Richard Shelby Deserves a Thrashing--And He's Getting One

Normally it isn't a good thing to kick a man while he's down. But we can make an exception in the case of U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL).

By placing a "blanket hold" on President Barack Obama's nominees for federal positions, Shelby attempted one of the most noxious political stunts in modern American history. When he removed the hold, Shelby essentially admitted the tactic had been a brazen attempt to coerce the White House into sending billions of dollars of earmarked funds to Alabama--that the holds had nothing to do with qualifications of the nominees.

As a progressive living in Birmingham, I get tired of our conservative "leaders" taking actions that put a black mark on a state that actually has quite a few nice qualities. We jumped on Shelby's case here and here--and we are pleased to report that others, from near and far, have joined the fray.

Birmingham-based Glynn Wilson, writing at truthout.org, says Shelby long has been a puppet for defense contractors:

Shelby has been trying to get a new FBI crime lab opened in Alabama, and he has been trying for months to strong arm the Air Force into reversing a legitimate bid of $35 billion as part of a $100 billion contract granted to Boeing to build refueling tankers for the military. Shelby wanted the contract to go to Northrop Grumman/EADs, a company which has given heavily to finance his campaigns and would have assembled the tankers in his home state.

According to Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for Center for Responsive Politics, campaign finance research indicated that Shelby has a close relationship with the defense industry, to put it mildly.

"During the past 20 years, the defense aerospace, defense electronics and miscellaneous defense industries all rank among his top 15 campaign donors by industry," Levinthal said. "Together, employees and political action committees associated with these industries have contributed more than $1.2 million to Sen. Shelby."

Shelby also has been a steadfast friend to the financial-services sector and other corporate interests. Writes Wilson:

According to files publicly available at OpenSecrets.Org, Shelby is backed by not only the military-industrial complex, but also by the big banks, which benefit from Shelby's support for deregulation on the powerful Senate Banking Committee. He is also heavily supported by power companies, coal companies, telecommunication giants such as AT&T and the big insurance companies which obtained billions of dollars in government bailout money under both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Paul Krugman, of The New York Times, says Shelby's antics are symbolic of a government that has grown dysfunctional:

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

That, however, is not likely to happen, Krugman writes:

Don’t hold your breath. As it is, Democrats don’t even seem able to score political points by highlighting their opponents’ obstructionism.

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis. But by now, we know how the Obama administration deals with those who would destroy it: it goes straight for the capillaries. Sure enough, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, accused Mr. Shelby of “silliness.” Yep, that will really resonate with voters.

Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC, notes that Shelby is a world-class hypocrite. Shelby decried obstructionist tactics when a Republican, George W. Bush, was in the White House. But now that a Democrat resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Shelby is leading the obstructionist charge. Says Olbermann:

The senator who is deliberately keeping American intelligence understaffed so he can get $35 billion to go to a foreign company from whose teat he sucks is . . . Richard Shelby, of Alabama.

Ganging up on Richard Shelby, it turns out, is great sport. And we are proud to be in some fine company.

You can check out the full Olbermann comment here:

Debt-Collection Industry Helped Pave the Way for Scott Brown's Victory in Massachusetts

Debt collectors are near the top of our list of public enemies here at Legal Schnauzer. And they should be near the top of all progressives' lists now that we know debt collectors played a prominent role in Republican Scott Brown's victory for Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.

We have written extensively about the dirtbags that seem to run rampant in the debt-collection field. My wife and I have filed a lawsuit against unethical debt collectors, and that case almost certainly caused someone with connections to the debt-collection business to cheat my wife out of her job at Infinity Property & Casualty. Evidence increasingly suggests that debt collectors played a role in my unlawful termination at UAB.

But now we learn that debt collectors don't just try to defraud individual consumers. They also are fighting against consumer-protection initiatives--and health-care reform--across the country. That's why they pulled out all the stops to help elect Scott Brown.

An article at Democratunity.com provides insight into the role debt collectors played in Brown's victory:

We often hear about the role that the pharmaceutical industry, for-profit health care companies, and big banks have in influencing and corrupting elections and elected officials. But there is another group to add to this list: Debt Collectors. This is a billion dollar industry, and its political agenda goes far beyond the day-to-day regulation of collecting debts. The debt collection industry opposes any number of financial reforms as well as access to health care. Why? Predatory lending and huge health care bills keep people in debt. The more people that are in debt, in turn, the more profitable the industry.

