Alabama Ethics Commission, led by Republican racist Frank "Butch" Ellis of Shelby County, gives AG Steve Marshall a free pass on unlawful campaign donation

Steve Marshall and "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley

The Alabama Ethics Commission yesterday voted to give Attorney General Steve Marshall a free pass for accepting more than $700,000 in unlawful campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). In what should be a surprise to no one, the vote largely was engineered by Frank C. "Butch" Ellis, a commissioner from Shelby County, which widely is considered the most Republican, crooked, and racist county in Alabama.

From a report at al.com:

The Alabama Ethics Commission voted 3-2 today that there was insufficient evidence that Attorney General Steve Marshall violated the state campaign finance law.

Former Attorney General Troy King had filed the complaint and was at today’s meeting but left before the vote was taken.

King had alleged that Marshall’s campaign contributions from the Republican Attorneys General Association violated the state campaign finance law. Marshall has said the contributions were legal. King filed the complaint in July, while he and Marshall were engaged in a runoff campaign for the Republican nomination for attorney general. Marshall won the runoff and went on to win the general election over Joe Siegelman.

USA Today brought national attention to the RAGA donation in an article published on Nov. 5, the day before the midterm elections. How outrageous is the Alabama Ethics Commission's conduct in the Marshall matter. As we showed in a Dec. 5 post, it did not just start getting nutty with yesterday's vote:

Marshall, appointed AG in February 2017 before scandal-plagued governor Robert Bentley left office, defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the November midterms despite national reports that he had accepted $735,000 from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which officials from both parties said violated Alabama law.

The Alabama Ethics Commission failed to resolve the issue before the Nov. 6 election, so complaints are pending, both with the ethics commission and the Montgomery County district attorney's office. Before the election, Siegelman noted that Marshall could be forced from office if the ethics commission applied state law properly.

Was there serious doubt the donation violated Alabama ethics law? Consider these words from Bill Britt, publisher of Alabama Political Reporter (APR), written on Oct. 11 about Marshall's cozy relationship with 3M, a major polluter in Alabama:

RAGA is not registered with the state and commingles its funds with other political action committees, masking the donors contrary to Alabama law. Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton knows Marshall’s contributions were unlawful, so does Secretary of State John Merrill, but no one is willing to act. Even Marshall himself is on the record saying the type of contributions he received from RAGA are illegal and banning such contributions was, “the only legal protection standing between Alabama voters and the reality or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.”

Troy King

 Perhaps the larger question for the Commission and the Alabama Republican Party is should a candidate who willingly takes illegal campaign contributions be allowed to remain on the ballot? . . .

The right remedy in the Marshall situation lies with the Alabama Republican Party, which is responsible for pursuing such violations and taking appropriate action, but the so-called party of law and order has taken a pass on the Marshall fiasco, choosing to remain silent.

So, even Republicans know the RAGA donations are unlawful, but Marshall is a favorite of the Mike Hubbard-Robert Bentley-Bob Riley wing of the party -- as evidenced by his recent firing of special-prosecutions chief Matt Hart. Does anyone expect that crowd to take ethics violations seriously?

APR reported yesterday that Troy King received notice of the hearing less than 24 hours in advance, and he was the primary complainant. That was a sign the fix was in.

Butch Ellis proved to be the fixer, a role with which he is quite familiar from his years of turning Shelby County into a racist, ethical sewer. How racist? Butch Ellis played a central role in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Butch Ellis' father, Handy Ellis, joined with notorious Birmingham Safety Commissioner Bull Connor to lead a walkout of Alabama delegates at the 1948 Democratic Convention. The issue of contention? Civil rights, primarily for black Americans:

Butch Ellis’s father was Handy Ellis, a former lieutenant governor and the chairman of the Alabama delegation at the 1948 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

With Birmingham Commissioner of Safety Bull Connor, Ellis led the Dixiecrat walkout of the convention after declaring that Alabama delegates were instructed “never to cast their vote for any candidate associated with a civil rights program such as adopted by this convention.”

Bottom line: Butch Ellis is the son of a prominent Dixiecrat, meaning he has been a thinly veiled white supremacist for much of his life. At yesterday's Ethics Commission meeting, Ellis stood up for the white elites who want a do-nothing AG like Steve Marshall, so they can keep Alabama as one of the most corrupt states in the nation. From al.com:

The commission heard a number of other cases behind closed doors today. After the commission reopened the meeting, Commissioner Butch Ellis made a motion that there was insufficient evidence that Marshall violated the state campaign finance law. Commissioner Beverlye Brady offered a substitute motion saying there were “ample facts” to show that Marshall had violated the law.

Butch Ellis

Brady’s motion was rejected on a 3-2 vote. Brady and Commissioner Charles Price voted for it. Voting no were Ellis, Commissioner John Plunk and Commission Chairman Jerry Fielding. The commission then voted to approve the Ellis motion on insufficient evidence on an identical 3-2 vote. That closed the case.

The Ethics Commission determines whether there is probable cause that the law was broken. Had Brady’s vote prevailed, the case would have been referred to a district attorney.

Brady and Fielding declined to comment on the case after the meeting ended.

Brady and Fielding probably could not comment because they were trying not to puke.

As noted above, complaints regarding the RAGA donation remain with Montgomery County District Attorney Daryl Bailey. Attorneys Julian McPhillips and Melissa Isaak apparently filed the complaint with Bailey's office because they expected a sham ruling from the Alabama Ethics Commission.

If that was the case, McPhillips and Isaak certainly proved to be on target. Is there any chance Daryl Bailey will be different, that he actually has respect for the rule of law? I'm not holding my breath.

Reporting on Steve Marshall's acceptance of illegal campaign funds in Alabama AG race shines light on the theft of our home via a wrongful foreclosure

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange

Reports on the funneling of illegal campaign cash to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has unearthed evidence that might shine light on the theft of our house in Birmingham via a wrongful foreclosure.

Marshall, appointed AG in February 2017 before scandal-plagued governor Robert Bentley left office, defeated Democrat Joseph Siegelman in the November midterms despite national reports that he had accepted $735,000 from the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which officials from both parties said violated Alabama law.

The Alabama Ethics Commission failed to resolve the issue before the Nov. 6 election, so complaints are pending, both with the ethics commission and the Montgomery County district attorney's office. Before the election, Siegelman noted that Marshall could be forced from office if the ethics commission applied state law properly.

How might this connect to the theft of our home? It comes around to Jessica Medeiros Garrison, an Alabama GOP operative and former executive director of RAGA. Garrison perhaps is best known for serving as campaign manager and mistress for Marshall's AG predecessor (and former U.S. Senator) Luther Strange. She used my accurate reporting on her extramarital affair with Strange to file a baseless lawsuit against me and to write a preposterously defamatory article about me at the women's fashion magazine, Marie Claire.

It all could spell trouble for JPMorgan Chase, which is the largest bank in the United States and the sixth largest in the world.

As for Garrison's lawsuit, it produced a $3.5-million default judgment from Jefferson County Circuit Judge Don Blankenship -- a black man who apparently has  no problem ignoring the rule of law to serve the interests of white elites. Blankeship's ruling has no basis in fact or law, and under the Alabama Constitution and relevant case law, is void because I never received notice of Garrison's application for default judgment or the hearing on said issue. The docket in the Garrison case shows I never was notified of her efforts to get a default judgment, which she applied for three times, and her "gift" from the court is a nullity that can be attacked as void at any time.

Until January 2016, Garrison was senior advisor to RAGA and the affiliated Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). Before that, she was executive director of RAGA and president of RLDF. Garrison started shifting away from those positions when The New York Times exposed RAGA as a glorified shakedown outfit.

