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.

Judge Dorothea Batiste Achieves A "Modest Victory" With Three-Month Suspension In Disciplinary Trial

Dorothea Batiste

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste has received a three-month suspension from the bench at the conclusion of a three-day disciplinary trial in Montgomery, an outcome her attorneys called a "modest victory."

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) charged Batiste with making improper use of her contempt powers in domestic-relations cases, and she faced possible removal from the bench. But the Court of Judiciary ruled yesterday  afternoon that Batiste should be suspended from the bench for three months.

"The court did find that she violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics, but they gave her far less punishment than what the JIC had argued for," Batiste's lawyer Julian McPhillips said. "The best they had offered us was a 10-month suspension, and she got three months and a reprimand, with no censure.

"We consider it at least a modest victory, against all odds--on a very uneven playing field."

Retired Presiding Judge J. Scott Vowell led the effort to file complaints against Batiste, and her lawyers argued that she was the victim of a vindictive prosecution because of Vowell's anger that she had filed a complaint against him with the Alabama Attorney General's Office.

We reported yesterday that the case against Batiste was driven largely by her decision to do away with a special masters program in her court. That decision proved to be highly unpopular with a number of domestic-relations lawyers who are close to Vowell.

JIC prosecutor Griffin Sikes argued yesterday that Batiste had deprived parties of due process because she had not given them notice or hearings in which they could defend themselves for failing to appear in court. From a report at al.com:

In its opinion this afternoon, the court agreed Batiste had violated due process. "Judge Batiste, the court finds that your conduct has demonstrated a cavalier disregard for the due-process rights of litigants and witnesses guaranteed by both the United States and Alabama constitutions," according to the court's ruling read by J. Michael Joiner, a member of the state criminal court of appeals who also sits as chief judge on the court of the judiciary. "Due process is one of our most basic rights and we find that the violations of these rights, as demonstrated by the evidence presented in this case, are serious."

Batiste's lawyers, however, said the court must have recognized that any improper rulings by Batiste were mild compared to flagrantly unlawful contempt findings issued by other Alabama judges.

One case that was raised in court documents involved Clanton resident Bonnie Cahalane, who was jailed for five months last year by Chilton County Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds--even though black-letter Alabama law says a party cannot be subject to contempt and incarceration due to an alleged debt from dissolution of a marriage. Also, Cahalane's house has been ordered sold, even though the alleged sales agreement was reached with her under the duress of returning to jail, meaning the contract is void.

Has White Judicial Panel Already Stacked The Deck Against Black Alabama Judge Dorothea Batiste?

Dorothea Batiste

The Alabama Court of the Judiciary has ruled that Jefferson County Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste will not be allowed to raise issues of sexual harassment in her disciplinary trial, which starts next week.

Batiste claims that retired Jefferson County Circuit Judge J. Scott Vowell brought charges against her with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment against him to the Alabama Attorney General's Office. Those claims are central to Batiste's defense, but Chief Judge J. Michael Joiner has ruled that she cannot raise them.

"We are going into this with our hands tied," Batiste's lawyer, Julian McPhillips, said. (See link to video at the end of this post.)

That Mike Joiner presides over the Court of the Judiciary, and the Batiste case, should be a major concern to Alabama citizens. Before Governor Robert Bentley appointed him to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Joiner served as a circuit judge in Shelby County. That's where my wife and I first encountered him and quickly learned that he is thoroughly corrupt.

Joiner was the original judge on a groundless lawsuit filed against me by our troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity. We would come to find out that McGarity has an extensive criminal record, with at least eight convictions on his record. McGarity somehow managed to get a job as a bar-code operator at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, even though the company is supposed to conduct stringent background checks because of its status as a federal Medicare contractor. How did Mike McGarity and his lengthy criminal history slip through the cracks? We intend to put that question to Koko Mackin, vice president for corporate communications and community relations at BC/BS of Alabama. 

We also discovered that McGarity has three older brothers who all have criminal records--although two of them, Marshall (suicide) and Bill (AIDS), have died. A third brother, Charles Alan McGarity, has the most "impressive" criminal history of all, with felony convictions for theft and grand larceny standing out on his record.