In essence, debt collectors are the bottom-feeders that get rich digging and feeding on the garbage produced by our current system.

Regular Legal Schnauzer readers already know about the bottom-feeding ways of unscrupulous debt collectors. Our personal battle has been against a Pennsylvania-based outfit called NCO and a Birmingham-based law firm called Ingram & Associates.

We've operated under the assumption that some debt collectors behave in an honorable fashion. After all, there is nothing wrong with trying to collect a legitimate debt. But a law called the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) must be followed. Unfortunately, the FDCPA is weak, and many debt collectors violate it with impunity. That is the basis of our lawsuit against NCO and Ingram & Associates.

The recent article from Democratunity.com makes us think the entire field is filled with lowlifes. Let's revisit the statement about why debt collectors oppose health-care reform. It's because large health-care bills are one of the prime reasons consumers get into debt, and the debt-collection industry fears that reform would help regular Americans stay out of debt. That, of course, would put a crimp in the bottom lines of businesses like NCO and Ingram & Associates.

Disgusting, isn't it? These people actually want as many Americans as possible to be saddled with burdensome debt. And a press release from the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) makes this clear. ACA crows about its role in Scott Brown's victory and makes it clear why it opposes consumer-protection and health-care reforms:

ACA Immediate Past President Jay Gonsalves and fellow New England Collectors Association member David Sands reached out to ACA members and mobilized them to contribute approximately $11,000 to the Brown campaign to assist with its get-out-the-vote efforts. Not only did members send money, but many agencies offered use of their phones as an in-kind contribution to the campaign.

This kind of ACA member mobilization just days before an election is unprecedented. With the very real threat of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency looming in Congress, as well as wholesale changes to a health care system that would affect many credit and collection professionals' livelihoods, ACA members helped the Brown campaign create a groundswell to victory.

In the days and weeks ahead, we will be spotlighting our legal battle with NCO and Ingram & Associates. But we now know such fights are not about individual consumers like my wife and me.

Debt collectors don't just want to cheat us and other individual consumers. They are out to harm all of us.

The Deep South Is Driving the GOP's Rightward Slant

Who is responsible for forcing the modern Republican Party to the extreme right? The answer, according to a recent Web analysis, can be found in the Deep South.

Chris Kromm, of Facing South and the Institute for Southern Studies, analyzes a recent DailyKos poll that shows that an astonishingly large number of Republican voters hold far-right views--that President Obama is racist, a socialist, and a non-citizen.

Kromm reports that the survey is skewed because 42 percent of its 2,000 respondents were from the South. The survey, Fromm says, does not accurately reflect attitudes of Republicans nationwide. But it does provide an accurate, and alarming, picture of Republican attitudes in the South. Writes Kromm:

This over-sampling of Southern Republicans (846 total) skews the national results, but it also means the data gives us an especially rich picture of the views held by GOP voters in the South.

And the picture is unmistakable: On almost every issue, Southern Republicans are far to the right of their national GOP brethren. In fact, GOP Southerners appear to be the driving base for some of the most extreme views circulating in the Republican Party today.

To measure this, normally we'd compare the Southern results to the national average, and then see what the difference is. But since the poll disproportionately surveyed Southerners to start with, instead I looked at how the Southern answers compared to the next most conservative region.

The next most conservative region in each case was the Midwest. And Kromm focuses on four questions to show the difference between Southern attitudes compared to those in the Midwest:

QUESTION: Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
South: 42% yes
Next-highest region: 38% yes
Southern difference: +4%

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
South: 43% no
Next-highest region: 33% no
Southern difference: +10%

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
South: 67% yes
Next-highest region: 61% yes
Southern difference: +6%

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
South: 28% yes
Next-highest region: 22% yes
Southern difference: +6%

Kromm is quick to note that the South is hardly the only region that is home to alarming far-right views. In the West, for example, 60 percent of Republican voters said they believe Obama is a socialist. But there is something peculiar about the South:

It's . . . clear that the South remains a uniquely strong base for the GOP's most extreme views. The embrace of Southern Republicans of the "birther" issue is especially notable, given its likely roots in discomfort with Obama's cultural and racial heritage.

