Tommy Stevenson, of the Tuscaloosa News, is the first Alabama print journalist to interview Don Siegelman after the former governor's recent release from federal prison pending appeal of his conviction on corruption charges.
Stevenson produces an important piece, not only about the Siegelman case but about America's justice system as a whole.
"This is not about Don Siegelman, and it's not about the Alabama case," (Siegelman) said in his first interview with an Alabama newspaper since being released from a federal prison in Oakdale, La. "This is about America, it is about finding out who hijacked the Department of Justice and used it as a political tool to win elections."
Stevenson reports that Siegelman had just returned from two days in Washington conferring with U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Siegelman said he is willing to testify before Congress about his case "or anything else they want me to do."
"I tried to make clear to Congressman Conyers that, to me, above everything else, [my case is about] making it clear to anyone who might think that they can get away with this in the future that they won't be able to," Siegelman said.
Siegelman has maintained that he was targeted by political operatives, particularly Rove, the President George W. Bush's former chief political advisor. "So they've got to find out who is responsible, hold them responsible and make a clear and unequivocal statement that Congress and people of this country are not going to tolerate people taking over the Department of Justice and using it as a political tool," he said.
Stevenson provides an update on the legal status of Siegelman's appeal:
"We have not filed the appeal yet and have until the 23rd of May to do so," Siegelman said. "But you have to remember, that on an appeal, only what happened in the courtroom is relevant and you have to find errors to have action taken. I could get thrown back in Oakdale, I could get a new trial, I could get a new trial on one issue or not the other, or the court could reverse the conviction and I would be a free man."
Comments from Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn provide insight on the heart of Siegelman's appeal:
"We think there were some problems with Judge [Mark] Fuller's instructions to the jury about what constitutes a bribe — that there has to be a quid pro quo involved and there was never any testimony that there was," he said. 'There were also several issues we tried to bring up in the case that the judge would not let us do that we think bear looking at."
Saturday, April 19, 2008
UAB's Singing Quarterback Goes to CD
Whenever we need a break from tales of corrupt judges and lawyers, we tend to focus on news about music. Usually, we turn our attention to something connected to Taylor Hicks, Birmingham's most recent American Idol and the "official musician of Legal Schnauzer."
A few weeks back, we did a post about Sam Hunt, who was a senior quarterback last season for UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) and also happens to be a pretty darned good singer. We noted that several of his teammates had encouraged Hunt to try out for American Idol, following in the footsteps of Hicks, Ruben Studdard, and Bo Bice. Now that his college football career is over, Hunt just might give it a try. The auditions for 2009 Idol would be the earliest he could give it a shot.
Our post included a rather shaky video of Hunt's performance with the UAB Gospel Choir, performing a tribute song, "Nothing Goes Unnoticed," honoring the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Now we learn that Hunt's performance will be part of the UAB Gospel Choir's newest CD and accompanying DVD, "Gospel 101: Go Dominate."
The choir will unveil the new CD and DVD at its spring concert at 7 p.m. on Monday at the Alys Stephens Center on the UAB campus. Should be a fun event.
We've heaped plenty of criticism on The Birmingham News for its one-sided political coverage in Alabama. But the paper does some good stuff, too, and today's piece on the UAB Gospel Choir, by staff writer Greg Garrison, is one example.
Garrison notes that the rise of UAB's gospel choir has coincided with an explosion in the academic study of gospel music nationally. In fact, after UAB started its gospel choir, 17 other universities started gospel choirs modeled on the UAB program.
"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery," says Kevin Turner, director of the choir. "That says you're doing something right."
A few weeks back, we did a post about Sam Hunt, who was a senior quarterback last season for UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) and also happens to be a pretty darned good singer. We noted that several of his teammates had encouraged Hunt to try out for American Idol, following in the footsteps of Hicks, Ruben Studdard, and Bo Bice. Now that his college football career is over, Hunt just might give it a try. The auditions for 2009 Idol would be the earliest he could give it a shot.
Our post included a rather shaky video of Hunt's performance with the UAB Gospel Choir, performing a tribute song, "Nothing Goes Unnoticed," honoring the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Now we learn that Hunt's performance will be part of the UAB Gospel Choir's newest CD and accompanying DVD, "Gospel 101: Go Dominate."
The choir will unveil the new CD and DVD at its spring concert at 7 p.m. on Monday at the Alys Stephens Center on the UAB campus. Should be a fun event.
We've heaped plenty of criticism on The Birmingham News for its one-sided political coverage in Alabama. But the paper does some good stuff, too, and today's piece on the UAB Gospel Choir, by staff writer Greg Garrison, is one example.
Garrison notes that the rise of UAB's gospel choir has coincided with an explosion in the academic study of gospel music nationally. In fact, after UAB started its gospel choir, 17 other universities started gospel choirs modeled on the UAB program.
"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery," says Kevin Turner, director of the choir. "That says you're doing something right."
Jim Gundlach: Kudos for a Whistleblower
Retired Auburn University professor Jim Gundlach is a courageous fellow. He has taken on college football and Republican politicians--in Alabama, of all places. That's like going to Mecca and raising questions about the Prophet Muhammad.
Speaking truth to power has caused Gundlach all kinds of headaches. Auburn administrators, he says, made his life so miserable that he chose to retire when he did not really want to.
But Gundlach is receiving some much-deserved recognition. Today in Memphis, he receives the Drake Group's 2008 Robert Maynard Hutchins Award. The award goes to a person who the group believes shows courage in standing up for academic integrity in the face of commercialized college sports. The Drake Group consists of past and present faculty members and athletics department employees who are trying to reform big-time college athletics.
In July 2006, Gundlach revealed to The New York Times that a disproportionate number of athletes at Auburn received high grades for independent study courses that required little or no work. As a result of Gundlach's revelations, Auburn announced limits on the number of students whose independent study can be supervised by a single professor. And the professor in question, Thomas Petee, was removed as department chairman.
By making these moves, Auburn seemed to be acknowledging there was a problem. But that didn't keep administrators from giving Gundlach a hard time:
These days, Gundlach says, he misses working with students. He does some data consulting work but laments he spends too much time with his dogs and not enough with people.
He retired last May, he said, as a result of Auburn administrators "making my life miserable" after his data and comments became public.
"I just reached the point where I couldn't stand to be around the place anymore," he said. "And I felt a whole lot better very quickly after I left. I started sleeping regularly again."
