever. But it turns out the JIC actually does something once in a while. Well snip my pickle and call me Shlomo! And get this: Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson is pursuing a separate investigation into whether Thomas issued biased rulings favoring certain friends. Well, snip my pickle again! That's the way things are done on a regular basis in Shelby County. You mean there's something wrong with that? What's with this Tyson character? Why is he actually doing his job? What are the chances that Shelby County DA Robby Owens will look into wrongdoing by judges in his district? I would say Britney Spears has a better chance of being named Mother of the Year.

A Schnauzer Take on the Raw Story

Lindsay Beyerstein of Raw Story did such a splendid job on her piece about my termination from UAB that there is not a lot to add.

But we schnauzers never have been known as quiet, retiring types. So I can't resist adding my two cents. (Ms. Beyerstein interviewed me at length for her story, so I've probably already had more than my two cents. Let's consider the following my 20 cents.)

My hope is to add some insight to an already insightful article. Let's give it a shot:

Raw Story: "Shuler's problem arose not because he blogged nor because he did so from his workplace, because it's clear he didn't," says (Scott) Horton, who has been following both the Siegelman and Shuler cases closely. "His problem came from the fact that he wrote critical, well received insights targeting a number of very powerful figures in Alabama, starting with U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and prominent Republicans with which she is aligned, and including a number of major figures in the Alabama media."

Legal Schnauzer: I love this quote from Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, because in just two sentences, he provides a true "nut graph" of what has occurred in my case. And he touches on an issue I would like to flesh out. When people hear the term "blogger," they think of someone who is presenting his opinions on various topics. Certainly I present my opinions and analysis, my take if you will, on a number of issues here at Legal Schnauzer. But in many instances, I've been more of a "citizen journalist" than a "blogger." And it's my role as a citizen journalist, I believe, that led to my dismissal at UAB. For example, I don't know that anyone in Alabama's GOP power structure would care all that much if I simply were offering critical opinions on this blog. But on at least some stories, I am doing more than that--I am acting as a journalist, reporting on stories that the local and regional mainstream press has largely ignored.

While I have presented evidence that UAB officials were concerned about my posts regarding the Don Siegelman case, I have been more of a follower than a leader on that story. The true groundbreakers on that story have been folks like Scott Horton at Harper's, Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork World News, and Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story.

I have, however, broken ground on three other stories. They are:

1. The Paul Minor case in Mississippi--Horton and Alexandrovna have written a number of excellent overview pieces about the Minor case. My role has been to write a series of posts, showing in detail how the case was corruptly handled by U.S. Judge Henry Wingate, a Reagan appointee.

2. The Malice of Alice--No one has done more than Scott Horton to expose U.S. Attorney Alice Martin for the corrupt political hack that she is. But I have added an important component to the reporting on Martin, showing how she took my complaints of criminal wrongdoing by Alabama judges and lawyers and intentionally sent them to the wrong investigative agency, ensuring my charges never would see the light of day. Also, I showed how she violated prosecutorial ethics by failing to disclose her clear conflict of interest in my case. This conflict arose because my complaint included multiple charges against Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who just happens to be the father of Dax Swatek, Alice Martin's former campaign manager. Did Alice Martin inform me of this slight conflict? Nope. I provided a first-person account of Alice Martin's corrupt ways, and I'm guessing she wasn't real happy about it.

3. My Own Journey Through Legal Hell--This is the whole reason I started Legal Schnauzer, to show my fellow Alabamians that our state courts, in the Age of Rove, are a corrupt sewer. And I don't use that term "Age of Rove" lightly. It's a fact that Karl Rove, along with GOP operative Bill Canary, helped turn Alabama state courts from Democratic control to Republican control in the 1990s. It's a fact that Dax Swatek used to work for Bill Canary and remains a close confidante. It's a fact that Dax Swatek has served as campaign manager for Alice Martin (2000) and Governor Bob Riley (2006). Perhaps you've played that "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game involving all sorts of Hollywood actors and their ties to Kevin Bacon. In our Legal Schnauzer tale, the Kevin Bacon role is played by Dax Swatek. Because Dax Swatek's father (Bill Swatek) filed a bogus lawsuit against me, and because I had the temerity to write about the judicial corruption I had witnessed in the handling of that lawsuit, my story evolved from a minor local imbroglio to something that riled up important players in the GOP power structure.

The bottom line? I feel certain I was not fired because of the progressive opinions expressed on this blog. I was fired because of my reporting about Paul Minor, Alice Martin, and Bill/Dax Swatek.

---------------------------

Raw Story: Shuler's initial goal as a blogger--at his personal blog, Legal Schnauzer--was to expose the corruption of a local lawyer and his allies in the local judiciary, he says.