Mike McGarity's lawsuit against me, under black-letter Alabama law, had to be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) within roughly eight months time. On our first MSJ, McGarity filed no timely or relevant evidence in response to our sworn, material facts, which meant we had to prevail. (See Voyager  Guar. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 631 So. 2d 848, (Ala. Sup. Ct., 1993.) But Joiner ruled against us, violating his oath to uphold the law in the process.

On our second MSJ, McGarity filed no response at all--no answer to our MSJ (which raised issues that had not been raised on the first one); no evidence to counter our sworn, material facts; nothing. Summary judgment can't possibly be denied under search circumstances. Alabama law states that summary judgment is a nondiscretionary ruling. And when the nonmoving party presents no evidence to counter facts presented by the moving party, the facts on record are considered to be uncontroverted and summary judgment MUST be granted. We cited the relevant law in a previous post:

Rule 56(e) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure makes it clear. So does Alabama case law: When a party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment offers no evidence to contradict that presented by the movant, trial court MUST consider the movant's evidence uncontroverted, with no genuine issue of material fact existing." Voyager Guar. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Brown 631 So. 2d 848 (Ala., 1993).

Law doesn't get more simple than that, but Mike Joiner couldn't get it right and denied our second MSJ. That's like having a college math professor who doesn't know that 2 + 2=4.

It's not that Joiner is confoundingly dense, of course. It's that he's corrupt. He ruled against us because McGarity's attorney was William E. Swatek, of Pelham. And as we have reported on numerous occasions, Swatek has a 30-year history of unethical behavior with the Alabama State Bar. He's been disciplined at least three times, including a suspension of his license, and he was tried for perjury in a criminal trial from the early 1980s. Public records show that Swatek unquestionably was guilty as charged, but an Alabama jury somehow voted to acquit.

Joiner stepped down from my case, upon my recusal motion, only after we discovered that he and Swatek are regular golf buddies. Under the law, Joiner was obligated to disclose that conflict at the outset, but he did not do it.

Alabama courtrooms are riddled with rogue judges, but none can be worse than Mike Joiner. And yet, he sits as chief judge of the Alabama Court of Judiciary, he will sit in judgment next week of Judge Dorothea Batiste--and he already has made evidentiary rulings that will keep her from raising key points in her defense.

That means Mike Joiner is a lapdog for the Alabama judicial establishment, led by Scott Vowell, and Judge Batiste almost certainly will be removed from the bench. Overwhelming evidence suggests Batiste is being railroaded and treated in a far more harsh fashion than her colleagues who are white or male--or perform according to Scott Vowell's bidding.

Officially, Batiste is in trouble for making excessive use of her contempt powers in domestic-relations cases. That almost certainly is not the real reason for the charges against her, and the mainstream Alabama press is showing signs of awakening to this unconscionable situation. Consider this from WSFA television station in Montgomery:

"I have known throughout all of this, people were going off into conference rooms, meeting together after hearings, coming up with strategies with how to remove me," Batiste said.

Batiste took office in 2011. She said it didn't take long for problems to arise with the presiding judge. She claims the judge harassed her racially and sexually. She also claims he tried to influence the outcome of certain cases.She said she complained to state officials.

"As that got back to the presiding judge, and the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, which we think we acting as his agent, then certainly the heat was turned up on her greatly," said Julian McPhillips, Batiste's attorney.The presiding judge has since retired. The court ruled those harassment claims will not be factor during the trial, which begins on Monday.

With Mike Joiner sitting as chief judge, and Scott Vowell likely pulling strings from a booth off stage, justice almost certainly will not be served in the case of Dorothea Batiste.


Video: WSFA report on Dorothea Batiste case

AL Judge Dorothea Batiste Claims She's The Target Of A Vindictive Prosecution Directed By Scott Vowell

Dorothea Batiste

Suspended Jefferson County Judge Dorothea Batiste complained to the Alabama Attorney General's office last October that Presiding Judge J. Scott Vowell was harassing her and pressuring her to change orders in divorce cases.

Vowell became aware of Batiste's visit to the AG's office in Montgomery, and his resulting anger helped spur a campaign of complaints against Batiste to the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC), according to court documents filed yesterday. 