USA Today, in its Nov. 3 article that touched on the illegal contribution to Steve Marshall's campaign, shined light on corporate entities that have succumbed to RAGA shakedowns:

[Marshall's] GOP primary challenger, [Troy] King, raised $2.2 million, while Marshall’s Democratic opponent in the general election, Siegelman, has raised more than $606,000, much of it via small donations. About 83 percent of Siegelman’s campaign funds come from within the state, compared with 74 percent for Marshall’s, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state campaign finance data. . . .

RAGA’s contribution represents about 20 percent of Marshall’s total fundraising. King sought a temporary restraining order barring the Marshall campaign from spending the RAGA money, arguing Alabama’s Fair Campaign Practices Act of 2010 banned political action committees active in the state’s elections from taking contributions from other PACs. Filings with the IRS show RAGA accepts contributions from super PACs such as the General Electric PAC and JP Morgan PAC.

This is where the mess hits close to (our) home. How? Our mortgage was held by Chase Mortgage, an affiliate of JPMorgan Chase,, which has dumped cash on the RAGA of Jessica Medeiros Garrison (former executive director) and Luther Strange (former member of the executive committee).

How is JP Morgan PAC tied to RAGA in the 2018 election cycle? From Troy King's letter to the Alabama Ethics Commission:

Now, during the 2018 election cycle, according to RAGA’s public filings with the Internal Revenue Service, RAGA’s PAC has again accepted a number of contributions from other PACs, including, earlier this year, nearly $16,000 from the J.P. Morgan PAC plus another $50,000 in PAC contributions in the last quarter of 2017. RAGA’s PAC has now, during this election cycle, made hundreds of thousands of dollars of contributions to Steve Marshall for Alabama, Inc.

Public documents show that in March 2014, when both Garrison and Strange were directly involved with RAGA, JP Morgan PAC gave $50,000 to the association. (See page 15 of the document embedded at the end of this post.) That was roughly one month before RAGA made a donation to the Luther Strange campaign, in the amount . . . of $50,000. It also just happened to be the same time frame in which our house went into foreclosure.

Did JP Morgan PAC make a direct contribution to Luther Strange, after it was more or less laundered through RAGA? The public does not know because the whole purpose of PAC-to-PAC transfers is to disguise the original source of funds -- and that's why they are illegal under Alabama law.

The Strange re-election campaign eventually returned the $50,000 to RAGA in 2014, so even "Big Lutha" seemed to acknowledge the donation likely was illegal. Steve Marshall has shown no signs of taking such a step, suggesting he is more corrupt than Luther Strange -- and that is quite an achievement.

Here on (our) home front, the question is this: Was Jessica Garrison in a position with RAGA to pick up the phone, contact someone at Chase Mortgage, and have a wrongful foreclosure launched on our home -- perhaps with Luther Strange's assistance? Did she, in fact, do that, causing us to lose not only our home, but just about all of our possessions due to brazen theft during an unlawful eviction after we were forced to move to Missouri?

If the answer to those questions is yes -- to borrow a phrase from Lindsey Graham -- there will be "holy hell to pay."

RAGA 1st Quarter 2014 by on Scribd

Finding of "no probable cause" against Rebekah Mason suggests ethics commission is part of scheme to oust Bentley but keep greater wrongdoing under cover

Rebekah Caldwell Mason

The Alabama Ethics Commission has found "no probable cause" that Rebekah Caldwell Mason, adviser and mistress to former Gov. Robert Bentley, violated state ethics laws. The decision adds to the growing body of evidence that the process leading to Bentley's resignation on Monday was a sham -- "fix" would be another fitting word -- designed only to remove an embarrassing governor from office, but provide no justice for the citizens of Alabama.

The commission's inexplicable finding suggests the Bentley/Mason sex scandal is far worse than the public knows, and it likely involves far more powerful individuals than the public realizes. The finding also indicates there is hard evidence of criminal actions by Bentley, Mason, and others, but the commission doesn't have the stomach to look into it. Specifically, the commission appears to be participating in a cover-up to protect a Republican Party brand that has been riddled by corruption in the past couple of years.

State Auditor Jim Zeigler filed an ethics complaint against Mason on March 25, 2016, and received notice of the "no probable cause" finding in a letter dated Wednesday (April 12, 2017) from Thomas Allbritton, executive director of the ethics commission. One wonders how Allbritton wrote that letter with a straight face.

Here's how al.com described Zeigler's complaint in an article published roughly one year ago:

Zeigler said he filed a report with the state Ethics Commission to determine "whether Gov. Bentley and Mason are using state property in furtherance of their personal relationship, and if they have used their position to interfere with an attorney general's investigation."

In his report to State Ethics Commission Executive Director Thomas Albritton, Zeigler cited the audiotape in saying that it was "apparent that Mrs. Mason and Gov. Bentley have been using state property and resources in furtherance of their personal relationship." He was referring to the governor mentioning that "Wanda's desk" would have to be moved down the hall.

Zeigler also alleged that Mason was violating the law because she has never registered as a lobbyist -- which he claims should have been done if she's being paid by a third party and not the state. If she was considered a state official, Zeigler contended, then Mason would be violating the law by receiving private funds.

As was recently reported at the Montgomery Advertiser, "Under state law, the Alabama Ethics Commission acts as a grand jury when a public official faces accusations of breaking the state's ethics law. The commission cannot press charges but can find probable cause and refer cases to the Alabama attorney general or a district attorney -- usually the one in Montgomery County -- for prosecution. Testimony and deliberations take place in private, but votes are public."

An old joke in legal circles is that a "grand jury could indict a ham sandwich." In other words, the bar for probable cause is extremely low, as Bentley attorney William Athanas stated after the ethics commission found probable cause on four counts against his client:

"It’s a finding of probable cause, which is one of the lowest legal standards we apply in these cases," he said. "We certainly disagree there was evidence to support a probable cause finding. We definitely disagree there was enough evidence to support a finding beyond a cause of reasonable doubt."

The statement about reasonable doubt is an effort to muddy the waters. That standard applies to juries in criminal trials, but it has no connection to the ethics commission, which must find only probable cause. There is enough probable cause against Mason to sink a battleship in Mobile Bay. That the commission could not find probable cause suggests it wasn't trying very hard.

A few issues to consider:

*  Our second report on the Bentley/Mason scandal showed the governor's campaign had spent more than $400,000 with a company owned by Mason, his mistress. Bentley hired Mason's husband, Jon, to a state position that had paid him more than $390,000. That doesn't constitute probable cause of an ethics or campaign-finance violation? We're to believe Rebekah Mason had no knowledge of how her husband landed his state job or took no actions to ensure that he filled the job? Don't make me laugh.

* In our third report on the scandal, we showed the Masons had received almost $1 million in government-related payments since the beginning of the Bentley administration in 2011. During a chunk of this time, Rebekah Mason was conducting an extramarital affair with Bentley -- and taking actions to keep it under wraps, according to published reports. No probable cause of unethical activity? Don't make me laugh.

*  According to multiple published reports, Bentley allowed Mason to serve as the state's "de facto" governor. And a report at USA Today showed that former Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) chief Spencer Collier alleged both Bentley and Mason used state time and resources to pursue the affair. According to former spokesperson Jennifer Ardis, Mason's clout caused regular disruption of operations in the governor's office. "Nothing could be done in the office without Mason's sign-off," Ardis said. No probable cause? Don't make me laugh.

* A House Judiciary Report showed that Bentley, Mason, and others failed to turn over requested documents -- emails, texts, phone and financial records -- to investigators. They also failed to appear for interviews under oath. Did the Alabama Ethics Commission, deliberating in private, even seek such information? We've seen no evidence that it did. Again, no probable cause? Don't make me laugh.