Legal Schnauzer: An important point. The local lawyer was William E. Swatek. His primary ally in the local judiciary was Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner. And Swatek's client, my troublesome "neighbor from hell," was Mike McGarity. These are the three people who started this whole process. What do we know about these folks? Public records show that Bill Swatek has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license for acts of "fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and dishonesty," and he has been tried in criminal court of perjury. Class act. Public records show that Mike McGarity has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. All are misdemeanors, but they include at least one violence-related offense and one sex-related offense. Another class act. And Joiner's handling of my case indicates that he should be serving "5 to 10" in a federal penitentiary. He has committed heinous acts of honest services mail fraud and probably conspiracy and God knows what else. A final class act.

---------------------------

Raw Story: Shuler has accused Martin of deliberately dragging her feet on the investigation to protect political allies. Shuler asserted that Martin was guilty of the same types of abuses of her official position that she and Canary had so vigilantly policed when they attempted to convict Siegelman and other Democratic elected officials in Alabama, including senior members of the state senate.

Legal Schnauzer: Another critical point. I have shown, in reporting on a detailed e-mail exchange I had with Martin, that she has committed honest-services mail fraud--the very offense that made up the majority of the charges against Don Siegelman. I'm not a federal prosecutor, but Martin's actions in my case also reflect possible obstruction of justice. Do you think Alice Martin was happy to see her crimes--in her very own words--presented on this blog? I don't think so either.

-------------------------

Raw Story: Martin says Shuler's allegations don't fall under her office's purview.

"Mr. Shuler has made, in writing and in person, numerous allegations against various individuals to my office which, if memory serves deals with civil litigation," she wrote in an email to RAW STORY Wednesday. "Many of his allegations are set forth on his blog."

"The US Attorney, when receiving complaints, refers them to an appropriate federal or investigative agency, as we do not investigate cases," she added. "His complaints were forwarded to the US Postal Inspection Service, as I advised him in my email, as he asserted the mails were involved. He was also advised to contact the Alabama Bar Association. He met with an Assistant US Attorney and presented no evidence of an offense, only has opinions, [and was referred to agencies] that could conduct an independent investigation. I have no knowledge of him contacting those agencies."

She also denied her office was in any way involved with Shuler's termination.

"There has been no contact by the office to Mr Shuler's employer," she wrote.

Legal Schnauzer: There are too many barnyard droppings in Martin's statements to do them justice here. I will address this in a separate post.

------------------------

Raw Story: Shuler, a journalist by training, has published numerous original investigative reports on Martin, Gov. Bob Riley, and both Leura and Bill Canary.

Riley also has close ties to Alice Martin. In 2007, whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson testified before the House Judiciary Committee that she heard Canary promise Gov. Riley that "his girls" would take care of Siegelman. Canary's "girls" were his wife, Leura Canary, and Alice Martin.

He's also president ex officio of the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, and a frequent target of Shuler's barbs.

Legal Schnauzer: This is important, not only because Bob Riley is president ex offcio of the Board of Trustees, but the board itself serves as the boss of UAB president Carol Garrison. I've worked at UAB for 19 years, and I know that neither Carol Garrison, nor any other UAB president, would so blatantly violate federal law and university policy as she has done in my case without receiving the consent of, or pressure from, the Board of Trustees. That board hired Carol Garrison, and it can fire Carol Garrison. Do I think that board is a factor in my termination? You're darn tootin' I do. And that is not just based on my opinion. I am gathering facts that strongly point in the board's direction.

----------------------------

Raw Story: Shuler's blog-based reporting on the Siegelman prosecution and other high-profile cases has won him recognition in Alabama and beyond. Last month, Shuler was cited as an authority in an appeal filed by attorneys for prominent Mississippi Democrat Paul Minor, whom Shuler has defended as a victim of politically-motivated prosecution.

Shuler's reporting has also attracted interest from national media, including Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine, Raw Story, author Mark Crispin Miller and Jay Allbritton of AOL News. Prior to his dismissal, Shuler appeared on a local TV news segment about bloggers and the Siegelman case.

Legal Schnauzer: The importance of these paragraphs, in my mind, cannot be overstated. I started the blog in June 2007, and for about four months, the blog was relatively unknown (although I was pleased to see that readership grew steadily). But on October 23, 2007, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, and my blog was cited numerous times in documents entered regarding the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. At about that same time, Scott Horton referenced my blog once or twice at his influential and widely read No Comment blog at Harper's.org. Suddenly, Legal Schnauzer wasn't unknown anymore. Important people were taking my work seriously. And in a little more than a month, strange things would start happening at work, events that would eventually lead to my firing at UAB.