The award from the Drake Group has nothing to with Gundlach's other courageous act--his academic paper showing that Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial election almost certainly was stolen by Republican operatives, giving Bob Riley a narrow victory over Don Siegelman, who had appeared to be the winner on the night of the election. Gundlach's paper showed that changing vote totals in Baldwin County, a Republican stronghold, almost had to be the result of intentional electronic manipulation of data and could not have been caused by a computer "glitch" as election officials claimed.
I would bet that Gundlach's paper on the 2002 election had a lot to do with the harassment he received from Auburn administrators. Due to his position as governor, Bob Riley also serves as president of the Auburn Board of Trustees. My understanding that the governor's role on such boards is usually ceremonial. But could Riley have used his influence to lead a harassment campaign against Gundlach? I don't think there's any question about it. Certainly wouldn't want someone to practice academic freedom at our state's largest university.
Speaking truth to power has caused Gundlach all kinds of headaches. Auburn administrators, he says, made his life so miserable that he chose to retire when he did not really want to.
But Gundlach is receiving some much-deserved recognition. Today in Memphis, he receives the Drake Group's 2008 Robert Maynard Hutchins Award. The award goes to a person who the group believes shows courage in standing up for academic integrity in the face of commercialized college sports. The Drake Group consists of past and present faculty members and athletics department employees who are trying to reform big-time college athletics.
In July 2006, Gundlach revealed to The New York Times that a disproportionate number of athletes at Auburn received high grades for independent study courses that required little or no work. As a result of Gundlach's revelations, Auburn announced limits on the number of students whose independent study can be supervised by a single professor. And the professor in question, Thomas Petee, was removed as department chairman.
By making these moves, Auburn seemed to be acknowledging there was a problem. But that didn't keep administrators from giving Gundlach a hard time:
These days, Gundlach says, he misses working with students. He does some data consulting work but laments he spends too much time with his dogs and not enough with people.
He retired last May, he said, as a result of Auburn administrators "making my life miserable" after his data and comments became public.
"I just reached the point where I couldn't stand to be around the place anymore," he said. "And I felt a whole lot better very quickly after I left. I started sleeping regularly again."
The award from the Drake Group has nothing to with Gundlach's other courageous act--his academic paper showing that Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial election almost certainly was stolen by Republican operatives, giving Bob Riley a narrow victory over Don Siegelman, who had appeared to be the winner on the night of the election. Gundlach's paper showed that changing vote totals in Baldwin County, a Republican stronghold, almost had to be the result of intentional electronic manipulation of data and could not have been caused by a computer "glitch" as election officials claimed.
I would bet that Gundlach's paper on the 2002 election had a lot to do with the harassment he received from Auburn administrators. Due to his position as governor, Bob Riley also serves as president of the Auburn Board of Trustees. My understanding that the governor's role on such boards is usually ceremonial. But could Riley have used his influence to lead a harassment campaign against Gundlach? I don't think there's any question about it. Certainly wouldn't want someone to practice academic freedom at our state's largest university.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Conyers Has Rove in His Sights
Remember last fall's U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on selective prosecution?
We sure do. That's when Legal Schnauzer officially made it into the halls of Congress, thanks to references to our reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Those references came in documents entered by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). (Sorry, but couldn't pass up an opportunity for self promotion.)
Like many of you, I've been wondering ever since what was going to come next. Today, we found out.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced three actions today on the issue of selective prosecution. He invited former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove to testify regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution; he urged the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate allegations of selective prosecution; and he demanded that Attorney General Michael Mukasey provide additional documents on the subject.
Letters and the Majority Staff Report on selective prosecution can be viewed here.
We sure do. That's when Legal Schnauzer officially made it into the halls of Congress, thanks to references to our reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Those references came in documents entered by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). (Sorry, but couldn't pass up an opportunity for self promotion.)
Like many of you, I've been wondering ever since what was going to come next. Today, we found out.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers announced three actions today on the issue of selective prosecution. He invited former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove to testify regarding the Don Siegelman prosecution; he urged the Office of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate allegations of selective prosecution; and he demanded that Attorney General Michael Mukasey provide additional documents on the subject.
Letters and the Majority Staff Report on selective prosecution can be viewed here.
Alice Martin Gets Off the Perjury Hook
How do you lie under oath and get away with?
Evidently it helps to be a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney in the Bush Justice Department. That's the only conclusion we can make from news today that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has been cleared of perjury allegations.
The allegations stem from Martin's deposition related to an EEOC complaint filed against her office in 2004 by a former employee. Deirdra Brown-Fleming, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Huntsville Office, filed complaints alleging that Martin had perjured herself when she testified under oath about events leading up to Brown-Fleming's termination in 2002.
But the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Alabama State Bar made no finding of wrongdoing.
The EEOC in 2007 found that Brown-Fleming's firing was retaliatory and ordered Brown-Fleming and her former supervisor, Victor Conrad, to be reinstated with back pay and other benefits.
In a post dated September 8, 2007, Harper's Scott Horton made it abundantly clear that Martin lied under oath in the Brown-Fleming deposition.
First, we should consider exactly what perjury means. A good definition, drawn from the U.S. Code, can be found here.
Here's how Horton, a Columbia University law professor, assessed the case against Martin:
There are of course all sorts of technical defenses that can be raised to a perjury charge. Perjury is not frequently charged all by itself. It tends to be an add-on. I am sure that Martin’s counsel has formulated a rafter of defenses to the accusation.
But we’re dealing with a sitting U.S. attorney who gave false evidence under oath in a legal proceeding–the same U.S. attorney who leveled charges of corruption and obstruction against Governor (Don) Siegelman. The conclusion of the (EEOC's) proceedings on Brown’s claim was that Martin’s testimony was “not worthy of credence.” I’ll say. But how can a person who behaves in such a way–let’s put it as mildly as possible–as cavalierly with the truth, under oath, in legal proceedings–serve as a United States Attorney?
Evidently it helps to be a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney in the Bush Justice Department. That's the only conclusion we can make from news today that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has been cleared of perjury allegations.
The allegations stem from Martin's deposition related to an EEOC complaint filed against her office in 2004 by a former employee. Deirdra Brown-Fleming, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Huntsville Office, filed complaints alleging that Martin had perjured herself when she testified under oath about events leading up to Brown-Fleming's termination in 2002.
But the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and the Alabama State Bar made no finding of wrongdoing.
The EEOC in 2007 found that Brown-Fleming's firing was retaliatory and ordered Brown-Fleming and her former supervisor, Victor Conrad, to be reinstated with back pay and other benefits.
In a post dated September 8, 2007, Harper's Scott Horton made it abundantly clear that Martin lied under oath in the Brown-Fleming deposition.