* The Montgomery Advertiser yesterday reported as follows:

In a letter to State Auditor Jim Zeigler dated Wednesday, Ethics Commission Director Tom Albritton said the Ethics Commission did not find probable cause that Mason violated the Alabama Ethics Act.

Albritton’s letter did not specify the reasons why. It said the Ethics Commission received the results of the investigation April 5, the same day commissioners heard evidence against Bentley.

Did the commission conduct any independent investigation of Mason? It doesn't sound like it. Was the complaint against her completely intertwined with the Bentley case? The answer appears to be yes.

How sleazy is all this? It suggests the ethics commission itself needs to be investigated. Attorney Donald Watkins summed it up well at his Facebook page:

In the same April 5, 2017, Ethics Commission meeting that resulted in a referral of Bentley’s case to state prosecutors on four felony ethics violations, the Commission also dismissed the case against Rebekah Mason. According to investigators, they could not find any evidence that Mason had misused state property.

They did not look hard enough, if they looked at all. Rebekah Mason operated her public relations firm, RCM Communications, Inc., while working full-time as Bentley’s communications director. Rebekah also conducted RCM’s business from the governor’s office and used state resources to further her private business interests.

Also, Bentley made sure that Rebekah had unfettered access to state trooper transportation, the Governor’s mansion (at all times of the night), the state airplane, the Winton Blount mansion in Montgomery (which was donated to the state), and to any other state resource she needed to make herself fully available to the Governor for his personal and sexual pleasure. After all, Rebekah, in Bentley’s mind, was the real First Lady of Alabama.

Watkins goes on to use the "F word" to describe the ethics commission's actions:

The Commission's disposition of Rebekah’s case has the feel and smell of a political “fix”. Through back channels, Bentley apparently signaled that he would resign as governor if no charges were brought against Rebekah and if he could dispose of his felony violations by pleading guilty to two no-jail time misdemeanors. The state caved in and agreed. Bentley’s exit from the governorship played out Monday just as the governor had demanded.

This is why Robert Bentley was smiling in his mugshot. He hoodwinked them all. The only people who were not aware of: (a) the Ethics Commission’s accommodation “fix” of Rebekah’s case, (b) the prosecutor’s “sweetheart” plea deal with the governor, and (c) the “sellout” of the people’s right to the fair administration of justice, were the citizens of Alabama who are thirsty for tough law enforcement in public corruption cases. Once again, they got shafted in this debacle. Nobody gave a damn about their rights as crime victims.

As a practical matter, how does a commission find four felony counts against Bentley and none against Mason, his clear accomplice? Isn't that like indicting Clyde and letting Bonnie off the hook completely? Isn't that a sign of a commission that is wildly compromised, one the public should not trust?

Alabama's "Christian" governor, Robert Bentley, apparently never learned the Old Testament admonition about "bearing false witness"

Ray Lewis

Only the most naive Americans likely expect politicians to speak the truth. But for Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley to stand before his constituents last Friday morning and lie so brazenly . . . well, it takes a special kind of earthworm to do that.

At a hastily called news conference on the Capitol steps, Alabama's embattled governor faced the public and made his first statement since the Alabama Ethics Commission found probable cause that he had violated ethics and campaign-finance law. From a report at al.com:

"I have done nothing illegal," the governor said. "If the people want to know if I misused state resources, the answer is simply no, I have not."

Question: If Bentley has done nothing illegal, why has he agreed to resign (apparently seeking to stay out of prison), according to a report this morning from Josh Moon and Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter?

Back to Friday: Later that day, the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) released its Impeachment Report, showing that Bentley had, in fact, misused state resources on his extramarital affair with aide Rebekah Caldwell Mason.  The committee provided plenty of specifics, citing at least five examples where Bentley used state resources to facilitate or cover up the affair. Actually, the following five examples involve only the misuse of security chief Ray Lewis. The report includes at least six examples of Bentley's misuse of other law-enforcement personnel. (See pp. 82-90 in report, which is embedded at the end of this post.)

Here are the five examples involving Ray Lewis:

(1) Governor Bentley asks Ray Lewis to break up with Rebekah Mason for him.

When Lewis arrived at the Capitol, Governor Bentley met him at the door to his office and seemed to Lewis to have been crying. Lewis went into the office with Governor Bentley to see Rebekah Mason, who also seemed to have been crying. Governor Bentley told Lewis that Ms. Bentley thought he and Mason were having an affair and that someone had made an audio recording of him and Mason talking on the phone. Governor Bentley thought his son, Paul, had the recording. Governor Bentley asked Lewis to go to Tuscaloosa to meet with Paul and to try to get Paul to hand it over.

Lewis recalls that he responded to Governor Bentley: “[A]re you telling me this is true, the affair is true?” Governor Bentley admitted the affair to Lewis and told him there were things on the recording he would not want anyone to hear.

Governor Bentley then sent Mason out of the room and asked her to wait in the Lieutenant Governor’s conference room on the second floor of the Capitol. With Mason out of the room, Governor Bentley and Lewis discussed the situation. Lewis says he expressed to Governor Bentley that the affair was wrong and had to end. Lewis says he told Governor Bentley that the affair would be an embarrassment to him, his family, and the State of Alabama. Governor Bentley agreed with Lewis. Lewis was disappointed and “shocked” by the realization that Governor Bentley had had an affair with Mason. Governor Bentley was embarrassed and asked Lewis to go upstairs to meet with Mason and end the relationship.

(2) Ray Lewis attempts to retrieve the tapes.

Lewis left the Lieutenant Governor’s conference room and immediately drove to Tuscaloosa, on Governor Bentley’s orders, in his state vehicle, to try to retrieve the tapes from Governor Bentley’s son, Paul Bentley. Lewis called ahead, and Paul invited him to his office. When Lewis arrived, he asked Paul if he had the tapes. Paul replied: “Yes, and you ain’t getting it.” Paul told Lewis that he could not bring himself to listen to the full recording, but that his wife Melissa had a copy.

Lewis reported the results of his Tuscaloosa mission to Governor Bentley over the phone and told him that the tapes existed.

(3) Governor Bentley directs Ray Lewis to visit Mason in Gulf Shores.

In that same phone conversation, Governor Bentley told Lewis that Rebekah Mason was just not getting it and directed Lewis to drive to Gulf Shores in the morning to break up with her again. He instructed Lewis to leave early so that he could reach Mason before her husband arrived. Lewis prepared to depart on the mission in his state vehicle the next morning, but Governor Bentley called him and told him not to go. Lewis cannot remember for certain whether he had already departed on the mission when Governor Bentley called him off.

(4) Requests for surveillance sweeps of Mason’s vehicle.

Corporal Nance Bishop of ALEA recalls that relatively early in the re-election campaign of 2014, he was asked to perform a sweep of Rebekah Mason’s personal vehicle for bugs or listening devices. Bishop could not recall specifically who made the request, except that it came from a group of Governor Bentley’s officers that included Collier and Stabler. Bishop refused the request because it was campaign-related and not related to government work.

Ray Lewis says that Bishop told him about this request soon after it was made. Lewis said he discussed this request with Bishop because, at the time, “everybody was concerned about what was going on” with Rebekah Mason.

(5) Governor Bentley demands that Rebekah Mason travel on state transports.

Rebekah Mason ceased to be an employee of the Office of the Governor in July 2013 when she began working for Governor Bentley’s re-election campaign. She did not surrender her security credentials for access to the Capitol, however, as other staff members were required to do upon transitioning to the campaign. Ray Lewis testified that he is not aware of any other staff member who was permitted to retain security access in this way.