-----------------------------

Raw Story: Alice Martin pursued a major whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of two UAB employees who reported that the University had misused federal grant money, and in 2005 the University agreed to pay $3.39 million to settle allegations that researchers double-billed on federal research grants. Under the terms of the settlement, Martin retained the power to reopen a civil or criminal investigation against UAB officials. This power, coupled with Martin's demonstrated enthusiasm for investigating corruption at universities, may have given UAB officials pause.

Legal Schnauzer: Again, it's hard to overstate the importance of these sentences. We will be writing in great detail about this whistleblower lawsuit, providing information that never has been written about in any news forum. I have conducted extensive research on this case, and I will show that Alice Martin essentially has a cocked pistol pointed at UAB's collective head, ready to fire it at any time. I will show that Alice Martin did UAB a colossal favor in the handling of this lawsuit, and the university has lots of reasons (millions of them, in fact) to want to return the favor.

And how might the university do that? By unlawfully terminating an employee who was proving to be a thorn in Alice Martin's deeply conservative side.

The Malice of Alice: In Her Own Words

Now it's time for the good stuff--The Queen and The Schnauzer, one on one, in an e-mail tug of war.

Before we get into the first e-mail, let's keep a few points in mind:

* It had been more than five weeks since my second snail-mail letter (dated June 14, 2007) to the Queen. Don't know why, but I was getting the distinct impression the Queen was blowing me off. But if you've ever seen a schnauzer tugging on someone's pants leg, you know we can be feisty little devils. So I took a wild guess at the Queen's e-mail address and fired off a missive to her.

* For background purposes, here is an account of what led up to our e-mail version of High Noon.

* Recall that in my second snail-mail letter to the Queen, I made it abundantly clear that one of the primary evildoers in my case was an Alabama attorney named William E. Swatek. Also recall this little nugget: When Queen Alice Martin ran for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in 2000, her campaign manager was Bill Swatek's son, Dax Swatek. I don't have a copy of whatever ethics guide there is for prosecutors, but I don't think you would need a J.D. from Harvard Law to realize pretty quickly that Queen Alice had an Alaska-sized conflict of interest here. I would think she was obligated to inform me of that conflict and to refer the case to a prosecutor who did not have a conflict. Did Queen Alice do that? Let's take a look . . .

--------------------------------

To: Alice Martin [Alice.Martin@usdoj.gov]

From: Roger Shuler [rshuler3156@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007

Ms. Martin:
On January 22, 2007, you sent me a letter asking for detailed allegations of mail and/or wire fraud committed by members of the Alabama State Bar and members of the Alabama Judiciary.

In your letter, you stated that if I sent you a letter providing focused details of illegal actions, you would seek to make an appropriate referral to an investigative agency.

I sent you such a letter, as requested, on June 14, 2007. But I have heard nothing in reply. Could I get an update on the status of my report? If it has been referred to an investigative agency, can I get the name of the person in charge of the case? I very much would like to assist in seeing to it that justice is done in this matter.

Thank you,

Roger Shuler

A Corrupt Bushie in Alabama

Let's return to the play-by-play account of my e-mail encounter with Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the first federal prosecutor to go after former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

In the most recent post in our "Malice of Alice" series, we showed how Martin had sent my allegations of wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama state courts (and an attorney with family ties to Karl Rove) to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

We followed that with a summary of the ground we've covered in our series that shows the slippery ways in which Alice Martin conducts her prosecutorial duties.

Now let's return to my one-on-one e-mail encounter with Alice Martin. Ms. Martin has just informed me that she has sent my allegations to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and followed up with a brief explanation as to why she sent my information to said agency.

My guess is that Ms. Martin hit the send key on her computer and thought, "Surely to God this will get rid of this pest."

If that was her thought, she was wrong about that--as we are about to see. Martin's explanation only raised the curiosity for which we schnauzers are known. So I responded with this e-mail:

---------------------------------------

From: Roger Shuler

To: Alice Martin

Date: July 27, 2007

Here is what I don't understand. My letter to you, I think, makes it clear that this is a case about fraud and white-collar crime. It's only mail fraud because the U.S. mails were repeatedly used in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. The main crime is fraud, by white-collar professionals, with the mail being a secondary component.

As I noted in my two letters to you, this involves violation of 18 U.S. Code 1346, honest services mail fraud. In checking the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Web site, it does not appear that they are even authorized to investigate 1346 violations. Here is a link to their jurisdiction page:

http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/jurislaw.htm

Under mail fraud, the service states that it primarily investigates various forms of consumer fraud, especially as it pertains to the elderly. My case has nothing to do with consumer fraud, and I'm not elderly (at least not yet).

The case I described in my letter is similar in many respects to the case for which former Governor Don Siegelman recently was tried and convicted in Montgomery. About 20 of the 30-some counts against Mr.Siegelman involved honest services mail fraud. Did the U.S. Postal Inspection Service lead that investigation? If so, I certainly was not aware of it.