First, we should consider exactly what perjury means. A good definition, drawn from the U.S. Code, can be found here.
Here's how Horton, a Columbia University law professor, assessed the case against Martin:
There are of course all sorts of technical defenses that can be raised to a perjury charge. Perjury is not frequently charged all by itself. It tends to be an add-on. I am sure that Martin’s counsel has formulated a rafter of defenses to the accusation.
But we’re dealing with a sitting U.S. attorney who gave false evidence under oath in a legal proceeding–the same U.S. attorney who leveled charges of corruption and obstruction against Governor (Don) Siegelman. The conclusion of the (EEOC's) proceedings on Brown’s claim was that Martin’s testimony was “not worthy of credence.” I’ll say. But how can a person who behaves in such a way–let’s put it as mildly as possible–as cavalierly with the truth, under oath, in legal proceedings–serve as a United States Attorney?
Quite easily, it appears, in the age of Rove. How strong was the case against Martin.
Consider that the heart of the case was Brown-Fleming's allegation that she was fired for helping Conrad file an EEOC complaint against Martin. Martin stated under oath that she did not know about Conrad's EEOC complaint until March 2003, almost a year after she had fired Brown.
But evidence showed that she received a December 20, 2001, letter, delivered by FedEx, which set out the Conrad claim in considerable detail. Later, in March 2002, she received an e-mail from Will Chambers, head of the Huntsville U.S. Attorney's office, spelling out Conrad's claims and noting Brown-Fleming's assistance in the matter.
Horton sums it up, after quoting from the Chambers e-mail:
There you have it: Martin did know in some detail about Conrad’s EEO claim. She did know about Brown’s work with Conrad to put it together and push it forward. And her reaction was to fire Brown.
The bottom line? The evidence was overwhelming that Alice Martin committed perjury. But the Bush Justice Department let her off. Is anyone really surprised by this?
As for the Alabama State Bar, I've seen firsthand how worthless it can be and how it is prone to ignore its own Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Martin perjury case involves some curious jurisdictional issues that I don't understand. Why was Alice Martin not tried in a court of law, as would have happened if you or I had lied so blatantly under oath? I can only assume it's because her alleged crimes took place in her own district. Perhaps procedure calls for such a case to be heard by the Office of Professional Responsibility. But how would Martin have fared before a jury of her peers? Not so well, I have a feeling. It seems Brown-Fleming's claims should be heard by a true tribunal.
Martin might have been cleared on perjury charges, but we will show here at Legal Schnauzer that she has no problems lying to the public, the people whom she is supposed to serve. I've got an e-mail exchange that will show you how, in her own words, Queen Alice plays fast and loose with the truth and intentionally cheats victims of crimes.
Scott Horton's words from September 2007 still ring true:
Back when I started writing about the U.S. attorneys scandal, I got flooded with personal accounts of dealings and encounters with Alice Martin—they came in from attorneys, businessmen, political figures, and prosecutors who work for her, and even a judge. And not a single person had a positive thing to say about Martin. Many expressed questions about her professional competence—and her handling of the HealthSouth case may be the basis for some lasting judgments on that score. But in others she was characterized as mean-spirited, mercurial, petty, vindictive, and extremely partisan. Indeed, her extreme partisanship was a consistent theme of comment.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The Civil Side of the Siegelman Saga
Coverage of the Don Siegelman case has focused almost exclusively on criminal issues. But it seems to me that major civil litigation could eventually be a byproduct of the criminal case.
And I think the same thing could be said of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has produced three political prisoners--attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
If it is proven that the Bush Justice Department prosecuted the Siegelman and Minor cases for political and unlawful reasons, what kind of lawsuits might that generate?
Let's consider the Siegelman case first. The former Alabama governor has spent nine months in federal prison. He recently said on national television that he is "busted" financially and any hopes he had of pursuing future political opportunities are ruined. His legal bills probably run into the hundreds of thousands. And one can only imagine the stress that he and his family have endured because of the Bush DOJ prosecution.
The defendants in the Minor case have been through similar ordeals. They were sentenced in September 2007, and Minor went almost immediately to federal prison. Wes Teel and John Whitfield reported to federal prison in late December. Minor has been fined $4.25 million, 15 times the district court guidelines for such a case. All three men have had to deal with personal and/or family health crises while imprisoned.
What if it is shown that both of these prosecutions were fraudulent, that none of the defendants actually committed federal crimes and Justice Department officials knew it from the outset?What if it is shown that these men were prosecuted and convicted not because they committed crimes but because they were active Democrats at a time when Republicans controlled the U.S. Justice Department?
What kind of lawsuits might result from such findings? How many millions of dollars might juries award the defendants for their extreme suffering? Can you put enough zeroes on the end of a check to sufficiently compensate these victims?
And here's the big question: Who might be held liable for damages in such lawsuits? I, of course, am not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not an expert on the kind of complex civil litigation we are talking about here. But here are a few thoughts, based on my own experiences and research regarding civil law:
* In general, judges and prosecutors are immune from lawsuits as long as they act within their official capacity. But what if it is shown that judges and prosecutors knew from the outset these cases were bogus? Judicial and prosecutorial immunity is not absolute. Could facts surface that would cause serious problems for folks like Mark Fuller, Leura Canary, and Louis Franklin in Alabama and Henry Wingate and Dunn Lampton in Mississippi?
* What about Karl Rove, who might have played a key role in both cases? I don't see how Rove would be protected by immunity. I'm sure Rove has some kind of umbrella or personal liability insurance policy. If I were Turd Blossom, I would be checking on my policy limits. And if I were Turd Blossom's insurer, I would be more than a little concerned about a major payout that could be looming. Could Don Siegelman wind up with rights to a nice chunk of property at Rosemary Beach?
* What about Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and other GOP operatives who might have played a role in initiating the Siegelman prosecution? Again, I see no way they can hide behind claims of immunity. And if I were them, I would be checking the policy limits on my umbrella policies.
* What about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which pumped millions of dollars into Mississippi and Alabama in an effort to get "pro business" judges in place? What about COC leaders such as Thomas J. Donahue, who apparently led this effort to essentially buy our courts? Forgive my editorializing, but I think it would be poetic justice if the COC and Donahue both wound up bankrupt and destitute in the aftermath of lawsuits. They have intentionally corrupted our justice system, at both the federal and state levels, and no punishment for them is too severe, in my view.
* What about George W. Bush and other members of the administration (can we say Alberto Gonzalez?) who might have been involved? Paula Jones has proven that sitting presidents are not immune from lawsuits, so I see no reason why lawyers representing Siegelman and Minor should not go after Bush & Co.--and the sooner the better.