Furthermore, it was Lewis’s understanding that Mason, after leaving the employ of the State, could not accompany Governor Bentley on official transportation, including flights on State planes or movements in State vehicles. Lewis frequently found himself in the awkward position of addressing this with Governor Bentley.

Lewis says he told Governor Bentley several times of the need to keep Mason’s movements separate from Governor Bentley’s official movements, and that he could not provide security services to non-state personnel. Lewis testified that Governor Bentley indicated that he knew and understood this. In fact, Lewis testified, this rule was consistently applied to others, like Zach Lee, who had left the Office of the Governor for the campaign. . . .

Nonetheless, on multiple occasions, and with a frequency that increased as the relationship between Governor Bentley and Mason grew, Lewis found himself overruled by Governor Bentley. Lewis recalls one occasion when he instructed Governor Bentley’s Director of Scheduling Linda Adams, while planning for a trip, not to put Mason on the State plane. Later that day, Governor Bentley called Lewis and ordered him to put Mason on the flight. Lewis recalls telling Governor Bentley: “Sir, I disagree with that, but you’re the governor and I will respect your wishes.” Lewis believes this conversation was the beginning of the deterioration of his relationship with Governor Bentley.

How adamant was Bentley that Mason fly with him? He decided to lease a private plane, in order to get around reporting requirements connected to state aircraft.

In 2014, Bentley for Governor, Inc. leased a plane from a company based near Atlanta. Lewis testified that Governor Bentley told him that he had leased the plane so that Mason could travel on it. The company used private pilots, and Lewis was limited in his ability to vet them. For State recordkeeping purposes, Linda Adams attempted to find out and document basic information about flights that Governor Bentley took on the leased campaign plane. Governor Bentley has not made any of these records available.

On August 4, 2014, the day before Lewis and Collier confronted Governor Bentley about the tapes (described in detail below), Governor Bentley told Lewis and other staff members that he wanted Mason on the leased plane with him. Lewis recalls Governor Bentley telling him: “She’s needs to be able to do her job, so she will be on the airplane.”

Lewis was becoming increasingly worried during this period that he would lose his job because of Rebekah Mason. He looked back with the benefit of hindsight on the occasion when Governor Bentley had asked him to confront the female staff in Governor Bentley’s office for gossiping about an affair that (Lewis now knew) had actually been happening. Lewis realized that Governor Bentley had used him as a tool and that he could not trust Governor Bentley. Lewis said: “[A]fter seeing how the governor was dealing with his family situation and he really didn’t care what Ms. Bentley thought or anybody else thought, I knew that if I were putting people on the plane like Ms. Mason, that I felt like he wouldn’t take responsibility for it. He would simply say I didn’t do that, Ray Lewis did it." Lewis testified that it was for this reason that he began making a record of daily events in his personal calendar.

Let's return briefly to Bentley's press statement of last Friday morning. From al.com:

Bentley said he had struggled in recent years, admitted he had made mistakes and apologized. He did not go into specifics.

"Once again, let me say to the people of this state how sorry I am to all of our people," Bentley said. "To all of you. There's no doubt that I have let you down. But all I ask is that you continue to pray for me and I will continue to pray for you."

Bentley repeated what he has said before, that he believes he is doing a job God called him to do.

"My motivation is to do what I truly believe God called me to do," Bentley said. "That's to work hard and to serve our state and to serve and love the people of this great state of Alabama. God bless them and may God bless this great state as I continue to try to serve in the way that God has placed me in this position."

Gee, imagine how much the "Luv Guv" would have lied to us if he weren't such a "fine, Christian man."


Alabama House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report, Including Exhibits

Impeachment report by Montgomery Advertiser on Scribd

"Luv Guv" Bentley scandal reaches new chapter as Alabama Ethics Commission refers him for indictment that could bring an 80-year prison sentence

Robert Bentley: "Slimy guy," in what should be
Alabama's Image of the Year.
(From Mickey Welsh, Montgomery Advertiser)

On Aug. 31, 2015, Legal Schnauzer broke the story of Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley's extramarital affair with senior adviser Rebekah Caldwell Mason. The next day, Sept. 1, we were the first news outlet to report about possible financial irregularities connected to the Bentley-Mason relationship. The day after that, Sept. 2, we were first to show the scope of the flickering scandal, reporting that Rebekah Mason and her husband, Jon, had made almost $1 million off their connections to the Bentley administration.

It was a story where a one-man blog beat Alabama's corporate, mainstream media (MSM) at every turn. In fact, MSM reporters joined with Bentley in trying to trash my reputation. Multiple reports even had Bentley unlawfully using state and federal law-enforcement resources in an effort to target -- and find damaging information about -- me. That operation apparently did not work so well. But when you consider my wife, Carol, and I were the victims of an unlawful eviction in Greene County, Missouri, just nine days after I broke the Bentley story, one wonders if Alabama fingerprints were on that filthy operation.

Given that Missouri deputies brutalized Carol and shattered her left arm during the eviction -- then concocted bogus criminal charges against her, which she's still fighting -- a reasonable person might wonder just how low Alabama's creepy governor and his sassy siren might go.

The Bentley-Mason scandal reached a crescendo yesterday when the Alabama Ethics Commission heard testimony and engaged in deliberations for more than nine hours before finding "probable cause" that Bentley violated the state's ethics and campaign finance laws.

According to a report at the Montgomery Advertiser, the commission referred the charges to Montgomery County District Attorney Daryl Bailey. If indicted and convicted, Bentley could face up to 20 years in prison for each violation and a fine of up to $20,000 on each charge. With four charges on the table, mostly related to misuse of public resources and campaign funds, the governor could be looking at a maximum of 80 years behind bars. And that doesn't count other legal issues he faces, as reported by the Montgomery Advertiser:

The decision adds to Bentley's legal ordeal over allegations about his personal and professional relationship with former staffer Rebekah Caldwell Mason, charges that could lead to his removal from office. The House Judiciary Committee could begin impeachment hearings against Bentley next week, and the committee's special counsel should file an investigative report on the governor by Friday. The Alabama attorney general's office is also investigating Bentley, though it's not clear if that probe relates to the Mason charges or another matter.

Has anyone investigated possible efforts by Bentley and Mason (or their surrogates) to bully and intimidate Carol and me? I don't know, but we have not been interviewed. It's possible, however, that yesterday's nine-hour hearing touched on a relatively small portion of criminality that might be tied to Bentley and his paramour.

Do I feel vindicated by yesterday's events? The answer is, "Hell, yes." In the roughly 18 months since I broke the story, I've watched major news outlets -- The Rachel Maddow Show, The Washington Post -- credit al.com with breaking the story (cough . . . hack!). I've seen lawyer and Facebook reporter Donald Watkins twice take credit for breaking the story, when he knows that isn't true. I corrected him on it once, and he seemed to acknowledge that Legal Schnauzer was first on the story, but then he repeated his canard just a few days ago.

Heck, I wasn't even in Alabama when I broke the story. Carol and I were living in Springfield, Missouri, trying to keep a roof over our heads. That came on the heels of my unlawful arrest and incarceration in Shelby County, Alabama, and the loss of our home of 25 years in the Birmingham area to a wrongful foreclosure. We have pending federal litigation on both of those issues, plus an upcoming civil-rights and police-brutality case over the actions of Missouri cops, which might have been driven by Bentley/Mason or other conservative political thugs in Alabama.

How does a reporter break one of the biggest stories in modern Alabama history while living in the Midwest? Well, it all goes back to sources, and no one can touch the quality of sources I've had on this story. I wish I could name them, to provide the public thank you they deserve. But they know who they are, and they know that these kinds of stories can generate major blow back -- making it critical that they remain anonymous.