An important point: Honest services mail fraud is only one of several possible crimes here. An investigation probably would uncover evidence of bribery, conspiracy, wire fraud, RICO violations, and who knows what else. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service would be capable of handling such an investigation.

I ask that this case be handled by the proper investigative body. I don't see how that can be anyone other than the FBI's white-collar crime unit.

Thank you,

Roger Shuler

-----------------------------------------

(To be continued . . . )

The Malice of Alice, Part II

When I hit send on my July 23 e-mail to Alice Martin, I figured that was the last I would ever hear of it.

Actually, I figured I would get one of those "not received" messages in my in-box because I had no idea if I had the correct e-mail address or not.

When a "not received" message did not appear within three or four minutes, I figured, "Hmm, maybe I did have the right address." Still, I never dreamed that Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself (QAMHO) would respond.

When I checked my in-box three days later and saw a reply from "Alice," I thought, "Did someone sign me up for the Alice Cooper Fan Club?"

Upon seeing that it was QAMHO, and not one of my favorite '70s theatrical rockers, I almost fell off my chair. If I'd had a mouthful of Slurpee, I would have spewed it across the room.

Here is the Queen's reply:

---------------------------------

From: Alice Martin:

To: Roger Shuler

Sent: July 25, 2007


Dear Mr. Shuler:
Your letter of June 14th was referred to Postal Inspector Supervisor John Koperniak for review on July 5. His contact information is:

Mr. John Koperniak
Postal Inspector/Domicile Coordinator
U. S. Postal Inspection Service
P. O. Box 2767
Birmingham, AL 35202-2767
205-326-2900


Alice Martin

(To be continued)

GOP Sleaze Can Hit Close to Home

I suspect many folks read Scott Horton's work at Harper's.org with great interest but also with a somewhat detached view. Wrongful convictions . . . sleazy prosecutors . . . corrupt judges . . . people being ruined financially . . . people having their freedom taken away for political reasons.

Those are the kinds of things that happen to other people, right?

That would have been my mindset several years ago. But not anymore.

Horton is the nation's primary chronicler of Republican sleaze in the Age of Rove, and he tends to focus on the wrongs that have been committed against prominent political figures--Don Siegelman in Alabama, Paul Minor in Mississippi, Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin, and so on.

Horton's reporting and analysis invariably makes for fascinating reading. And all too often, it hits uncomfortably close to home for your humble blogger. In fact, I'm stunned at the number of times I've been reading a Horton post and said to myself, "My God, this sounds like it's coming right from my own life."

The techniques that Republicans use to cheat and harm innocent people are at the heart of Horton's work. And I've had an up-close-and-personal view of these techniques for going on 10 years now.

Two recent Horton posts provide examples of how his work strikes a chord here at Legal Schnauzer. First there was a post about the release from federal prison of Lanny Young, a chief accuser in the Siegelman case. Horton makes several key points in the post:

* A source told Horton some time ago that Young's two-year prison sentence merely was for show. Young would be released by year's end, the source said. And the source was right on the money.

* The Birmingham News is playing its usual stellar role in selling the Young story to the public. News' reporter Kim Chandler cites two reasons for Young's release: He is being threatened by other prisoners, and he cannot complete a drug-rehab program because of a chicken-pox outbreak in the prison system. Horton makes it clear that he isn't buying either of these explanations.

* The theory behind the prosecution of Siegelman was that he personally benefitted from Richard Scrushy's donation to a campaign. According to that theory, there currently should be 146 criminal investigations of George W. Bush and Karl Rove and people connected to them. Horton notes that 146 individuals made or procured donations of $100,000 or more for the Bush-Cheney campaign and then received appointments in the administration. Some cabinet members are included in this crowd. But where are those prosecutions for bribery and honest-services mail fraud and conspiracy?

Horton hits really close to home with his final paragraph, which refers to the shenanigans of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who clearly was biased in the Siegelman case and created an uneven playing field. Horton notes that the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to an impartial judge.

Horton is referring to the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is what "guarantees" all citizens--me, you, Don Siegelman--the right to an impartial judge. The 14th Amendment also "guarantees" equal protection of the law.

Siegelman clearly did not get an impartial judge or equal protection, and I know what that feels like. I went before Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner, who repeatedly ruled contrary to clear law in favor of the opposing party. And this benefitted the opposing party's attorney, William E. Swatek, who has direct ties to the Alabama and national GOP hierarchy--Bill Canary, Bob Riley, Karl Rove, Alice Martin--through his son, GOP "consultant" and campaign manager Dax Swatek.

Did I get an impartial judge? Not even close. I would have come closer to getting justice in Afghanistan.