From a practical standpoint, the biggest holdup might be money. The defendants already are paying huge sums of money for their criminal defenses? Where would they find the funds to launch civil cases, which could be very expensive? Does the Democratic Party, or other progressive interests, have the human and financial resources to help justice be done on the civil side?
(To be continued)
And I think the same thing could be said of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has produced three political prisoners--attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.
If it is proven that the Bush Justice Department prosecuted the Siegelman and Minor cases for political and unlawful reasons, what kind of lawsuits might that generate?
Let's consider the Siegelman case first. The former Alabama governor has spent nine months in federal prison. He recently said on national television that he is "busted" financially and any hopes he had of pursuing future political opportunities are ruined. His legal bills probably run into the hundreds of thousands. And one can only imagine the stress that he and his family have endured because of the Bush DOJ prosecution.
The defendants in the Minor case have been through similar ordeals. They were sentenced in September 2007, and Minor went almost immediately to federal prison. Wes Teel and John Whitfield reported to federal prison in late December. Minor has been fined $4.25 million, 15 times the district court guidelines for such a case. All three men have had to deal with personal and/or family health crises while imprisoned.
What if it is shown that both of these prosecutions were fraudulent, that none of the defendants actually committed federal crimes and Justice Department officials knew it from the outset?What if it is shown that these men were prosecuted and convicted not because they committed crimes but because they were active Democrats at a time when Republicans controlled the U.S. Justice Department?
What kind of lawsuits might result from such findings? How many millions of dollars might juries award the defendants for their extreme suffering? Can you put enough zeroes on the end of a check to sufficiently compensate these victims?
And here's the big question: Who might be held liable for damages in such lawsuits? I, of course, am not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not an expert on the kind of complex civil litigation we are talking about here. But here are a few thoughts, based on my own experiences and research regarding civil law:
* In general, judges and prosecutors are immune from lawsuits as long as they act within their official capacity. But what if it is shown that judges and prosecutors knew from the outset these cases were bogus? Judicial and prosecutorial immunity is not absolute. Could facts surface that would cause serious problems for folks like Mark Fuller, Leura Canary, and Louis Franklin in Alabama and Henry Wingate and Dunn Lampton in Mississippi?
* What about Karl Rove, who might have played a key role in both cases? I don't see how Rove would be protected by immunity. I'm sure Rove has some kind of umbrella or personal liability insurance policy. If I were Turd Blossom, I would be checking on my policy limits. And if I were Turd Blossom's insurer, I would be more than a little concerned about a major payout that could be looming. Could Don Siegelman wind up with rights to a nice chunk of property at Rosemary Beach?
* What about Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and other GOP operatives who might have played a role in initiating the Siegelman prosecution? Again, I see no way they can hide behind claims of immunity. And if I were them, I would be checking the policy limits on my umbrella policies.
* What about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which pumped millions of dollars into Mississippi and Alabama in an effort to get "pro business" judges in place? What about COC leaders such as Thomas J. Donahue, who apparently led this effort to essentially buy our courts? Forgive my editorializing, but I think it would be poetic justice if the COC and Donahue both wound up bankrupt and destitute in the aftermath of lawsuits. They have intentionally corrupted our justice system, at both the federal and state levels, and no punishment for them is too severe, in my view.
* What about George W. Bush and other members of the administration (can we say Alberto Gonzalez?) who might have been involved? Paula Jones has proven that sitting presidents are not immune from lawsuits, so I see no reason why lawyers representing Siegelman and Minor should not go after Bush & Co.--and the sooner the better.
* What if it is shown that members of the press were actively engaged in a conspiracy to bring a bogus case against Siegelman? Could Eddie Curran of the Mobile Press-Register have bigger worries than his floundering book deal? What about folks like publisher Victor Hanson III and Editor Tom Scarritt at The Birmingham News? Could journalists be hit hard in the pocketbook? Normally, I wouldn't think so. But I'm not sure that anything about this case has been normal.
Here's another big question to ponder: What about the timing of any lawsuits by the Siegelman and Minor defendants? Should they wait until the criminal appeals are exhausted? Or could they go ahead now, starting the discovery process that could include sworn depositions for folks like Rove, Canary, Rob Riley, Lampton, even Dubya. (I seem to recall that Bill Clinton was forced to give a deposition while serving in the White House. Turnabout is fair play, isn't it?)
Again, I'm not a lawyer--and I welcome input from anyone who knows about issues connected to this kind of civil litigation--but I see no reason why, technically, the Siegelman and Minor defendants could not move forward with lawsuits right now.From a practical standpoint, the biggest holdup might be money. The defendants already are paying huge sums of money for their criminal defenses? Where would they find the funds to launch civil cases, which could be very expensive? Does the Democratic Party, or other progressive interests, have the human and financial resources to help justice be done on the civil side?
(To be continued)
Suing Law Enforcement Officers? Hmmm
Looks like Shelby County does not have the only incompetent law-enforcement outfit in Alabama.
Evidently Baldwin County, another Republican stronghold, also has a bunch of misfits masquerading as law officers.
Get this: Jeanette Garrett, a 48-year-old mother of three, was arrested for selling drugs to undercover officers. Ms. Garrett, who lives in Loxley, AL, is a stroke victim who has been confined to a wheelchair since 2000.
Just the type of person you would expect to be selling drugs on a street corner.
It took her a year and a half to clean up the mess made by law enforcement, and now she is suing three officers in federal court. The officers are from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, Daphne Police Department, and Orange Beach Police Department.
How did all this affect Garrett?
"Worrying about it, worrying about it, worrying about it every day was a living hell," said Garrett, who blames the stress for causing another stroke.
And what about this paragraph from the Mobile Press-Register:
How it is that a woman with no apparent connection to illegal drugs could have been mistaken for a drug dealer -- and why it took so long for law enforcement to acknowledge the error -- remains unclear. Officials from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, which runs the drug task force that investigated the case, declined comment.
Yeah, I bet they declined comment. Baldwin County's district attorney did not decline comment. Is there actually an honest Republican in Alabama? Great, Caesar's Ghost!
Baldwin County District Attorney Judy Newcomb said last week that she was not familiar with the details of Garrett's case. But Newcomb added that at about the time of Garrett's arrest, she was becoming concerned with the way that law enforcement officers were making identifications in undercover drug cases.
Gee, think she had reason to become concerned?