You can't get better sources in Alabama than the ones we've had on the Bentley story, so I've known we were on target from the outset. But has our blog been showered with "atta boys" from the MSM and public officials, who now are on the train to oust Bentley from office? Not exactly. In fact, we've been attacked from multiple angles. Some examples:

(1) John Archibald gets "smoked"

In an article published Aug. 31, 2015, the venerable John Archibald wrote the following at al.com:

Several media outlets--bloggers and radio talkers--this morning cited "sources" as they reported that Gov. Robert Bentley has without question had an affair with a female staff member, a torrid love cuddle that caused the governor's wife of a half century, Dianne Bentley, to file for divorce and ask for everything the guy ever made.

All they offered was "sources." Not proof or fact or anything more than smoke.

Turns out Bentley did, without question, have an affair, and he now faces possible prison time for issues related to it. There was way more than smoke, John, but you didn't want to see the fire.

(2) Chuck Dean and his "unsubstantial rumor"

In an article published Sept. 4, 2015, al.com's Chuck Dean wrote:

Despite no claim of infidelity in the divorce papers, the rumor traveled across platforms such as talk radio, Facebook, Twitter and in some blogs of dubious credibility purporting the unsubstantial rumor as fact.

The "blogs of dubious credibility" turned out to be not so dubious, after all. And the "rumor" proved to be both substantial and substantiated.

(3) Chuck Dean proves to be "dubious" again

In an article published Dec. 27, 2015, al.com's Chuck Dean came up with this:

In her filing Dianne Bentley never alleged infidelity on the part of her husband. But once the filing became public on August 28, online blogs -- some discredited in courts of law and others with dubious histories - were almost instantly filled with unsubstantiated rumors of an extramarital affair between Bentley and a senior advisor. . . .

If Bentley, most Alabamians and even Montgomery insiders were shocked by the news, a handful of bloggers didn't seem to be surprised. Within hours of the painful news, blogs rolled out posts featuring far-fetched stories with highly implausible details about the alleged affair.

What they did not roll out was any proof.

"Implausible" and lack of "proof." You were wrong then, Chuckster, and your journalism career is pretty much toast now. The public does have proof that you are a lazy-ass reporter, with no useful sources and no credibility -- and the story was blowing up under your nose the whole time.

(4) The "Luv Guv" lies his ass off

In the Dec. 27 article, Dean quotes Gov. Bentley as follows:

"The rumors were not true," said Bentley.

The governor then seemed to let out months of pent up frustrations.

"There were people on blogs and people in the press who crossed the line. They truly crossed the line. People on talk radio crossed the line," said Bentley.

Bentley was lying, and Chuck Dean bought every lie. Who really crossed the line here, Governor?


(5) Bentley takes the "slimy" road

In August 2016, a tape surfaced of a conversation between Bentley and State Rep. Allen Farley (R-Bessemer). In it, Bentley can be heard referring to me as a "slimy guy."

Let's allow that thought to simmer for a moment. During the ethics commission's marathon executive session yesterday, the major news story involved efforts by Montgomery and state law-enforcement officers to block reporters from an exit where witnesses appeared to be leaving the building. The officers, in a show of absurd cluelessness, tried removing journalists from a public sidewalk. At one point, three vehicles (which appeared to be black, state SUVs) were parked in an apparent effort to block reporters from even seeing witnesses, much less asking them questions.

Finally, Mickey Welsh, of the Montgomery Advertiser, captured probably the Image of the Year in Alabama. From a perfect angle above the fray, Welsh caught Bentley scurrying into an SUV, looking very much like a cockroach searching for cover after the lights have been turned on.

That is a great piece of photojournalism by Mickey Welsh, and I can only imagine the amount of thought and effort that went into it.

And it raises this question, as the Bentley administration rests perilously on the edge of implosion: Who's the "slimy guy" now, Governor?

Press Release From Aide Jessica Medeiros Garrison Reveals Luther Strange's Hypocrisy On Gambling

Luther Strange and
 Jessica Medeiros Garrison 

Many of us probably thought no one could top former Alabama Governor Bob Riley when it comes to political hypocrisy. After all, Riley is the guy who spent the last two years of his administration conducting a crusade against gambling, even though GOP felon Jack Abramoff revealed in a 2011 book that he helped funnel some $20 million in Indian gaming cash into Alabama to boost Riley in the 2002 governor's race.

Luther Strange, Alabama's current attorney general and one of Riley's closest allies, is making a serious run for the title of "World's Biggest Political Hypocrite." Since Luther stands 6-8, he is a big hypocrite in every sense of the term.

At the heart of the storm is Jessica Medeiros Garrison, who was campaign manager for Strange's 2010 attorney general race and remains one of the AG's closest confidants.

All of this comes to mind because of a recent report from Montgomery Independent publisher Bob Martin, whose work appears in the Atmore News and a number of newspapers around the state. Martin reports that the Alabama Ethics Commission recently ruled that Strange can keep a $100,000 campaign contribution from the Poarch Creek casinos. Writes Martin:

Shortly after The Montgomery Independent reported last October that Mr. Strange accepted the money, an ethics complaint challenging the contribution was filed by Tuskegee Mayor Johnny Ford. 

Ford accused Mr. Strange of threatening raids on the VictoryLand in order to seize its electronic bingo machines, an event that occurred a few months later. 

The commission’s general counsel, Hugh R. Evans, has written Mayor Ford that the commission has now closed the case, telling Mr. Ford the commission has carefully reviewed the notebook of information he provided.

How closely did the commission examine the material that Ford submitted? Probably not all that closely. In fact, Martin writes that evidence suggests only Evans, and not the entire commission, reviewed the material.

What grounds did Evans give for rejecting Ford's complaint? He says there is "no nexus between the Poarch Creek Indians' contribution and General Strange." No nexus? Here is an online definition of the word "nexus":

A means of connection; a link or tie

Evans admits in his letter that both Luther Strange and the Alabama Republican Party received money from the Poarch Creeks. In other words, money went from Point A to Point B--and from Point A to Point C. I would call that a pretty serious nexus.

How does Jessica Medeiros Garrison enter the picture? It comes from a press release she produced on March 11, 2010, in the midst of Strange's primary contest against incumbent Troy King. (See full release at the end of this post.)

Garrison takes King to task for accepting gambling money in his campaign. From the press release:

Public records show that at least $190 thousand in campaign contributions from gambling operators, slot machine manufactures and their lobbyists were funneled to the Troy King campaign through a series of PAC to PAC transfers.

On February 18, 2010, Mr. King told radio listeners that he would return contributions made to his campaign if it were shown those funds came directly or indirectly from gambling interests. Research of public records clearly shows the trail of money from gambling interests to political action committees to King.

Garrison goes on to call for King to return the gambling funds, which she claims add up to at least $190,000. She says King might need to return as much as $400,000.

Let's see if we have this straight: In March 2010, Jessica Medeiros Garrison was exorcised over the fact that public records showed Troy King accepted campaign funds from gambling interests. But we now know that just a few months later--between July 15 and August 4, 2010, to be precise--Luther Strange accepted at least $100,000 from gambling interests, specifically the Poarch Creek Indians.

Is Jessica Medeiros Garrison calling on Luther Strange to return funds that he received from gambling interests? We haven't heard a peep out of her. As for Big Luther himself, it appears he intends to keep every dime that the Alabama Ethics Commission says has no "nexus" to the Poarch Creeks.

Jessica and Big Luther have some serious "splainin" to do. They also should be proud that their hypocrisy rivals that of Bob Riley. That, indeed, is quite an achievement.