Attorney Julian McPhillips urges the Alabama Court of the Judiciary to drop the charges against Batiste, claiming she is the victim of a vindictive prosecution that kicked into high gear when Vowell learned of her AG complaint. (See motion, including summary of Batiste's complaint to AG, at the end of this post.)

A subpoena to Jesse Seroyer, of the Alabama Attorney General's office, produced an "Investigative Report Form" on Batiste's complaint regarding Vowell. McPhillips obtained a copy of the report yesterday and promptly filed a motion asking the Court of the Judiciary to drop the case against his client.

Batiste filed an EEOC complaint, alleging sexual harassment against Vowell, on April 26, 2013. That came just one week after the AJIC formally brought charges against Batiste, and it suggested Batiste might have filed the harassment claims only after learning of the AJIC charges.

The Attorney General's report, however, shows that Batiste first complained about Vowell some seven months before she learned of the AJIC charges. In an affidavit filed with her EEOC complaint, Batiste states that she did not learn Vowell was leading a campaign against her with the AJIC until spring 2013. 

Based on the AG's report, it appears Batiste made official complaints about Vowell long before she knew he had launched a campaign against her with the AJIC.

"This is dynamite in the sense that . . . it confirms and corroborates her complaints," McPhillips. "This shows that, back in October, she didn't know what to do. . . . She didn't know how to handle it, so she came down and made a complaint, and three different people heard it. . . . "

What about the specifics of Batiste complaint from last October? Here is part of the AG's report:

Judge Batiste related that the presiding judge in the 10th circuit, the Hon. J. Scott Vowell, had countermanded her judicial authority as a domestic relations judge on several occasions and had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her on several occasions. 

How ugly did Vowell's behavior become? Again, from the report:

Judge Vowell continued to badger Judge Batiste about her cases and requested frequent personal meetings. Judge Vowell began a routine in which he would call on Fridays to Judge Batiste's office and demand a personal meeting. Judge Batiste advised that during these meetings Judge Vowell was "touchy-feely and always whispering in her ear." This type of behavior began a few months after Judge Batiste took office. She recalled that the first time Judge Vowell acted inappropriately, he placed his hands around her hips when they were alone and told her, "Ain't you a good looking thing. . . . "

Judge Batiste said this type of sexually harassing behavior occurred on [such] a frequent basis that she began to be afraid of being left alone with Judge Vowell. . . . 

In regards to the sexual harassment, Judge Batiste advised that she had only told members of her immediate family about Judge Vowell's inappropriate advances. Judge Batiste advised that she was embarrassed to tell people about the sexual-harassment issues due to the fact that "it's not supposed to happen to me. I'm a judge."

A recent federal case in the Northern District of Alabama, styled U.S. v. Brown, 862 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (2012), addresses both selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. McPhillips argues that both issues are present in the JIC case against Batiste. From the Brown ruling:  

Brown has alleged both selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. Vindictive prosecution is distinguishable from selective prosecution in that vindictive prosecution arises when the severity of the charges against a defendant is increased after the defendant exercises a constitutional right after criminal charges have begun, while selective prosecution occurs when a person is prosecuted based on an immutable personal characteristic, such as race or religion, or in response to some constitutionally-protected act that a person has done prior to the criminal charge being brought against him.

In the motion filed yesterday, McPhillips argues that his client suffered because she exercised her constitutional right to file a complaint with the Alabama Attorney General's office--and that goes to the vindictive nature of Scott Vowell's claims against her. From the McPhillips motion:

Judge Batiste requests that this court consider Judge Batiste's third affirmative defense of sexual harassment and retaliation to be amplified to include vindictive prosecution by Scott Vowell, who has used the AJIC and his close friends on the AJIC to punish Judge Batiste for her sexual harassment allegations to the Alabama Attorney General's office.

Dorothea Batiste Vindictive Prosecution by Roger Shuler

Records Show That Black AL Judge Dorothea Batiste Received Harsher Treatment Than White Colleague

Dorothea Batiste

Perhaps the most important term in a discrimination action is "comparator." Often used in employment cases, comparator refers to someone who is "similarly situated" but is outside the complainant's protected class (based on race, gender, age, etc.) If it is shown that the comparator was treated more favorably than the complainant, it might prove a case for discrimination.