James Curenton, a lawyer from Fairhope, is representing Ms. Garrett. Count me as one citizen who is hoping the folks in Baldwin County wind up writing a check with a whole lot of zeroes to Ms. Garrett:
"It's kind of amazing, really," Curenton said. "They supposedly had a videotape of a drug transaction. I'm just shocked that she was prosecuted for this."
So law enforcement officers can be sued in federal court for acting unlawfully, taking away people's rights, and causing emotional distress? Sounds like they can be sued for unlawfully taking away people's houses. Now isn't that an interesting thought?
Evidently Baldwin County, another Republican stronghold, also has a bunch of misfits masquerading as law officers.
Get this: Jeanette Garrett, a 48-year-old mother of three, was arrested for selling drugs to undercover officers. Ms. Garrett, who lives in Loxley, AL, is a stroke victim who has been confined to a wheelchair since 2000.
Just the type of person you would expect to be selling drugs on a street corner.
It took her a year and a half to clean up the mess made by law enforcement, and now she is suing three officers in federal court. The officers are from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, Daphne Police Department, and Orange Beach Police Department.
How did all this affect Garrett?
"Worrying about it, worrying about it, worrying about it every day was a living hell," said Garrett, who blames the stress for causing another stroke.
And what about this paragraph from the Mobile Press-Register:
How it is that a woman with no apparent connection to illegal drugs could have been mistaken for a drug dealer -- and why it took so long for law enforcement to acknowledge the error -- remains unclear. Officials from the Baldwin County Sheriff's Office, which runs the drug task force that investigated the case, declined comment.
Yeah, I bet they declined comment. Baldwin County's district attorney did not decline comment. Is there actually an honest Republican in Alabama? Great, Caesar's Ghost!
Baldwin County District Attorney Judy Newcomb said last week that she was not familiar with the details of Garrett's case. But Newcomb added that at about the time of Garrett's arrest, she was becoming concerned with the way that law enforcement officers were making identifications in undercover drug cases.
Gee, think she had reason to become concerned?
James Curenton, a lawyer from Fairhope, is representing Ms. Garrett. Count me as one citizen who is hoping the folks in Baldwin County wind up writing a check with a whole lot of zeroes to Ms. Garrett:
"It's kind of amazing, really," Curenton said. "They supposedly had a videotape of a drug transaction. I'm just shocked that she was prosecuted for this."
So law enforcement officers can be sued in federal court for acting unlawfully, taking away people's rights, and causing emotional distress? Sounds like they can be sued for unlawfully taking away people's houses. Now isn't that an interesting thought?
An Injustice Anywhere . . .
An alert and highly intelligent reader sends a reminder that today marks the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail.
King's brilliant letter contained one of the most profound quotations in American history:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr., - Letter from Birmingham jail
April 16, 1963
How far have we really come in Alabama over the past 45 years? We have U.S. attorneys like Alice Martin in Birmingham and Leura Canary in Montgomery, who seem to have no conception of truth or the rule of law. We have Republican-packed appellate courts, shaped largely by two men--Karl Rove and Bill Canary--who seem to tweak their nose at the law without a thought. And justices on our Supreme Court cheat the state out of a $3.6 billion judgment because they've taken money from the oil industry. We have a former governor who was unquestionably wrongly imprisoned and almost certainly wrongly convicted, in a trial conducted by a judge with myriad conflicts of interest. A Missouri attorney has stated in an affidavit that he has evidence of criminal activity by this judge, and yet Alabama's brain-dead press has never, to my knowledge, written a word about it.
Finally, for what it's worth, in the Republican stronghold of Shelby County--which you think might be a somewhat enlightened place considering that its the fastest growing, wealthiest county in Alabama--a couple is under threat of having their house snatched for no lawful reason. Why are they facing this threat? It's because of the blog you are reading.
Which raises the question: What is being written here that GOP authorities so badly do not want you to read? I write the darn thing, and I haven't got a clue.
Attorney Bill Swatek has a 30-year record of sleaze that is public record. I'm not writing a thing that isn't well known in the Birmingham legal community. And I've talked to probably a dozen or more local lawyers who acknowledge that judges like Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves routinely cheat parties. Do these lawyers have the guts to try to do something about it? Evidently not.
But what happens when one of those cheated parties has the audacity to share his story with the public? Well, let's take his house from him. We must not let the "great unwashed" know about our heaping piles of smelly laundry.
Justice in America might be under a greater threat than at any time since King wrote the famous words cited above. What are Americans going to do about it?
King's brilliant letter contained one of the most profound quotations in American history:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr., - Letter from Birmingham jail
April 16, 1963
How far have we really come in Alabama over the past 45 years? We have U.S. attorneys like Alice Martin in Birmingham and Leura Canary in Montgomery, who seem to have no conception of truth or the rule of law. We have Republican-packed appellate courts, shaped largely by two men--Karl Rove and Bill Canary--who seem to tweak their nose at the law without a thought. And justices on our Supreme Court cheat the state out of a $3.6 billion judgment because they've taken money from the oil industry. We have a former governor who was unquestionably wrongly imprisoned and almost certainly wrongly convicted, in a trial conducted by a judge with myriad conflicts of interest. A Missouri attorney has stated in an affidavit that he has evidence of criminal activity by this judge, and yet Alabama's brain-dead press has never, to my knowledge, written a word about it.
Finally, for what it's worth, in the Republican stronghold of Shelby County--which you think might be a somewhat enlightened place considering that its the fastest growing, wealthiest county in Alabama--a couple is under threat of having their house snatched for no lawful reason. Why are they facing this threat? It's because of the blog you are reading.
Which raises the question: What is being written here that GOP authorities so badly do not want you to read? I write the darn thing, and I haven't got a clue.
Attorney Bill Swatek has a 30-year record of sleaze that is public record. I'm not writing a thing that isn't well known in the Birmingham legal community. And I've talked to probably a dozen or more local lawyers who acknowledge that judges like Mike Joiner and Dan Reeves routinely cheat parties. Do these lawyers have the guts to try to do something about it? Evidently not.
But what happens when one of those cheated parties has the audacity to share his story with the public? Well, let's take his house from him. We must not let the "great unwashed" know about our heaping piles of smelly laundry.
Justice in America might be under a greater threat than at any time since King wrote the famous words cited above. What are Americans going to do about it?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A New Date With the Jack Booted Thugs
Deputies in the Shelby County Sheriff's Office evidently are frustrated home decorators.
How else to explain their desire to keep coming on our property--almost certainly trespassing, given that they have no official business on our property--and decorating our garage door with taped messages.
The latest came yesterday and was notice for a new sheriff's sale of our house. (You haven't lived until you've received one of these notices. A definite day brightener.)