Jessica Medeiros Garrison Gambling Press Release by Roger Shuler

Taxpayers Are Helping Pick Up The Tab For An Alabama Republican's Book Deal

Mike Hubbard

(Updated at 8:10 p.m. on 10/26/11. See end of post.)

Records indicate that taxpayers are helping pay for an upcoming book about the Republican Party's takeover of the Alabama Legislature. The book, to be called "Storm In The State House," reportedly will focus on Mike Hubbard's exploits as party chair from 2007 through 2010--and as speaker of the house in 2011.

A Montgomery Independent story from last Friday shows that the Alabama House of Representatives has spent $136,000 of public money to pay for research, writing, and editing on the book. The Independent also pointed to signs that Hubbard had signed off on the use of public funds for a book that glorifies him and the Republican Party.

Someone apparently did not want that story to receive too much exposure; it quickly was pulled from the Independent's slot at al.com--and has not returned. The fine folks at alabamacorruption.blogspot.com (also known as Vincent Confidential) were on the ball and copied the article before it disappeared.

That led to an enlightening post yesterday:

"Disappearing Ink--Al.com Vaporizes Montgomery Independent Story Critical of House Speaker Hubbard's Planned Book "Storm in the State House"

Why would the elites who control Alabama's mainstream press want to keep the Hubbard story under wraps? Probably because it shines light on the cozy relationship that Hubbard and other Alabama GOPers have with the Swatek Azbell Howe and Ross (SAHR) lobbying firm of Montgomery.

How stench-inducing is that relationship? Vincent Confidential (VC) spells it out?

For a brief time on October 21, 2011, a potentially explosive story ran on Al.com entitled “Researcher For Hubbard Book Paid By House.” The Montgomery Independent authored the story, based on information from Inside Alabama Politics, that revealed David Azbell of Swatek, Azbell, Howe and Ross had collected $136,000 of public money via an authorization from the Alabama House of Representatives and presumably green-lighted from the likely source of Mike Hubbard.

Azbell had been (and may still be) acting as a consultant with Hubbard on the book charged with the duties of “research, editing and writing.” From 2007 until March of this year, Azbell was collecting $2,000 per month for “public relations work for the House Republican Caucus ." In March of 2011, the sum jumped four fold to $8,000 per month for duties unclear to the Montgomery Independent before deadline of the story prior to the October 21st publication.

As suddenly as the story appeared, it quickly disappeared.

Sounds like someone touched a nerve, doesn't it? And the folks who run al.com clearly are more interested in protecting conservative elites than in educating the public.

Fortunately, our friends at VC do want to educate the public. And they put the GOP scam in perspective:

Azbell’s deal with Hubbard seems to suggest that cronyism is alive and well in the Republican controlled state house despite Mike Hubbard himself lambasting the democrats for the same sins the ‘shakedown Alabama’ crowd, led by the virtuous as a pole cat Hubbard, are perpetrating against the public:

“For the past 136 years, Alabama Democrats have held the majority in both the Alabama House and Senate. And what have we gotten in return? They have given us a substandard education system, rampant government corruption, wasteful spending. . . .  If you believe . . .  our public officials are honest and squeaky clean and all of your hard-earned tax dollars are being spent wisely, nothing I can write in this column can convince you we need a change."

The winds of change Mr. Hubbard and the Republicans promised Alabamians seem to be more of the same old ill winds than the cleansing breeze heralding a bright and promising "new day of ethics and accountability in Alabama."

We do need a change, but we got shorted on our investment by putting our faith in Hubbard and Co. Perhaps he has a good explanation for using taxpayer money to publish his rah rah propaganda book, but we're hard pressed to imagine one no matter how you look at it.

VC then trains its sights on one of our "favorite" Republican slimeballs--Dax Swatek, whose greasy ways have earned him much "digital ink" here at Legal Schnauzer. Reports VC:

Hubbard's choice of Azbell and the timeline of his 'contract' with the House is interesting to ponder. According to the Montgomery Independent story, Hubbard's book has been in the works since 2007. Swatek, Azbell, Howe and Ross formed their political powerhouse group that same year touting itself as an organization of "credibility, integrity and ethics that we think is important in this new day in Montgomery" and who think they are "better" than anyone else at "tackling this thing" known as Alabama politics.

VC even unearthed a video of Dax Swatek and one of his partners discussing the SAHR firm. A Schnauzer warning: The video below includes Dax Swatek discussing "integrity" and "ethics." That kind of talk from an oily GOPer has been known to induce vomiting.

This is the guy whose father, Pelham attorney William E. Swatek, has a 30-year record of unethical acts with the Alabama State Bar. We summed up Bill Swatek's distinguished career in the following post (and Dax is an apple that did not fall far from the tree):

Bill Swatek: A Portrait of Alabama Sleaze in the Age of Rove

After you view the Dax Swatek video below, and manage to stop guffawing, you probably will want to take a long, hot shower. In the meantime, let's consider a few questions about Mike Hubbard's sweet deal with SAHR:

* Is it a crime to take public funds and use them for a private venture?

* If so, which statutes (federal or state?) were violated?

* What kind of punishment could someone receive for violating such statutes?

* How does the behavior in the Hubbard/book story compare with the case of former Gov. Guy Hunt? In the 1990s, Hunt was prosecuted and convicted for taking campaign funds and using them on personal items. Do the actions of Hubbard and Co. at least equal Hunt's transgressions? Could they be worse?

* If the Alabama Ethics Commission found probable cause that Hunt violated the law, what would it find regarding the actions of Hubbard, Azbell, Swatek, and others?

Clarification at 8:10 p.m. on 10/26/11--Records show that David Azbell has received $136,000 of public funds since 2007, and The Montgomery Independent (MI) reported as follows:

Last month the political newsletter Inside Alabama Politics reported that Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard of Auburn had turned his attention earlier this year to writing a book on the rise of the Republican Party in Alabama. . . .

Former Riley administration Press Secretary David Azbell is helping Hubbard with research, writing and editing.

It is undetermined at this time how much of Azbell's fees was for his work on the State House book and how much was for other services. Reports show that $80,000 was for public relations work on behalf of the House Republican Caucus. Editor Bob Martin tells Legal Schnauzer that MI plans to report more on Mike Hubbard's activities this week.

Update at 9:05 p.m. on 10/26/11--Bob Martin said he would have more on Mike Hubbard, and he was true to his word. We just discovered the latest: State Agencies Bow to the Speaker.

Talkin' 'Bout Ethics and My Termination

We recently wondered if Alabama Governor Bob Riley could face a Sarah Palin/Troopergate sort of ethics problem in the aftermath of my unlawful termination from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

A growing body of evidence, which we will be laying out here at Legal Schnauzer, suggests that people with close connections to Riley got me fired at UAB. That's the kind of thing that got Palin into ethical hot water in Alaska when her underlings tried to get State Trooper Mike Wooten fired.

(By the way, The Public Record, an independent investigative-journalism
Web site, picked up on our Riley/ethics piece. You can check it out here.)

I noted in my previous post that I think it's unlikely the Alabama Ethics Commission will go after Riley & Co. regarding my termination. But the issue doesn't end there.

What about people within UAB who have participated in my firing?

Let's return to section 36-25-24(c) of the Code of Alabama. And here is our key passage:

No public employee shall file a complaint or OTHERWISE INITIATE ACTION AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE without a good faith basis for believing the the complaint to be true and accurate.

In other words, it's a serious ethical no-no in Alabama to initiate action against a public employee (which I was) when you know the action is based on false information.