And then there is Horton's post about the GOP phone-jamming caper in New Hampshire in 2002. A new book is coming out that will provide details about the scheme, and Think Progress has produced an article showing that the Bush White House was involved.

Three GOP operatives ended up in prison for their involvement in the case. But Horton notes that the prosecution did not come until after the 2004 election.

This kind of politicization of the U.S. Justice Department hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer. For almost a year and a half, I've provided information to both the FBI and the Birmingham U.S. attorney's office about criminal wrongdoing by Republican judges and at least one lawyer in my case.

The FBI has simply ignored me, even though it has a special Web site for reporting white-collar crime and public corruption. The Web page appears to be legit. But if your allegations are of wrongdoing by Republicans in Alabama, the page is just for show.

U.S. attorney Alice Martin has tried her best to ignore me. But she finally responded once I had her personal e-mail address. And eventually, she made it clear that she was taking affirmative steps to ensure that my case would not see the light of day. I'm sure she thought I would be too dumb to realize that by sending my complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, she was sending it to the wrong agency--and therefore to oblivion.

But I know exactly what she was pulling, and I will be reporting on the "Malice of Alice" in the near future.

My key point: Don Siegelman, Paul Minor and other powerful folks are not the only targets of GOP dirty tricks. Such tricks also can be used against regular folks like you and me. In fact, just in the past week or so, I've seen signs that dirty tricks are continuing to come my way. Some involve my personal property. And another apparently involves my job. I will be sharing these curious events with readers here at Legal Schnauzer.

Sarah Barracuda: An Alaska Gal With An Alabama Heart

The more we learn about Sarah Palin, the more she seems like a character from Karl Rove's Alabama.

In fact, Palin reminds us of a specific Deep South conservative character--Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

Palin, the governor of Alaska and John McCain's surprise choice as a running mate, almost certainly is hotter, smarter, and more competent than Martin. But that isn't saying much.

Palin calls herself a "hockey mom," and that would set her apart in football-mad Alabama. And I doubt that Martin knows how to "field dress a moose," as Palin apparently does. But when it comes to political behavior and professional ethics, Palin and Martin seem like soul sisters.

Both of them have a remarkable penchant for costing people their livelihoods and then lying about it.

In the six days that Palin has been in the national spotlight, we've learned that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she fired the police chief and the city administrator and tried like heck to fire the city librarian. That doesn't even count her most famous hatchet job--going after state trooper Mike Wooten and eventually firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan when he refused to fire Wooten.

Has Palin dealt with the situation honestly? Ummm, nope. First, she said no one from her staff had pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. Then evidence surfaced, including an audiotape, showing that several staff members had pressured Monegan. Now, we learn from the Washington Post that Palin herself had e-mailed Monegan, expressing her frustration that Wooten still was on the job.

TPM Muckraker reports more evidence today that Palin has not acted honestly in Troopergate and that her legal strategy in the case is not supported by law.

Palin's problems with the truth do not stop with the trooper story. TPM Muckraker reports that her image as a reformer does not square with the facts. And Associated Press reports today that Palin's speech last night at the Republican National Convention was riddled with errors.

What about Alice Martin? Well, that's a subject we Alabamians know something about. We know that she lied under oath in an employment lawsuit involving former assistant U.S. attorney Deirdra Brown Fleming. We know that she brought a bogus case against Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi, ruining his business. Martin's misconduct is going to cost taxpayers about $500,000 in compensation for Latifi.

And then we have my own case. When Raw Story broke the story of my termination from UAB, reporter Lindsay Beyerstein raised the issue of Martin's possible involvement. The connections are quite clear. I had broken several stories on this blog about Martin's misconduct in office. I also had broken numerous stories about misconduct by Alabama attorney William E. Swatek and his judicial cronies in Shelby County. Bill Swatek just happens to be the father of Dax Swatek, who was Alice Martin's campaign manager when she ran for statewide office in 2000. Dax Swatek used to work for Bill Canary, who probably is responsible for Martin's appointment as U.S. attorney. For good measure, Bill Canary has strong ties to Karl Rove, and the two helped turn Alabama's appellate courts into a Republican playground in the 1990s.

Beyerstein sought Martin's comments for the Raw Story piece, and the U.S. attorney stalled for quite some time. At the last minute, Martin issued a written statement, refusing evidently to take questions. I showed that almost every sentence in Martin's written statement was filled with pure excrement.

So you can see why the "pit bull" from Alaska reminds us of the "prosecutor" from Alabama.

Sarah Barracuda, meet the Malice of Alice.

What Lies Ahead

Just wanted to take a moment to outline what we have coming up on Legal Schnauzer.