We recently posted that the sale of our house, set for April 7, was postponed because the clod heads who run Shelby County put down the wrong legal description of our property in their original notice of levy.
My wife is wondering if somebody lives in a house at the location that was listed on the first notice. Perhaps people showed up in droves, measuring, taking pictures, etc. My wife can only imagine the owner coming out and being told, "Hey, we're just preparing to make a bid when they auction your house." We laugh at the thought of said owner going into a frenzy and calling the Shelby County ding dongs and demanding to know what is going on. If that happened, that owner would probably have a heckuva lawsuit for emotional distress, etc. (Smile.)
The new notice of sheriff's sale is identical to the one we posted about earlier, except I guess it has the correct legal description of our property. (All I know is our address; I have no idea what the legal description of our property is--lot this, block that, etc.)
It's interesting to note this wording in the notice:
"Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST of the above named Roger Shuler to the described property . . . "
Sounds like they have the right to sell my entire interest in my own home over an alleged judgment of $1,525 doesn't it?
I'm going to try, in my own unlawyerly way, to spell out all the manifest ways in which this house seizure business is unlawful. I'm also going to do a recap of all the actions that make the judgment against me--upon which this threat to seize my house is based--itself unlawful.
As for the process of seizing property to satisfy a court judgment, it seems to consist of four parts--a writ of execution, a notice of levy, a notice of sheriff's sale, the sheriff's sale itself. I will show that the Shelby County Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight has messed it up at every level. And that doesn't even touch on the judgment itself, which Shelby County judges pulled from dark crevices under their robes. (That conjures up some disturbing images. Sorry about that.)
Let me say this: writs of execution etc. get into some pretty complicated law. It has connections to tax law, mortgage law, bankruptcy law, foreclosure law, collections law--all very pleasant subjects, and all areas that even your average lawyer doesn't know much about. These are the kinds of things that usually call for a legal specialist.
So your Unfrozen Caveman Legal Schnauzer doesn't claim to have all of the answers. But I've done enough research that I think I have a pretty good idea about what bogus stuff is going on in my situation--and what should go on in cases where a judgment and writ of execution are legitimate, which these most definitely are not.
How else to explain their desire to keep coming on our property--almost certainly trespassing, given that they have no official business on our property--and decorating our garage door with taped messages.
The latest came yesterday and was notice for a new sheriff's sale of our house. (You haven't lived until you've received one of these notices. A definite day brightener.)
We recently posted that the sale of our house, set for April 7, was postponed because the clod heads who run Shelby County put down the wrong legal description of our property in their original notice of levy.
My wife is wondering if somebody lives in a house at the location that was listed on the first notice. Perhaps people showed up in droves, measuring, taking pictures, etc. My wife can only imagine the owner coming out and being told, "Hey, we're just preparing to make a bid when they auction your house." We laugh at the thought of said owner going into a frenzy and calling the Shelby County ding dongs and demanding to know what is going on. If that happened, that owner would probably have a heckuva lawsuit for emotional distress, etc. (Smile.)
The new notice of sheriff's sale is identical to the one we posted about earlier, except I guess it has the correct legal description of our property. (All I know is our address; I have no idea what the legal description of our property is--lot this, block that, etc.)
It's interesting to note this wording in the notice:
"Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST of the above named Roger Shuler to the described property . . . "
Sounds like they have the right to sell my entire interest in my own home over an alleged judgment of $1,525 doesn't it?
I'm going to try, in my own unlawyerly way, to spell out all the manifest ways in which this house seizure business is unlawful. I'm also going to do a recap of all the actions that make the judgment against me--upon which this threat to seize my house is based--itself unlawful.
As for the process of seizing property to satisfy a court judgment, it seems to consist of four parts--a writ of execution, a notice of levy, a notice of sheriff's sale, the sheriff's sale itself. I will show that the Shelby County Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight has messed it up at every level. And that doesn't even touch on the judgment itself, which Shelby County judges pulled from dark crevices under their robes. (That conjures up some disturbing images. Sorry about that.)
Let me say this: writs of execution etc. get into some pretty complicated law. It has connections to tax law, mortgage law, bankruptcy law, foreclosure law, collections law--all very pleasant subjects, and all areas that even your average lawyer doesn't know much about. These are the kinds of things that usually call for a legal specialist.
So your Unfrozen Caveman Legal Schnauzer doesn't claim to have all of the answers. But I've done enough research that I think I have a pretty good idea about what bogus stuff is going on in my situation--and what should go on in cases where a judgment and writ of execution are legitimate, which these most definitely are not.
Oliver Diaz: Witness to Political Prosecution
We noted in a recent post that Larisa Alexandrovna's story and interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz is one of the most important pieces of journalism to come out on the evolving Bush Justice Department scandal.
Alexandrovna's piece at Raw Story is an in-depth look at a man who was one of the first targets of the Bush Justice machine. And here is what makes the Diaz story so fascinating: He was indicted twice by the feds, and he was acquitted both times. A study of the Diaz case shows that the charges against him were preposterously weak. That prosecutors moved ahead with them anyway adds consider fuel to the notion that justice in the Age of Bush is motivated by politics, not facts and law.
What else makes the Diaz story fascinating? He was a Republican and served as such in the Mississippi Legislature. Diaz' apparent crime is that he worked in a bipartisan way in the legislature and he did not properly toe the "pro business" line once he was a state judge. And nothing made Diaz a target to the Bush Republicans like his friendship with trial lawyer and Democratic donor Paul Minor.
Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted of crimes they did not commit and have had little if any chance to tell their stories. But Diaz, after going through a long legal ordeal, is back on the Mississippi Supreme Court. And he can tell his story--a story that is central to understanding the current state of justice in America.
Let's look at some of the key issues raised by Alexandrovna's story:
A Mysterious Burglary
We've heard about the fire at the home of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, and we know her car was run off the road. We know about the break-in at Don Siegelman's home and at his lawyer's office. Diaz had a similar experience:
“After I was indicted and before my trial, my home was also broken into,” Diaz tells RAW STORY. “Our door was kicked in and our documents were rummaged. Televisions, computers and other valuables were not taken, despite the fact that we were out of town for several days and the home was left open by the burglars. We could not figure out a motive for the burglary and reported it to the Biloxi Police Department. The crime was never solved.”
Find a Suspect, Create a Crime
Diaz says federal prosecutors took the normal criminal-investigation process and turned it on its head:
“Normally, a criminal investigation begins after a crime is committed. Investigators are sent out to gather evidence and a list of suspects is drawn up. Sometimes an investigation is begun after a complaint is made about suspicious activity. In our case neither of these things occurred.