I sat through my entire grievance hearing, and it was clear that there was zero documentation or evidence of any kind to support discipline against me, much less termination, under university policy. Evidence suggests that a whole boatload of UAB employees participated in this action, knowing the charges against me were false.

Let's consider the roll call of honor:

* Janice Ward--HR representative for my department

* Anita Bonasera--director of Employee Relations

* Gary Mans--director of Media Relations

* Pam Powell--director of Publications Office (my supervisor)

* Dale Turnbough--associate vice president for public relations and marketing (Powell's supervisor)

* Shirley Salloway Kahn--vice president for development, alumni and external relations (Turnbough's supervisor)

* Carol Garrison--president of UAB (everybody's supervisor)

So there you have it, seven folks going right up the ladder to the top of the university. And I'm not including members of the Board of Trustees (of which Bob Riley is ex oficio president) or University of Alabama System Office, who might have known this was going on--or even helped pull it off.

Did these folks violate Section 36-25-24(c) of the Code of Alabama?

We will be examining that issue in the days and weeks ahead.

Could Bob Riley Develop a Palin Problem?

An Alaska legislative panel recently concluded that Governor Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

That raises this question: Could Alabama Governor Bob Riley face a similar inquiry because of my firing at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)?

Let me say up front that, given our state's political climate, I think it is unlikely that Riley or people close to him would face any investigation regarding my termination. Experience has taught me that Republicans can get away with most anything in Alabama, and that's why they are so corrupt. I see nothing that makes me think that is going to change anytime soon.

But based on actual state law, and the facts as they continue to come forward, I think our question above is a legitimate one.

Under Alabama law, it appears that such an inquiry would be conducted by the Alabama Ethics Commission. If my experience with other regulatory bodies in our state is any indication--Alabama State Bar, Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission--the Ethics Commission probably is not anxious to rock any boats. In other words, for regular citizens like me, it's pretty worthless--or at least that's my guess.

But let's compare the Palin situation in Alaska to what I have experienced in Alabama.

Palin was investigated under Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a), which says in pertinent part:

The legislature reaffirms that each public official holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

That's the law Palin was found to have violated, and it seems pretty straighforward.

The report focused largely on the role Palin's husband, Todd, played in trying to get Trooper Mike Wooten fired. But it held Palin accountable for the actions of her subordinates. Here is the key passage:

The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in "official action" by her inactions if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation].

The bottom line? The Alaska legislative panel found that the governor was accountable for actions by her supporters and subordinates in trying to get a public employee fired.

What's the situation in Alabama? Our ethics law is found in Title 36, Section 25 of the Code of Alabama. The purpose of the law is defined at Section 36-25-2, and it includes language similar to that in the Alaska statute.

Two sections of the Alabama ethics law jump out at me:

* Section 36-25-5 addresses "Use of Official Position or Office for Personal Gain." Personal gain does not appear to be clearly defined, but a "thing of value" does include "favors," such as firing someone you want to have fired. Alaska law did not require a showing that Palin benefited financially from her actions, and Alabama law appears to take a similar approach.

* Section 36-25-24(c) involves discharging or discriminating against a public employee. Here is the key passage:

No public employee shall file a complaint or OTHERWISE INITIATE ACTION AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE without a good faith basis for believing the the complaint to be true and accurate.

My research indicates that people who worked for and supported Bob Riley initiated action against me, a public employee, that led to me being fired. And having sat through my employee grievance hearing at UAB, I know that no one involved in the entire process had a good-faith basis for believing the charges against me--that I used public time and resources for political purposes--were true.

Would the Alabama Ethics Commission hold Bob Riley accountable for the unlawful actions of his supporters?

Well, the head of the Alabama Ethics Commission is a fellow named Jim Sumner. Is he that rare breed in Alabama--a watchdog with a spine?

Perhaps we will be finding out in the not-too-distant future.

A Tale of Two Bloggers: A Postmortem

We recently noted that writing a progressive blog while working at a public university in Alabama can be hazardous to your career health.

Regular readers know it already has been damaging to my career; I was fired at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) on May 19, not because of any misconduct or violations of UAB policy but because I write a blog that apparently upset someone in Alabama's conservative hierarchy.

And as noted in our previous post, I was not the first progressive blogger in my office to encounter tierra infirma while working at UAB. Doug Gillett, my friend and former coworker, had a blog-related problem with university administrators back in 2004.

We have shown numerous differences between Doug's case and my situation, particularly in UAB's handling of the two matters.

Let's recap the Doug Gillett case and see what we learn from it:

* UAB exhibits an astonishing double standard when it comes to dealing with employees on blog-related matters. Doug is a good guy and a friend, and I wholeheartedly supported the decision that allowed him to keep his job. But he clearly violated UAB policy and probably violated state law. I didn't come close to violating anything. Doug still works at UAB; I got fired.

* UAB displays an appalling fondness for age discrimination. Doug was 25ish when his issue arose; I was 51. Doug received unspecified discipline; I got fired.

* The Birmingham News, not surprisingly, exhibits horrendous news judgment in Doug's case. It devotes two stories and an editorial to what most rational people would consider a non-story. This is more coverage than the News gave to a story about blatant research fraud at UAB. In fact, we will soon show you the research-fraud coverage and allow you to compare it to coverage of the Gillett case.

* Alabama's largest newspaper considers it more important that a UAB employee writes a few blog posts and comments on work time than that state judges are blatantly violating their oaths to uphold the law and costing taxpayers millions in the process. Is it little wonder that many Americans consider our state a backwater?

* The Birmingham News reports an interesting statement from Jim Sumner, head of the Alabama Ethics Commission:

Sumner said it would be unenforceable and undesirable to squelch all political speech among state employees during work hours.

"We have to strike a balance," Sumner said. "If it is on a limited basis, that is one thing."

It would be undesirable to squelch all political speech among state employees during work hours? Someone sure forgot to tell UAB President Carol Garrison. UAB's own investigation showed I had not engaged in political speech or activity on work hours, and I still got fired. And audiotaped statements by a UAB HR representative show that I clearly was fired because I write a blog dealing with the Don Siegelman case--even though I did it on my own time. What kind of balance is UAB trying to strike?

In the end, why does Doug Gillett still work at UAB and I do not? It's pretty simple, I think:

* Doug was in his mid 20s at the time his non-issue arose, and under our supervisor Pam Powell, that is a favored age class. I was 51 when my non-issue arose, and that made me expendable in Pam Powell World. Powell's preference for younger people has been obvious for most of my 12 years in the UAB Publications Office, and Powell's superiors have let it go on. In fact, they evidently have encouraged it.

* Doug wrote mainly about his opinions on his blog, and elsewhere. I wrote a lot about new facts, true citizen journalism. It's one thing to criticize Republican poo-bahs in Alabama; it's quite another to expose them for the slimeballs they are. When you do the latter, as I have done, they will try to shut you up--even if they have to break the law to do it.

How very Rovian.

And isn't it interesting that UAB, and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, have placed themselves square in the middle of what someday should be known as the worst political scandal in American history?

A Tale of Two Progressive Bloggers

Writing a progressive blog while working at an Alabama university can be dangerous business. It can be particularly dangerous if your blog ventures beyond the realm of opinion and into the world of citizen journalism

Legal Schnauzer has dared to wade deeply in the citizen-journalism waters, and that probably explains why I no longer am employed at UAB and one of my former coworker is.

I raised this issue in a recent post about my former UAB Periodicals colleague Doug Gillett, who got into some blog-related hot water back in 2004 and received no more than a warning. I, unlike Doug, did not violate UAB policy and was fired. As you probably have guessed, I detect a slight injustice at work here. (The injustice being that I was fired, or disciplined at all for that matter, not that Doug was retained. Doug is a great guy, and I wholeheartedly supported UAB's decision to keep him on board.)