In short: The poll doesn't reflect a general shift to the right in the South. But it does show the growing hold of a certain form of far-right politics in Southern Republican circles, and a high level of receptivity among Republican Southerners to some of the conservative movement's most extreme views.

Rahm Emanuel: We're Not Re-Litigating the Past

A profile of Attorney General Eric Holder in the current issue of The New Yorker contains a quote from Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that should be troubling to all citizens who care about justice issues. It should be particularly troubling for those who have followed political prosecutions, such as those involving Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi.

The article, by Jane Mayer, focuses largely on Holder's policies regarding terrorism, especially his plan to try terror suspects in criminal courts rather than in military tribunals.

Mayer portrays Emanuel as a purely political animal who cares little about fundamental issues of right and wrong. And her article lends support to a long-time Obama mentor who recently complained that Emanuel is poorly serving the president and should exit the administration as soon as possible.

Is Emanuel the architect of Obama's nonsensical "look forward, not backward" policy on justice issues--an approach that seems to be hurting Democrats at the ballot box? Mayer's article indicates that the answer to that question is yes.

Emaunuel, Mayer writes, adamantly opposed a number of Holder's decisions, including one that widened the scope of a special counsel who had begun investigating the C.I.A.’s interrogation program. Bush had appointed the special counsel, John Durham, to assess whether the C.I.A. had obstructed justice when it destroyed videotapes documenting waterboarding sessions. Holder authorized Durham to determine whether the agency’s abuse of detainees had itself violated laws.

Ever mindful of possible political fallout, Emanuel feared that Holder's decision would alienate the intelligence community. But Holder was profoundly upset after reading classified documents that described CIA prisoner abuse. Writes Mayer:

Emanuel couldn’t complain directly to Holder without violating strictures against political interference in prosecutorial decisions. But he conveyed his unhappiness to Holder indirectly, two sources said. Emanuel demanded, “Didn’t he get the memo that we’re not re-litigating the past?”

We're not re-litigating the past? Is that what the Obama campaign meant by "change we can believe in"? And what does it say about the administration's approach to other justice matters, such as the Bush-era political prosecutions of Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others?

Why is Emanuel's statement alarming? Let us count the ways:

* Emanuel is not a lawyer, so perhaps we should cut him some slack. But the president's chief of staff should have some familiarity with how the justice system works. And Emanuel's statement reveals a frightening ignorance about the law. To conduct a criminal investigation of any matter--whether it's CIA interrogation tactics or use of the Justice Department for political purposes--is hardly "re-litigating the past." By Emanuel's definition, no crime ever would be investigated.

* Investigations into Bush-era abuses have not been conducted, so nothing from the past can be "re-litigated." They haven't been litigated the first time, so they certainly can't be "re-litigated." In other words, Emanuel's statement does not make a lick of sense.

* The article portrays Emanuel as desperate to curry favor with certain Republicans, particularly U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) But Emanuel's statement indicates that he cares little about the concerns of progressives, the very people who put Obama in office. And he apparently cares even less about basic matters of right and wrong. If Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and others rot in federal prison for "crimes" they did not commit . . . well that doesn't seem to bother Rahm Emanuel at all.

The Mayer article concludes by raising a critical question about the Obama administration: Is it tough enough to deal with matters of justice? The question obviously rankles Holder, but no one is doing more than Rahm Emanuel to bring the question to the forefront. Writes Mayer:

Late last month, at home, in Northwest Washington, Holder addressed those who have suggested that he and Obama are too weak to take on terrorism. “This macho bravado—that’s the kind of thing that leads you into wars that should not be fought, that history is not kind to,” he said. “The quest for justice, despite what your contemporaries might think, that’s toughness. The ability to subject yourself to the kind of criticism I’m getting now, for something I think is right? That’s tough.” He paused, and added, “This is something that can get a rise out of me, the notion that somehow Eric Holder and Barack Obama, this Administration, is not tough. We have the welfare of the American people in our minds all the time. We’ll fight our enemies, and we’ll do that which is necessary, and we won’t turn our backs on the values and traditions that have made this country great. That is what is tough.”

Holder is right on target with this statement. But Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff, takes just the opposite approach: He says we should turn our backs on "the values and traditions that have made this country great"--because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

What's the big message that we take from Jane Mayer's excellent article? The Obama administration will not come close to reaching its potential unless it shows resolve and strength on justice issues. And that isn't likely to happen as long as Rahm Emanuel stays in place.