“In other words, an individual was singled out for examination from the federal government and prosecutors then attempted to make his conduct fit into some criminal statute. This is not how our system of justice is supposed to operate.”
Pressure on Witnesses
We've heard about former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White and the extraordinary pressure that was put on him to supply information about Don Siegelman. Diaz tells a similar story about his wife, Jennifer:
“Just before our trial, federal prosecutors spoke to Jennifer’s attorney and told him that they were willing to make a deal. They explained that she and I were each facing many years in federal prison and millions of dollars in fines. They told her that it would be a shame if both she and I were convicted because they knew that we had two small children.
“They said that if she would agree to plead guilty to a single count of tax evasion they would guarantee her that she would serve no time and would pay no fine. All she would have to do is fully cooperate with investigators by telling them everything she knows and to truthfully testify if they called her to the stand. Not being able to risk the loss of our children, Jennifer accepted this deal.”
A Sense of Electoral Timing
We have seen how the Siegelman investigation appeared to be timed to hurt his chances of running for governor in 2006. Diaz had a similar experience:
Diaz was indicted three months prior to Mississippi's gubernatorial election. Because he'd been appointed by the incumbent Democratic governor, Republicans used his name as part of a smear campaign to bolster their candidate, Haley Barbour.
The U.S. Chamber Comes Calling
It has been widely reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured large sums of money into Alabama court races in the 1990s. Diaz felt the wrath of the Chamber next door in Mississippi:
"In 2002 I was in the second year of an eight-year term on the Mississippi Supreme Court. A struggle was brewing over control of the court. In the 2000 election, large amounts of money were put into Mississippi judicial elections by big business, tobacco and insurance, with mixed results. I was targeted for defeat by these groups, who were not able to beat me in the election.
"The mechanism used by these groups to target me for defeat was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber spent more than a million dollars in the final two weeks before my election, running television and radio ads, direct mail, telephone solicitations and leaflets and fliers. Most of the ads were what you would call negative attack ads directed at me. They also ran a few ads that praised my opponent."
The Importance of Alabama in the GOP Scheme
Diaz says he was attacked by a machine that was fine tuned in the Heart of Dixie:
"I think that Alabama is the model that is used by conservative groups who are interested in stacking the courts. Nothing like this had ever occurred prior to [former White House deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush] Karl Rove’s experiment with this in Alabama. The same thing occurred in Texas under Rove’s direction."
John Grisham and the Big Picture
One of Mississippi's most famous sons, novelist John Grisham, has borrowed from the Diaz story:
"Today, many states with an elected judiciary find their courts under attack from big business, insurance and tobacco. This is so prevalent that it has even made its way into popular culture. This entire scenario is the plot of John Grisham’s latest best-seller, 'The Appeal.' I don’t think that John Grisham needs any help from me in selling his books, but I do highly recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic in a very entertaining way."
Diaz and Minor
Diaz took legal campaign support from Minor, but also took the extra step of recusing himself in cases involving Minor's clients. Diaz was not required to do this, but he did it as a precautionary measure. He was indicted anyway. Essentially, he was charged with making corrupt rulings on cases in which he made no rulings:
"The loan guaranteed by Minor was a campaign loan prior to the election, not after. All of the proceeds of this loan were used in my campaign to counter the attacks launched by the U.S. Chamber. This is all perfectly legal in Mississippi. Mississippi law specifically provides for loans to campaigns.
"Paul Minor had been a friend of mine for years, and he provided a great deal of help for me in my campaign. In addition to monetary support, he also provided advice and was involved in campaign decisions. Because of this relationship, I did not want anyone to be able to question my participation in cases in which he was involved. Therefore, in my entire time at the Mississippi Supreme Court, I have never voted or participated in any way in any case in which Paul Minor, his firm or his clients were involved. Paul knew that by taking such an active role in my campaign, I would not participate in his cases, and he agreed with that decision."
A Highly Conflicted Prosecutor
We know about the myriad conflicts of interest U.S. Attorney Leura Canary had in the Siegelman case. Diaz saw similar conflicts from U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton in Mississippi:
"Lampton tried to dodge the questions of conflict by saying that he was not participating. This was simply a lie. Lampton questioned witnesses in the grand jury and signed the indictment. He issued press releases trumpeting the charges against us. His office personnel and resources were devoted to the prosecution. He regularly attended court and observed the proceedings. Again, the irony was that we were being prosecuted by Lampton for perceived conflicts of interest, and Lampton himself was not even attempting to live up to the standard for which he was prosecuting."
Bogus Jury Instructions
As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, U.S. Judge Henry Wingate made numerous unlawful rulings and gave incorrect jury instructions in the Minor case. Diaz had a front-row seat for that circus:
"In some very bizarre rulings, the trial judge in his case actually ruled exactly opposite of his rulings in our first trial. The judge went so far as to instruct the jury that they could convict Minor even if they found that the rulings of a judge in his case were the correct rulings.
"In other words, the trial judge basically instructed the jury that the simple fact that Minor guaranteed loans to a judge’s campaign was enough to convict him of bribery. Because there was never a question as to the existence of loans, this instruction completely took away Minor’s defense that there were loans but that there was never a 'quid pro quo' or something done by the judge in exchange for the loan. Without a defense, it was easy for the jury to convict."
What Lies Ahead?
Diaz has hope that justice will eventually be done. But he says it probably will not happen quickly.
"Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to get any answers as long as the current administration is in office. I think the only way we will see any action taken to correct the injustices that have been done will be if we insist that the next administration conduct a full investigation into these abuses."
Alexandrovna's piece at Raw Story is an in-depth look at a man who was one of the first targets of the Bush Justice machine. And here is what makes the Diaz story so fascinating: He was indicted twice by the feds, and he was acquitted both times. A study of the Diaz case shows that the charges against him were preposterously weak. That prosecutors moved ahead with them anyway adds consider fuel to the notion that justice in the Age of Bush is motivated by politics, not facts and law.
What else makes the Diaz story fascinating? He was a Republican and served as such in the Mississippi Legislature. Diaz' apparent crime is that he worked in a bipartisan way in the legislature and he did not properly toe the "pro business" line once he was a state judge. And nothing made Diaz a target to the Bush Republicans like his friendship with trial lawyer and Democratic donor Paul Minor.
Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were convicted of crimes they did not commit and have had little if any chance to tell their stories. But Diaz, after going through a long legal ordeal, is back on the Mississippi Supreme Court. And he can tell his story--a story that is central to understanding the current state of justice in America.