Anyway, I mentioned in the earlier post on this subject that The Birmingham News articles about Doug Gillett's blog-related problems at UAB evidently are not online.

But in a Legal Schnauzer exclusive, we have those stories--and you will see that the News and its right-wing honchos did a splendid job of turning a non-story into quite an event. The News' stories were picked up by Associated Press and run in God only knows how many newspapers around the country.

Before we get into the actual stories, let's consider the news judgment of The Birmingham News. For about five or six years, News editor Tom Scarritt has had access to information that shows irrefutable corruption among Republican judges in Alabama state courts. This includes judges on appellate courts that have jurisdiction over every person in the state. Scarritt has fastidiously ignored that story.

But a 25-ish UAB employee, who happens to be a Democrat and John Kerry supporter, writes a few blog posts and politically oriented e-mails on his work computer? By golly, that merits two stories and an editorial from our friends at the News. No one disputes that Doug was technically in the wrong here. But is that really a news story in comparison to the gross judicial corruption the mainstream media consistently ignores?

Anyway, on to the stories. First, we have the initial story, "broken" by reporter Thomas

Spencer:

UAB EDITOR'S BLOG RAISES LEGAL QUESTIONS

BY THOMAS SPENCER

News staff writer

Doug Gillett, an editor with UAB's creative services department, is passionate about his politics. He has his own Internet blog, titled "George W. Bush, Will You Please Go Now?!," and is the third-most prolific--and one of the most passionate--contributors to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Politics 101 blog.

By noon Thursday, Gillett had generated and posted to the Internet more than 800 words of commentary, pictures and links to articles on his own blog and contributed almost 700 words to the running arguments on Politics 101.

The problem is that he was at work at the time. He's a state employee and was using a UAB computer, and his activities could run him afoul of state elections and ethics laws.

Election law prohibits public employees from using "state, county or city funds, property or time, for any political activities." The state ethics law has a similar prohibition.

Gillett said Thursday that he didn't realize his activities might violate the law.

"Sorry. I did not," Gillett said. "I apologize."

University of Alabama at Birmingham spokeswoman Dale Turnbough said Thursday Gillett will face disciplinary action. "UAB has clear policies against using university time and resources for partisan politics or non-university business and takes violation of those policies seriously," Turnbough said. "We began to look into this matter as soon as it was brought to our attention today, and we will follow up with appropriate disciplinary action in a timely fashion as soon as we conclude our review."

Blogs, short for Web logs, resemble electronic diaries, usually informal in tone but souped up with photos and Web links. Increasingly popular, blogs have been used by war correspondents, political reporters, and ordinary citizens with something to say about any sort of subject.

Jim Sumner, executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission, said the commission hasn't received any complaints about on-the-job blogs, but questions are bound to arise as what was once water cooler conversation is overtaken by email and Internet communication.

Sumner said it would be unenforceable and undesirable to squelch all political speech among state employees during work hours.

"We have to strike a balance," Sumner said. "If it is on a limited basis, that is one thing."

Gillett's postings are voluminous, partisan, well-informed, sometimes funny, and sometimes strident. He's been at it since last July. Thursday, Gillett posted three times to the AJC site before noon, sparring with rival conservative poster "vikter," discussing nuclear inspections and Catholic communion. On his own blog between 8 a.m. and 11:27 a.m., Gillett skewered Republicans President Bush and U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama and praised Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards.

Gillett's blog can be found at georgemustgo.blogspot.com.

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

Now we have the News' editorial on the subject. Yep, you heard that right, this story merited an opinion from the high-minded types at our local rag:

BLOGGING AWAY

UAB EMPLOYEE FINDS ETHICS PROBLEM IN CYBERSPACE

A cover-to-cover reading of the Code of Alabama shouldn't be required for government workers to know it's wrong to use taxpayer resources to engage in a side job, a hobby or a political campaign.

Sure, there are laws pertaining to abuse of public property. But it's so obviously improper that all public employees ought to know better even if they never read the specific prohibitions.

Consider the case of Doug Gillett.

Gillett, an editor with UAB's creative services department, got into a jam this past week when it was disclosed that he'd been heavily involved in on-the-job politicking.

The fact that his political activities were postings on the Internet shouldn't matter. It's also beside the point that Gillett's blogging strongly criticized President George Bush. What matters is that Gillett was using a UAB computer--and his work time--to engage in his political rants.

Gillett says he was unaware that state election laws and ethics laws prohibit government funds, property and time from being used for political activity. But his denials and apologies ring hollow.

For one thing, UAB, like virtually every business, has clear policies barring workers from using equipment or work time for outside activities. Many companies have specific policies addressing the Internet and e-mail. It's hard to imagine a modern-day worker who hasn't gotten a memo about it.

But for the sake of argument, say Gillett was an exception. You'd think he'd still be aware that somebody was paying him to do a job and that he was provided a computer so he could do that job--not so he could update his Web log and sound off on other blogs.

As scandals go, Gillett's isn't the worst to befall Alabama by far. But what Gillett did is the type of misconduct that carries big consequences.

These little affronts don't go unnoticed by taxpayers--and they're certainly not forgotten when some government type comes around asking for more money. Alabamians might not remember the details, but they'll remember that they provided resources for someone to do a job, and that those resources were squandered.

It doesn't take a lawbook to figure that out.

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

Finally, we have the story about UAB administering unspecified discipline in the Gillett case:

UAB TO DISCIPLINE KERRY SPOKESMAN FOR ONLINE POLITICKING AT WORK

A volunteer spokesman for John Kerry's presidential campaign in Alabama will be disciplined for using a computer at his workplace--the University of Alabama at Birmingham--to post Internet messages critical of President Bush.

Doug Gillett, an editor in UAB's creative services department, also is in charge of communications for the Democratic candidate in Alabama. He said he didn't realize he could be violating the law with his online messages. "I apologize," Gillett told The Birmingham News, which first reported his online postings Friday.

University spokeswoman Dale Turnbough said Gillett will face disciplinary action for politicking while on school time. But the fact that Gillett's messages were critical of Bush was not a factor, she said.

"UAB has clear policies against using university time and resources for partisan politics or non-university business and takes violation of those policies seriously," Turnbough said. Gillett's punishment won't be made public, she said, and Gillett declined comment on whether he already had been disciplined.

Gillett has been posting items on the Internet for several months. His electronic Web log, or blog, is titled "George W. Bush, Will You Please Go Now?!" He also is the third-most prolific contributor to an online discussion board affiliated with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Politics 101.

By noon Thursday, Gillett had generated and posted to the Internet more than 800 words of commentary, pictures and links to articles on his own blog and contributed almost 700 words to the running arguments on Politics 101, the News said.

The problem is that Gillett has posted items from work. He's a state employee and was using a UAB computer, and his activities could run him afoul of state elections and ethics laws which bars public employees from using "state, county or city funds, property or time, for any political activities." The state ethics law has a similar prohibition.

Jim Sumner, executive director of the Alabama Ethics Commission, said the commission hasn't received any complaints about on-the-job Web postings. Sumner said it would be unenforceable and undesirable to squelch all political speech among state employees during work hours.

"We have to strike a balance," Sumner said. "If it is on a limited basis, that is one thing."

As the stories make clear, Doug caused a bit of a brouhaha--and some embarrassment, I would guess--for UAB. And technically, he did violate university policy and possibly state law.

I, on the other hand, didn't violate policy or law or anything else--and UAB's own "investigation" showed that. But I'm out of a job after 19 years of service.

As they say in the blogosphere, WTF.

(To be continued)