Of course, we will continue to follow the Don Siegelman case and other stories connected to the politicization of the U.S. Justice Department. And we will follow justice-related stories connected to Alabama and the Deep South, focusing particularly on Alabama state courts.

But we are developing three primary storylines connected to my personal experience with injustice:

1. Recent threats by authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, to unlawfully seize the house that belongs to my wife and me. We call this our "Jack-Booted Thugs" story.

2. My efforts to inform Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, about federal crimes that I have witnessed. These crimes--honest services mail fraud, conspiracy--have been committed by multiple state judges and at least one attorney, all with ties to the Alabama Republican Party. We will show how Ms. Martin intentionally covers up allegations of wrongdoing by members of the GOP "home team," sending them to the improper investigative agency so they can die without even being examined. We will call this our "Malice of Alice" story.

3. A pending legal malpractice case against my second attorney, a gentleman named Richard Poff, and the curious rulings by Jefferson County Judge Allwin Horn, who is (surprise, surprise) a Republican. We will call this our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" story.

A few points to keep in mind as we move forward with these storylines:

* Evidence strongly suggests that the threat to seize our house goes well beyond Shelby County, Alabama. I will present information that indicates this example of "state-sponsored terrorism" is not just a local matter.

* A number of the characters who are central to the Siegelman case also have connections to my case. And the primary criminal charge in the Siegelman case, honest-services mail fraud, is central to my experience.

* My experience is a classic example of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, a subject that has drawn the attention of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. While attention so far has focused primarily on individuals (such as Siegelman) who apparently have been prosecuted for political reasons, my case presents the flip side of that equation--where individuals are not prosecuted for crimes they clearly have committed, for political reasons.

* The legal establishment closes ranks to protect its own--even those it finds unsavory. Richard Poff, my second attorney, was involved in a whistleblower case in the 1990s that made him a pariah in the Birmingham legal community. The case received national attention, and the whole reason I contacted Poff was that, based on what I had read about the whistleblower case, I thought he was a man of integrity and courage. As you can probably guess from the fact that I've filed a legal-malpractice case against Poff, I was not pleased with my experience. But here is something interesting: You can mention the words "Richard Poff" to a Birmingham lawyer, and you are almost always going to receive one of three reactions--rolled eyeballs, clenched fists, foul language (or all of the above). But we will show that even a lawyer as unpopular as Poff draws protection from the judges who sit atop the legal pecking order.

Is there a unifying theme to all of this? I would suggest--to borrow a phrase from a popular blog--it's about Crooks and Liars.

Crooks and liars, of course, have always been a part of American life. But this seems to be a particularly fertile time for scoundrels to take root. This blog focuses primarily on scoundrels of the right, but you don't have to look too hard to find evidence that wrongdoers cross political boundaries. (See Spitzer, E.)

The three storylines that are coming up will give you details about my personal experience with crooks and liars. And I hope these stories hit home because, chances are, I'm not a whole lot different from you. I'm just a regular guy--Caucasian, 50ish, one wife, no children, two cats, one mortgage, aging parents, three siblings, gobs of nieces and nephews, the usual stuff.

While you might feel a bit removed from stories about the political prosecutions of public officials, I hope my story will draw you in and show you that crooks and liars are like those warnings you see on rearview mirrors: They can be closer than they appear.

First, let's turn to the latest in our "Bad Judges and Cockroaches" story.

Jill Simpson: All Roads Still Lead to Rove

Word comes today that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove to testify about his role in several possible political prosecutions, including that of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

The news comes on the heels of Dan Abrams' televised interview last night with committee member Linda Sanchez (D-CA). The interview included this intriguing tidbit: The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is officially reviewing the issue of selective prosecution and the actions of several U.S. attorneys around the country.

If the review is legitimate, one would assume it would include heavy scrutiny of Alabama U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary. We are about to start a revealing series of posts that includes clear evidence of selective prosecution on Ms. Martin's part, and we intend to share that information with OPR staff members--and anyone else who cares to read Legal Schnauzer.

But before we commence our "Malice of Alice" series, let's take a closer look at the Rove issue. When it comes to insight on this subject, few Americans can match Republican whistleblower and Alabama attorney Jill Simpson.

After hearing about Rove's refusal to testify, citing executive privilege, a number of observers have been scratching their heads. Rove has said he did not discuss prosecutions with the White House. But by claiming executive privilege, Rove is indicating he did discuss prosecutions with the White House. And that raises the question: Why would George W. Bush be talking about Don Siegelman?

Simpson has considerable insight on that question and issued the following statement today:

Why would Bush be talking about Governor Don Siegelman? The answer is this: In the summer of 2002 George Bush came down to Alabama and held a fundraiser for Big Bob Riley who was running against Governor Don Siegelman at the time for Governor.