In the pending disciplinary action against Alabama Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste, it probably would be hard to find a more perfect comparator than Suzanne Childers, who perhaps is best known for toting a gun to court. Both women sat as judges in the Domestic Relations Division of Jefferson County. Both did not hesitate to use contempt powers in cases where it appeared parties were ignoring court orders.

The record presents one glaring difference between the two women--Batiste is black, and Childers is white. Here is another difference: Batiste is facing possible sanctions from the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) for allegedly making excessive use of her contempt powers; Childers never faced such an inquiry, even though records show her use of contempt power dwarfed that of Batiste.

Does that suggest the AJIC is going after Batiste because of the color of her skin? Put more bluntly, does it mean the AJIC is a racist organization?

A review of documents in the Batiste case could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the answer to both questions is yes.

Julian McPhillips, the Montgomery-based attorney who represents Batiste, puts the discrimination question front and center in a Motion for Summary Judgment that calls for the charges against Batiste to be dropped. (See summary judgment motion at the end of this post.)

Central to Batiste's defense is her contention that AJIC rules preclude investigation of a judge for alleged erroneous rulings, absent evidence of bad faith. And Batiste claims that the AJIC does not even make firm allegations of bad faith, much less present any evidence of it. From the summary judgment motion:

Even though the AJIC only sparsely hints at bad faith, in the alternative, the fact is that the AJIC cannot point to one shred of evidence that Judge Batiste did engage in bad faith. As such, the AJIC does not meet the requirement of its own rules, which state:

"It (AJIC) does not review either final judgments or allegations of legal error or abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith."

As has been amply argued in the preceding pages of this motion and brief, there is a total absence of bad faith on the part of Judge Batiste, and as a result Judge Batiste is due to receive summary judgment in her favor on this issue.

As aforestated, all the complaints against her revolve around her allegedly misguided or misinformed use of the contempt power in a court proceeding. The AJIC Rules do not allow the AJIC or the Court of the Judiciary to review either "allegations of legal error or abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith." But that is what the AJIC has done. Hence, Judge Batiste is entitled to summary judgment.

McPhillips makes a powerful case. He argues  that, even if Batiste mistakenly used her contempt powers, that does not mean she did so in bad faith--and the AJIC has neither alleged nor shown that she acted in bad faith. Based on the commission's own rules, it is not allowed to investigate Batiste's actions, much less impose discipline upon her.

Suzanne Childers

The argument becomes even more powerful when McPhillips turns his attention to five contempt orders issued by Batiste's white colleague, Suzanne Childers.  (See copies of the contempt orders in exhibits at the end of this post.) Here is a summary of what they show:

Finally, reflecting on a standard for measuring Judge Batiste's good faith, when compared to other judges, are five copies of orders from a white female judge, Suzanne Childers, all in 2011-2012 (the same time period Batiste is being questioned about), wherein Judge Childers confined parties, respectively, for 325 days, 520 days, 310 days, 355 days, and 255 days. By contrast, the most Judge Batiste ever ordered someone confined was for 12 days, and usually no more than 2-3 days. (See Exhibits H, I, J, K and L.)

Those numbers are staggering, so let's put them in perspective. Childers confined one party for more than one year, three others for almost one year each, and another for almost nine months.

But Dorothea Batiste is the one on trial for excessive use of contempt power?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Shelby County v. Holder, recently overturned a key section of the Voting Rights Act by more or less stating that we no longer have reason to worry much about mistreatment of racial minorities in Alabama.

You never would know it from studying the case of Dorothea Batiste.

Dorothea Batiste Summary Judgment by Roger Shuler

Dorothea Batiste Childers Exhibits by Roger Shuler

Alabama Judicial Commission Violates Its Own Rules In Investigation Of Jeffco Judge Dorothea Batiste

Dorothea Batiste

The Alabama Supreme Court should take over the case against Jefferson County Judge Dorothea Batiste, in part, because the state's judicial inquiry commission has repeatedly violated its own rules in launching an investigation.