Chris Edley, one of Obama's professors at Harvard Law School, has criticized his former pupil for running a "complacent administration"--and Edley blames it largely on Emanuel.

Could Emanuel be the first senior staffer to be eased out of the administration? Could he resign to run for mayor of Chicago? Let's hope the answers to one of these questions is yes. And, for justice's sake, it can't happen too soon.

UAB Lies to the EEOC About My Discrimination Case

Does an employer have an obligation to tell the truth when it responds to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) about a discrimination charge?

The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer, apparently thinks the answer to that question is no.

Ron Lyas, the EEOC investigator who is handling my charge against UAB, recently asked to meet with me. Lyas said he could not provide a copy of UAB's response, or even show it to me, but he wanted to read it to me and get my feedback.

Lyas indicated that UAB's response had been prepared by Anita Bonasera, director of employee relations, so I wasn't surprised to hear that the document was filled with misstatements. But I was taken aback by one statement that was so over the top that it could only be called a "whopper" of a lie.

How inept is UAB in handling employee relations? It gives Bonasera the task of responding to my discrimination charge, even though she has no first-hand knowledge of what took place in my case. And she wasn't present for my employee grievance hearing--the one that ended with a committee finding that I should not have been terminated.

I expected UAB's response to be filled with all manner of horse feces--and I wasn't disappointed. But my jaw hit the floor when Lyas got to the part about Doug Gillett, one of my former coworkers in the UAB Publications Office.

Gillett, you might recall, stepped in doo doo when The Birmingham News reported that he was using university equipment to blog and conduct political activities on UAB time. This was in 2004, and Doug was working as a volunteer on John Kerry's presidential campaign. It was clear that Doug had indeed violated university policy, and probably state ethics law, by using state-owned equipment for political purposes.

Doug was about 25 years old at the time, and I think everyone in our office was relieved when he received only a warning and was not fired. I was particularly pleased because I consider Doug a friend and an excellent coworker, and I didn't want to see him get the ax.

But when similar charges arose against me about four years later, I could not help but notice how differently I was treated, considering that I was 51 years old at the time.

Actually the facts in my situation weren't all that similar to Doug's case. It's undisputed that I was not blogging at work, I was not conducting political activity at work, and I was not violating UAB policy or state law in any way. I simply was performing a task--keeping up with current events--that was part of my job description.

So why was I placed on administrative leave, placed under investigation for my computer use, and then fired? Why did none of those things happen to Doug Gillett, my young coworker?

Well, that goes to the heart of my age-discrimination claim, and UAB has no defense for it. But they are trying to concoct a defense out of thin air.

According to Ron Lyas' reading of UAB's response, here (in paraphrase form) is what UAB told everyone on our staff in the wake of the Doug Gillett case: We've given Doug a warning, and we are not going to fire him. But the next person who blogs or conducts political activity with university time or equipment will be fired immediately.

Let's ponder a couple of questions about this statement.

First, is it true? No, it's not even close. I was in the staff meeting where Doug's punishment was addressed, and I've already written about it on this blog. About eight people were in the meeting, and I assume all of them have a pretty good recollection of what was said. Anita Bonasera was not among them, and her EEOC statement indicates she has no clue about what took place.

What really happened in the meeting? Our office reported at the time to public-relations director Gary Mans, who since has moved on to the University of Louisville. Mans, apparently at the urging of UAB President Carol Garrison, issued defamatory statements about me after my "termination," so it's safe to say I'm not one of his biggest fans. But I thought Mans handled the Doug Gillett situation just right. And here is what I wrote about it in an earlier post:

When Doug got into hot water, I think everyone in our office was afraid he was going to be fired. But I thought UAB handled it the right way. Gary Mans--the same guy who issued President Carol Garrison's goofy statement about me--gathered everyone in our office together and said that Doug had been warned, but was not going to lose his job. Gary reminded all of us that we should not blog or do any kind of political activity at work. But he also added-and I'm paraphrasing here--that the department and the university didn't want to be "computer Nazis." He knew that we all used the Web extensively for our work, and he also knew that most everybody occasionally checked a news site, a sports site, a music site, etc. He said that was fine and he wanted to maintain a relaxed, productive atmosphere. Mainly, he said, just don't blog or engage in political activity at work.