Karl Rove tries to claim in his letter to (Dan) Abrams that he wasn't involved with Bob Riley's campaign in Alabama; he was too busy working for the President of The United States of America. He suggested he was only involved in one event that year regarding Bob Riley, but does not say what (that event was) in his famous letter to Dan Abrams.

However, when I spoke with congressional investigators last summer I told them what I knew about the Riley campaign that summer of 2002. They are fully aware of all that was going on with the White House in the Riley Campaign. Further, it is my understanding the trip of President George W. Bush was videotaped from the time the wheels of his plane touched down in Alabama until he left Alabama on the day he raised the four million dollars for Big Bob Riley.

All Presidential trips are videotaped for security reasons, and that video of this day exists and has been talked about in the press. I also pointed out to the investigators last summer that George Bush came to Alabama and raised four million dollars in one day for Bob Riley, whose opponent was Governor Don Siegelman.

Further, that event was not the only event that the President was involved with in beating Don Siegelman in 2002. That is why Bush would have been talking about Siegelman in 2002. He was campaigning for and fundraising for Big Bob Riley to help him beat Don Siegelman.

Also, (you) will probably remember last summer when the President came to Alabama. He got off the airplane, and Mr. Rove started running his mouth, and the media folks for the White House stepped in front of Mr Rove and said what Mr Rove meant to say was "no comment."

Further, when my story broke in The New York Times and Time magazine, the White House said no comment. They knew President Bush was very active in the 2002 campaign against Governor Don Siegelman. That is why I believe Mr Rove is asserting executive privilege.

There is just no telling what they talked about since the President was actively campaigning against Governor Don Siegelman in 2002.

The Malice of Alice, Part III

I'm sure Queen Alice Martin Her Ownself (QAMHO) figured that's the last she would hear from me.

But she didn't know she was dealing with a Schnauzer--and as I've said, we can be feisty sorts.

We also can be questioning sorts. And I had some questions for the Queen.

Keep this in mind: Our gal Alice didn't know she was dealing with a Schnauzer who had a blog. So I'm sure she never dreamed her words might come back to bite her on her fine conservative fanny.

First, my questions for the Queen:

----------------------------------------

To: Alice Martin

From: Roger Shuler

Sent: July 26, 2007


Ms. Martin:
Thanks for your reply. Had a couple of questions:

Why was my information sent to Mr. Koperniak? Is that standard procedure with a mail-fraud investigation? Was it also referred to someone at the FBI?

Best,

Roger Shuler


Here is the Queen's reply:


To: Roger Shuler

From: Alice Martin

Sent: July 26, 2007


Mr. Shuler:
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement agency principally tasked with investigation of mail fraud. Yes, it is standard procedure. No, it was was not referred to the FBI as we make referrals only to one agency so that efforts are not duplicated.

Alice Martin

(To be continued)

Is the FBI In Alabama Really Interested in Public Corruption?

The FBI in Alabama is encouraging citizens to come forward with information about public corruption, according to a recent article in The Birmingham News.


Given the political nature of many "corruption" cases brought in Alabama over the past 10 years or so, one immediately suspects an ulterior motive is behind the FBI's recent plea for information. I know from personal experience that Alabama FBI agents tend to ignore information they receive about public corruption, especially if it involves Republicans and/or members of the legal community.

So why should citizens believe the feds have a genuine concern now? They shouldn't, and that's because the FBI probably is up to something--and it likely has little to do with justice. For their trouble, however, The Birmingham News and at least one FBI agent might have bought themselves a defamation lawsuit. Serves them right. More on that in a minute.

The FBI piece, which ran in Sunday's newspaper, might be the strangest story I've ever read in The Birmingham News--and that's saying something. What is the main point of the story? It seems to be this, based on information from agent Tom Mayhall:

Mayhall and other FBI agents want more people to step forward--anonymously or not--with information about public corruption. And when a person does risk stepping forward, agents will work to keep their identity secret, he said.

"We have to give people a level of confidence" to the extent possible, Mayhall said.

The FBI reminds the public that timeliness can be important in a public corruption case:

Stepping forward with information as quickly as possible is important. That's because the statute of limitations on certain crimes can prevent charges from being filed and a suspect can get away with a crime, he said.

We even learn that the Birmingham FBI has a Contracting Corruption Questionnaire on its Web site. And The Birmingham News article, curiously, focuses almost entirely on a recap of the Jefferson County sewer case.

Does the FBI want information about public corruption in general or only certain kinds, especially those involved with contractors? If it is focusing only on crime associated with contractors, why is that? Why are public officials getting a free pass for other forms of corruption, such as that involving courts.