That is at the heart of a petition from Batiste attorney Julian McPhillips, asking the state's high court to take jurisdiction and issue a restraining order against the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (AJIC) and its Court of the Judiciary. (See Part 1 and Part 2 of the petition and Batiste's response at the end of this post.)

In a letter accompanying the petition, McPhillips notes that complaints largely have come from former Jefferson County presiding judge Scott Vowell and not from litigants or parties who appeared before Judge Batiste. "To allow complaints stimulated by a third party such as Vowell . . . ," McPhillips writes, "violates the Code of Alabama's grant of authority to the AJIC."

McPhillips goes on to state:

This case has morphed into an abuse of process, because the AJIC has allowed itself to be transformed into a Super Appellate Court of Alabama to review decisions of Judge Batiste, even when the litigants are not complaining. 

It is also obvious that Scott Vowell has developed a runaway ego, in which he is power-tripping by trying to show Judge Batiste that he is more powerful than she, and that, by golly, if he complains, he's going to make the complaint stick.

How did the AJIC violate its own rules? McPhillips points to two primary issues. 

First, the main charge against Batiste is that she abused her discretionary contempt power against parties and witnesses who failed to appear in court. The commission's handbook for judges, McPhillips states, includes the following language:

The Commission . . . does not review . . . abuse of judicial discretion during a court proceeding absent evidence of bad faith.  

That seems clear-cut, but McPhillips says the commission does not seem to be familiar with its own handbook:

Nowhere in the 38-page AJIC complaint with 23 pages of exhibits is there any allegation that Judge Batiste engaged in bad faith, notwithstanding that the 147-paragraph complaint basically alleges abuses of discretion by Batiste in the use of her contempt power.

McPhillips then points to AJIC Rule 6 (concerning "Investigations"), which states:

Investigations may be instituted by the Commission only upon a verified complaint filed either by a member of the public or by a member of the commission . . .

Is the commission following its own rule. McPhillips says it's not even close:

Almost all of the complaints Scott Vowell has forwarded to the AJIC contain an unverified typed letter in which Judge Vowell purports to pass on complaints of unhappy litigants, which complaints are mostly also unverified. Many of these complaints do not reflect the subject matter of the complaint, or whether it was a litigant or attorney who was unhappy. These complaints are essentially anonymous, contrary to AJIC rules.

  

Scott Vowell

McPhillips questions the AJIC's motives in the Batiste case, noting that Vowell apparently enjoys cozy relationships with several commission members, including Judge Randall Cole, Judge/Chairman P. Ben McLauchlin Sr., and Attorney Amanda Dowd. Then McPhillips notes the absurd nature of some charges in the Batiste complaint. Much of this would be comical--if the charges were not so serious:

The AJIC has . . .  allowed former Jefferson County presiding Circuit Judge Scott Vowell to further abuse the process of the AJIC by stirring up litigants, witnesses, and attorneys, unhappy with Judge Batiste's divorce court rulings, through encouraging them, or assisting them, in filing multiple complaints against Ms. Batiste. Many of said complaints are frivolous or nonsensical. Some even involved two attorneys long since dead, namely Rusty Wright and Chris Christ. Indeed, one such frivolous complaint even involved a litigant supposedly unhappy with a continuation of the misspelling by Judge Batiste's office of the litigant's name, notwithstanding that the original misspelling began with the litigant's attorney. Reflecting his bad faith, Judge Vowell even encouraged this complaint.

Dorothea Batiste Petition I by Roger Shuler

Dorothea Batiste Petition II by Roger Shuler

Black, Female Judge Draws Suspension In Alabama On Actions That Draw A Pass For White, Male Judge

Alabama Judge Sibley
Reynolds (second from right)
at a hunting club.

A black, female judge in Alabama has been suspended on allegations that she issued unlawful contempt citations in divorce cases. Meanwhile, a white male judge in Alabama has received no known discipline for issuing a contempt order that caused a woman to be unlawfully incarcerated in a divorce case last year.

Are racism, sexism, and corruption alive and well in a Deep South court system? Are Alabama courtrooms, long infested with a hunting-club culture among lawyers and judges, operating like artifacts from the 1930s?