Here's our second question about UAB's statement regarding the Doug Gillett situation: Does it make any sense under the law? The answer is no. In fact, UAB is admitting that it set up a discriminatory framework in our office.

UAB, like many universities, has an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which governs the use of its computers and networks. We've written previously about the AUP, and it should be a very simple policy to understand--and to implement. Here is how we described the policy in an earlier post:

UAB's Acceptable Use Policy states that any violations should be handled with the university's progressive discipline procedure. As defined in the You & UAB Handbook, that process is to start with an oral warning, then proceed (if necessary) to written warning, and finally possible termination.

If Anita Bonasera's account of the Doug Gillett staff meeting was true--and it isn't--it would represent a gross violation of UAB policy and federal law.

UAB policy states that any alleged violations of the AUP are to be handled on an individual basis, with progressive discipline that begins with an oral warning. Bonasera's claim that future alleged violators would face immediate dismissal flies in the face of university policy.

It also flies in the face of federal law. To say that one employee's possible punishment is going to be skewed, based on an earlier problem that another employee had, is a classic example of "disparate treatment." And that is the fundamental issue at the heart of discrimination cases.

If Gary Mans had actually said in our staff meeting what Anita Bonasera claims he said, he would have been setting UAB up for multiple discrimination lawsuits down the road. I would not call Gary Mans a beacon of enlightened management, but he certainly is not stupid enough to do what Bonasera says he did.

In addition to being false, Bonasera's statement to the EEOC is absurd under the law. But it really is a mere sidebar to my case. The key facts are these: UAB's own actions show that I simply was doing my job. UAB never initiated progressive discipline with me because it had no reason to do it--I wasn't doing anything wrong.

UAB's own investigation showed I wasn't writing my blog at work. And under the university's own definitions, I wasn't conducting political activity at work.

Alabama, like most states, is an "at will" employment state, meaning workers can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. But they cannot be fired for an unlawful reason.

The disparate treatment evident in Doug Gillet's case and my case goes to age discrimination--which is unlawful. The disparate treatment evident in my case and the case of two female employees (who used university computers to send homophobic and racist messages, clear violation of UAB policy) goes to gender discrimination--which is unlawful. The retaliation I experienced after complaining to both my immediate supervisor and her superior about age discrimination, and filing a formal grievance related to those concerns, goes to retaliation--which is unlawful. And UAB's failure to follow its own policies goes to wrongful termination--which is unlawful.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that UAB, as a government entity, cannot violate my First Amendment rights--and Anita Bonasera admitted to me in a taped phone conversation that I was targeted because of my blog's content about the Don Siegelman case. That is unlawful.

I came away from my EEOC meeting with mixed feelings. On one hand, it was enraging that a public institution would make false statements to the federal agency that oversees anti-discrimination laws. But on the other hand, it was heartening to know that UAB had to resort to falsehoods to come up with some defense for its actions in my case.

The truth is this: UAB has no legitimate defense for its actions in my case--and the university's response to the EEOC proves it.

What Should Obama Learn from Richard Shelby's Game of "Alabama Hold 'Em"?

In a perverse way, you have to give credit to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) for placing a blanket hold on more than 70 pending nominations from the Obama Administration. In the wake of announcing yesterday that he was releasing most of the holds, Shelby essentially admitted that he's a political extortionist. You have to admire a guy for that kind of honesty.

But here's what is not admirable about Shelby--and the Obama administration should keep this in mind going forward. Shelby's "Alabama hold 'em" gambit tells us that he is not serious about his objections on presidential nominees. In other words, there is no reason to think Shelby has legitimate grounds for objecting to any nominee. So Obama should move forward like a steamroller, challenging Shelby to hold his ground or dive out of the way.

Consider the sensitive U.S. attorney position in the Middle District of Alabama, site of the Don Siegelman prosecution. Joseph Van Heest, a highly regarded attorney from Montgomery, was ready for confirmation and could have been on the job months ago. But Shelby apparently objected, and the Obama administration decided not to fight for Van Heest's nomination.

That has caused George W. Bush appointee Leura Canary to remain in place, more than a year into the Obama administration. At last report, the White House was on the verge of nominating Montgomery lawyer George Beck, whose firm has strong ties to Karl Rove and Business Council of Alabama President Bill Canary. The possibility of a Beck nomination has drawn heavy fire from Alabama progressives.