I can provide reams of information about public corruption involving lawyers, judges, and our courthouses. I know more than a dozen people who can provide similar information. But is that the "wrong kind" of corruption for the FBI? I'm going to soon pay a visit to the Birmingham FBI and find out--and I'm going to encourage my contacts to do the same thing.

I've got information that probably could put any number of Birmingham-area judges and lawyers in federal prison for quite a spell. I know other citizens who have similar information, coming from both Jefferson and Shelby counties. Perhaps we soon will learn if the FBI really is serious about public corruption in Alabama.

Meanwhile, The Birmingham News perhaps have stepped in doo-doo by focusing on the sewer case. That's because Mayhall might have been a little loose with the facts in some of his statements about the case. He focused partly on former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White:

The first indictment came in 2005 in the McNair and Swann cases. Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White was indicted on federal bribery charges involving contractor Sohan Singh and US Infrastructure in Nov. 2007.

Langford, Blount and LaPierre were indicted in December 2008 on bribery charges.

The FBI already was investigating White for allegations involving his time as commissioner supervising the county's general services. Those allegations involved an architect, whose firm had ongoing county projects, providing White free architectural plans for a garage and mountain cabin in Mentone and hunting trips to South Dakota.

Sohan Singh, the contractor charged in the bribery of McNair, stepped forward to tell FBI agents about bribing White, Mayhall said.

Judy White, wife of Gary White, was none too pleased with how her husband was portrayed in the article, and she ripped off the following e-mail to reporter Kent Faulk, demanding a retraction:

On behalf of Gary White, this is a demand for correction and retraction.

The article bearing your "by" line states as follows: "Sohan Singh, the contractor charged in the bribery of McNair, stepped forward to tell FBI agents about bribing White, Mayhall said."

That is absolutely and provably FALSE; it is also absurdly illogical. Sohan Singh pleaded not guilty to bribing Chris McNair and has maintained his innocence while continuing his appeals. How much sense does it make that he would deny bribing Chris McNair, then, out of the blue "step forward" and tell his own prosecutors that he bribed Gary White, not Chris McNair?

And, if that actually happened, why wasn't Sohan Singh charged with bribing Gary White? Does that mean if I "step forward" and "tell FBI agents" that I--hypothetically--robbed a bank, for instance, they would pat me on the back, thank me, give me credit, but not charge me? I don't think so.

Your article quotes Mayhall . . . as saying, "The sewer cases . . . were viewed as three investigations." Think back to elementary school practices, and you don't have to look hard to see which one is different: the--wrongful--prosecution of Gary White. What is missing or different? It's very easy--and I'm not even a deputy-dog reporter.

In the other cases, alleged participating parties--PLURAL--were charged, being those who were alleged to have paid AND received. Gary White was charged ALONE with bribery--by definition a multi-party crime--and conspiracy--by definition a multi-party crime. Again, Sohan Singh was not charged, nor did he plead guilty or have any negative consequences whatsoever.

How does that work, IF he "step[ped] forward to tell FBI agents about bribing" anyone? Why doesn't your article mention the millions of dollars that were CREDITED to him after his testimony at Gary's trial? And why didn't he testify to having bribed Gary? Bill Blount testified that he bribed Larry Langford, and if I'm not mistaken, Al Lapierre did as well. Sohan Singh never testified or made any claim or statement that he bribed Gary White. His testimony at trial was, in fact, quite the opposite. I have previously provided the trial transcripts. but no one has been interested in even reading, much less reporting, what was actually said, preferring instead to simply publish false information provided by Alice Martin's press office.

The reasons Gary White was targeted and prosecuted have nothing to do with bribery, conspiracy, or public corruption--other than the corruption of Alice Martin, Tom Mayhall, and their counterparts. It began with his refusal to give prosecutors false testimony against Siegelman and Scrushy, and continued, with someone telling us at one point of one driving factor being the "Oreo" factor. Alice Martin had prosecuted Chris McNair and had her sights on Larry Langford, but needed a white Republican to avert claims of racial and political bias. Gary White was the Oreo filling, the victim of a corrupt political prosecution.

We long ago understood your employer's lack of interest in the truth. It is irresponsible and actionable for you to continue to publish false and defamatory information, having been informed of its falseness and provided proof thereof, which establishes malice.

We look forward to your immediate and prominent retraction and correction, in compliance with the legally established standard. I will also remind you that case law has established the responsibility of the publication, even when attributing a quote, when the information quoted is not true.

Sincerely,

Judith Ayers White
as Attorney in Fact for Gary White

I know Judy White to be a smart, tough individual--and her e-mail makes a compelling case that The Birmingham News and FBI agent Mayhall engaged in serious misstatements regarding the sewer case.

If agents such as Mayhall can't keep their facts straight, should we trust the FBI with information about public corruption?

[Photo: cbsnews.com]