With news yesterday that Jefferson County Circuit Judge Dorothea Batiste has been suspended from the bench, the answer to both questions appears to be yes. That is especially true when the allegations against Baptiste are compared to the actions of Chilton County Circuit Judge Sibley Reynolds.

We have reported on multiple federal lawsuits that allege Alabama judges and attorneys meet at hunting clubs to fix divorce cases. Judge Reynolds, based on the photo above (plus others that we've received from at least one Web site) clearly is active on the hunting-club scene. We've seen no signs that Judge Batiste enjoys hanging out in the woods, shooting wild animals, and cutting corrupt deals with white divorce lawyers.

Is that why Batiste finds herself on suspension, while Reynolds seems to make unlawful rulings at will from his perch in central Alabama? Do hunting-club judges receive hands-off treatment, while those outside the clique are singled out for sanctions? Sure looks that way from here.

What made Batiste a target of the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC)? Here is how a report at al.com explains it:

Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Dorothea Batiste has been suspended from the bench with pay after the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission last week filed a complaint against her stating she had entered unlawful contempt orders for the arrest of parties or witnesses in divorce cases.

An attorney for Batiste this evening denied the allegations in the complaint, saying the charges against her were being led by a former Jefferson County judge. He said a judge must have the power to issue contempt charges or lose control of the courtroom.

"The whole thing is a huge travesty of justice," said Julian McPhillips, attorney for Batiste.

McPhillips says retired Jefferson County Judge Scott Vowell is leading the attack against Batiste. That is the same Scott Vowell, who as presiding judge, allowed hunting-club corruption to become a major issue in domestic-relations court. (The full JIC complaint can be viewed at the end of this post.)

Here are more specifics on the charges against Batiste:

The [JIC] complaint states the allegations are based on Batiste's violation of Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics "through her repeated failure in 2011 and 2012 to comply with both Alabama and federal law regarding her exercise of contempt power . . . in a series of domestic relations cases in Jefferson County Circuit Court ("the subject cases") in which Judge Batiste entered unauthorized, unwarranted, and unlawful orders for the arrest and jailing or incarceration of litigants or witnesses."

Let's compare that to the actions of Judge Sibley Reynolds in the case of Clanton resident Bonnie Cahalane (Knox) Wyatt. As we reported in a series of posts last year, Ms. Wyatt spent almost five months in jail because of her failure to pay a property-related debt in a divorce case.

Dorothea Batiste

Black-letter Alabama law--best stated in Dolberry v. Dolberry, 920 So. 2d 573 (Ala. Civ. App, 2005)--makes it unlawful for a judge to subject a party to contempt and incarceration because of a property-related debt from the dissolution of a marriage. The law is even more clear cut than that, as we explained in a post last November:

It's not as if the controlling law is complicated. Sec. 20 of the Alabama Constitution (1901) plainly states that "no person shall be imprisoned for debt." A search through case law reveals one exception to that general rule, but it does not apply to Bonnie Wyatt's situation. That means she has been unlawfully jailed for almost four months . . . and counting.

Despite clear prohibitions under Alabama law, Judge Reynolds kept Bonnie Wyatt locked up for almost five months. As I write this, Ms. Wyatt is being forced to sell her home, based on an "agreement" that was reached at the threat of her returning to jail. A contract reached under such duress is unlawful, but Ms. Wyatt's house could be sold any day now.

Has Reynolds faced sanctions for his unlawful actions? Apparently not, and multiple readers have told me they have filed JIC complaints against Reynolds. The response from the commission, so far, has been silence.

It certainly is possible that Dorothea Batiste has made mistakes in her brief time on the bench; the JIC complaint portrays a judge who has a tendency to be heavy-handed. But our primary question is this:  Would Judge Batiste be home free if she took part in Alabama's hunting-club scene--if she followed Sibley Reynolds' lead and donned camouflage gear to hang out in the woods and cut deals?

The answer, in my view, is yes.

Dorothea Batiste JIC by Roger Shuler

Did Appellate Court Screw Don Siegelman? You betcha

How bad was the recent appellate ruling that upheld the convictions of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy?

So bad that even a lawyer publicly criticized it.