Let's look at some of the key issues raised by Alexandrovna's story:
A Mysterious Burglary
We've heard about the fire at the home of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson, and we know her car was run off the road. We know about the break-in at Don Siegelman's home and at his lawyer's office. Diaz had a similar experience:
“After I was indicted and before my trial, my home was also broken into,” Diaz tells RAW STORY. “Our door was kicked in and our documents were rummaged. Televisions, computers and other valuables were not taken, despite the fact that we were out of town for several days and the home was left open by the burglars. We could not figure out a motive for the burglary and reported it to the Biloxi Police Department. The crime was never solved.”
Find a Suspect, Create a Crime
Diaz says federal prosecutors took the normal criminal-investigation process and turned it on its head:
“Normally, a criminal investigation begins after a crime is committed. Investigators are sent out to gather evidence and a list of suspects is drawn up. Sometimes an investigation is begun after a complaint is made about suspicious activity. In our case neither of these things occurred.
“In other words, an individual was singled out for examination from the federal government and prosecutors then attempted to make his conduct fit into some criminal statute. This is not how our system of justice is supposed to operate.”
Pressure on Witnesses
We've heard about former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White and the extraordinary pressure that was put on him to supply information about Don Siegelman. Diaz tells a similar story about his wife, Jennifer:
“Just before our trial, federal prosecutors spoke to Jennifer’s attorney and told him that they were willing to make a deal. They explained that she and I were each facing many years in federal prison and millions of dollars in fines. They told her that it would be a shame if both she and I were convicted because they knew that we had two small children.
“They said that if she would agree to plead guilty to a single count of tax evasion they would guarantee her that she would serve no time and would pay no fine. All she would have to do is fully cooperate with investigators by telling them everything she knows and to truthfully testify if they called her to the stand. Not being able to risk the loss of our children, Jennifer accepted this deal.”
A Sense of Electoral Timing
We have seen how the Siegelman investigation appeared to be timed to hurt his chances of running for governor in 2006. Diaz had a similar experience:
Diaz was indicted three months prior to Mississippi's gubernatorial election. Because he'd been appointed by the incumbent Democratic governor, Republicans used his name as part of a smear campaign to bolster their candidate, Haley Barbour.
The U.S. Chamber Comes Calling
It has been widely reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce poured large sums of money into Alabama court races in the 1990s. Diaz felt the wrath of the Chamber next door in Mississippi:
"In 2002 I was in the second year of an eight-year term on the Mississippi Supreme Court. A struggle was brewing over control of the court. In the 2000 election, large amounts of money were put into Mississippi judicial elections by big business, tobacco and insurance, with mixed results. I was targeted for defeat by these groups, who were not able to beat me in the election.
"The mechanism used by these groups to target me for defeat was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Chamber spent more than a million dollars in the final two weeks before my election, running television and radio ads, direct mail, telephone solicitations and leaflets and fliers. Most of the ads were what you would call negative attack ads directed at me. They also ran a few ads that praised my opponent."
The Importance of Alabama in the GOP Scheme
Diaz says he was attacked by a machine that was fine tuned in the Heart of Dixie:
"I think that Alabama is the model that is used by conservative groups who are interested in stacking the courts. Nothing like this had ever occurred prior to [former White House deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush] Karl Rove’s experiment with this in Alabama. The same thing occurred in Texas under Rove’s direction."
John Grisham and the Big Picture
One of Mississippi's most famous sons, novelist John Grisham, has borrowed from the Diaz story:
"Today, many states with an elected judiciary find their courts under attack from big business, insurance and tobacco. This is so prevalent that it has even made its way into popular culture. This entire scenario is the plot of John Grisham’s latest best-seller, 'The Appeal.' I don’t think that John Grisham needs any help from me in selling his books, but I do highly recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic in a very entertaining way."
Diaz and Minor
Diaz took legal campaign support from Minor, but also took the extra step of recusing himself in cases involving Minor's clients. Diaz was not required to do this, but he did it as a precautionary measure. He was indicted anyway. Essentially, he was charged with making corrupt rulings on cases in which he made no rulings:
"The loan guaranteed by Minor was a campaign loan prior to the election, not after. All of the proceeds of this loan were used in my campaign to counter the attacks launched by the U.S. Chamber. This is all perfectly legal in Mississippi. Mississippi law specifically provides for loans to campaigns.
"Paul Minor had been a friend of mine for years, and he provided a great deal of help for me in my campaign. In addition to monetary support, he also provided advice and was involved in campaign decisions. Because of this relationship, I did not want anyone to be able to question my participation in cases in which he was involved. Therefore, in my entire time at the Mississippi Supreme Court, I have never voted or participated in any way in any case in which Paul Minor, his firm or his clients were involved. Paul knew that by taking such an active role in my campaign, I would not participate in his cases, and he agreed with that decision."
A Highly Conflicted Prosecutor
We know about the myriad conflicts of interest U.S. Attorney Leura Canary had in the Siegelman case. Diaz saw similar conflicts from U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton in Mississippi:
"Lampton tried to dodge the questions of conflict by saying that he was not participating. This was simply a lie. Lampton questioned witnesses in the grand jury and signed the indictment. He issued press releases trumpeting the charges against us. His office personnel and resources were devoted to the prosecution. He regularly attended court and observed the proceedings. Again, the irony was that we were being prosecuted by Lampton for perceived conflicts of interest, and Lampton himself was not even attempting to live up to the standard for which he was prosecuting."
Bogus Jury Instructions
As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, U.S. Judge Henry Wingate made numerous unlawful rulings and gave incorrect jury instructions in the Minor case. Diaz had a front-row seat for that circus:
"In some very bizarre rulings, the trial judge in his case actually ruled exactly opposite of his rulings in our first trial. The judge went so far as to instruct the jury that they could convict Minor even if they found that the rulings of a judge in his case were the correct rulings.
"In other words, the trial judge basically instructed the jury that the simple fact that Minor guaranteed loans to a judge’s campaign was enough to convict him of bribery. Because there was never a question as to the existence of loans, this instruction completely took away Minor’s defense that there were loans but that there was never a 'quid pro quo' or something done by the judge in exchange for the loan. Without a defense, it was easy for the jury to convict."
What Lies Ahead?
Diaz has hope that justice will eventually be done. But he says it probably will not happen quickly.
"Unfortunately, I do not think we are going to get any answers as long as the current administration is in office. I think the only way we will see any action taken to correct the injustices that have been done will be if we insist that the next administration conduct a full investigation into these abuses."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)