Experience has taught me that some lawyers will, in private, admit that our justice system is a mess. Some, in hushed tones, will even tell you about specific lawyers they know to be shysters and judges they know to be corrupt.

But a lawyer criticize the system in a public forum? That's real man bites dog stuff.

I'm guessing there are several reasons for that. One, most lawyers make a far better living in the legal profession than they would make in another field of endeavor--say, journalism. Two, angry judges can take quite a toll on a lawyer and his clients in the courtroom--over time that can cause the bottom line of a law practice to take a serious hit. And three, I suspect state bar associations have interesting ways of making life miserable for a lawyer who dares to publicly pull the mask off the legal beast.

So there are many factors that discourage lawyers from rocking the professional boat. But Julian McPhillips, a prominent attorney in Montgomery, Alabama, was so disgusted by the ruling on the Siegelman/Scrushy appeal that he decided to rock the boat anyway--at least a little bit.

Some might say that McPhillips is not an objective observer in this case. He is a longtime Democrat, running for the U.S. Senate in 2002, and he has represented Richard Scrushy. But McPhillips makes a number of compelling points about the ruling from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the end, he actually goes easy on the court.

Given the all-Republican makeup of the three-judge panel, we've noted that the Siegelman team probably expected to be cheated. McPhillips apparently was thinking along the same lines:

To say the court split hairs, bent over backward to reach ill-founded conclusions and ignored important issues is a vast understatement.

The court also established a bad precedent in glossing over out-of-court juror e-mails, which revealed great bias of the jurors involved. The trial court dismissed these e-mails without investigation, and the 11th Circuit ignored this oversight.
McPhillips says the appellate court got it wrong on the central issue in the Siegelman case: Was there an explicit quid pro quo, a something-for-something agreement, as required by law?

The 11th Circuit also split hairs in distinguishing the difference between "explicit" and "express" on the quid pro quo issue. That is, was there enough evidence of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours?" The court said there was sufficient circumstantial evidence, primarily the contribution itself.

Yet, it is undisputed that former Siegelman aide Nick Bailey, a government witness, never witnessed a single conversation between Siegelman and Scrushy indicating agreement for a Certificate of Need Board seat in return for a lottery fund contribution. Remember, also, the goal of the lottery was to promote public education, not the election of Siegelman.

Even the 11th Circuit was strained, bending over backward, to explain the difference between the alleged Siegelman-Scrushy bribery and the widespread practice of a politician doing a favor for a contributor.

McPhillips points out that neither Siegelman nor Scrushy were newbies to the area of political contributions. So it's hard to figure why either would knowingly violate the law:

It is significant that Siegelman was a former Alabama secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor. He was no bumbling novice. Through his 20 years of government service, he learned well the parameters of permissible behavior. He knew well what was kosher in the murky field of contributions and appointments. Neither Siegelman nor Scrushy possessed the most remote idea that what they were doing was illegal--or that what they were convicted of was illegal.

Who is the biggest loser from the 11th Circuit's warped reasoning? McPhillips has some disquieting thoughts on that subject:

Sadly, the biggest casualty resulting from this conviction and affirmation by the 11th Circuit is the Alabama and national political system. In the past, children yearned to be governor of a state or president of the United States. College-age students found excitement in the political process and saw political power as a means to achieve worthy results, such as improved education for all students, regardless of station in life.

Today, with this conviction and affirmation, few people with sense would want to be governor, recognizing that, while politics is the vehicle for election, politics also makes you a target for prosecution for campaign contributions you receive. The bigger you are politically, the more you are "big game." Regrettably, but undoubtedly, our judicial and political systems are broken.

For another take on the Siegelman appellate ruling, check out Glynn Wilson's analysis at Locust Fork News-Journal.

As for McPhillips, I applaud his willingness to stand up and criticize a clearly botched ruling. But because he's a lawyer, he still has to pull his punches somewhat.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have to pull any punches. We've been studying the 68-page ruling and will present a detailed critique in the coming days.

Our conclusion? The three judges on the 11th-Circuit panel pulled a colossal screw job. And we will show you exactly how they did it.

Siegelman Eleventh Circuit Ruling by Roger Shuler