After dropping his blanket hold on Obama nominees, Shelby tried to claim victory, stating that the tactic had accomplished his goal of drawing White House attention to two federal projects that could bring billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Alabama. But The Washington Post reported:

The White House said that it agreed to none of Shelby's demands, and that the senator released the holds on his own accord.

The truth? Shelby's blanket hold probably accomplished nothing, and he released it because of the flood of criticism he had received--and the embarrassment he was causing for the Republican Party.

What should Obama do now? He needs to immediately address the U.S. attorney position in Montgomery. He should assume that Shelby has no legitimate grounds for voicing an objection and move forward with the nomination of Joseph Van Heest.

Leura Canary's ongoing presence as head of the Middle District of Alabama remains an embarrassment for the Obama Justice Department. The DOJ needs to show her the door pronto and allow Van Heest to start the arduous task of cleaning up the cesspool in Montgomery--starting with an investigation of Sen. Shelby's financial ties to Doss Aviation.

That's the the Colorado-based company that is partially owned by Mark Fuller, the federal judge who handled the Siegelman case. Shelby's alleged ties to that company are probably the No. 1 reason he wants to make sure a competent federal prosecutor is not placed in Montgomery, Alabama.

After Shelby's most recent stunt, Obama needs to make sure that he appoints an Alabama prosecutor with the disposition of a wolverine--one who has eyes for Richard Shelby's rear end.

Are Universities Breeding Grounds for Discrimination?

You might think that universities would be less likely than regular businesses to practice discrimination in the workplace. You might think, "If institutions of higher learning can't treat their employees fairly under the law, then who can? Surely college campuses don't tolerate discriminatory treatment."

Based on my personal experience, and a scan of recent news reports, you would be wrong. In fact, we are starting to think that college and university campuses might be even worse than non-academic workplaces when it comes to discrimination of all kinds.

Regular readers know that I was unlawfully terminated after 19 years of service at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB ), the victim of age discrimination, gender discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, and First Amendment violations. My case remains under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a precursor to a lawsuit.

But I'm hardly alone when it comes to abuse in the academic work setting. The good news: Juries are showing that they are not afraid to hold universities accountable.

One of the most recent reports we've seen comes from the University of Pittsburgh, where a female radiation oncologist won a potential $3 million verdict on charges that the university's cancer institute treated her unlawfully after she raised concerns about discrimination.

Dr. Kristina Gerszten filed a federal lawsuit in September 2008, alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her gender and retaliated against for making the original complaint to hospital officials. The jury found against Gerszten on the sex-discrimination claim, but it found for her on retaliation.

The news has no shortage of stories about discrimination on university campuses. So much for secondary education being some kind of "higher calling," a setting where fundamental human rights are respected:

* The University of Michigan settled a lawsuit with a former dental student after a jury rendered a $1.72 million verdict against the university. UM had kicked Alissa Zwick out of the dental school allegedly for poor performance in clinical courses. Zwick claimed that she had been caught in an academic feud at the school, and a federal jury agreed with her.

* The University of Texas Pan American was ordered to pay about $350,000 after a jury found it had violated the Equal Pay Act following the demotion of a campus dean. Hilda Medrano had been dean of the college of education for about four years when she was demoted. Medrano filed a lawsuit, claiming that she had been paid less than her male counterparts.

* A state jury ordered the University of Southern Mississippi to pay $1.2 million to three former soccer coaches, all men, who said they were dismissed as retaliation for reporting sexual advances from a female administrator.

In a case that has not reached the courtroom phase, but will bear watching:

* Idaho State University fired a tenured engineering professor after a faculty appeals board found there was not enough evidence for termination. Prof. Habib Sadid had been suspended for what the university called unprofessional and insubordinate behavior. Sadid had sued the university in 2008, alleging breach of contract and deprivation of free-speech rights.

Hitler Movie Parodies: The Joke That Keeps On Giving

We were trying to make a point last week about Alabama Governor Bob Riley and his wacky anti-gambling task force--and darned if we didn't stumble into a Web phenomenon. It all was quite by accident.

A reader sent us a brief video that supposedly featured behind-the-scenes footage of a recent task force meeting. But the video actually was from a movie about the last day's of Adolph Hitler's regime in Germany. The actors were speaking in German, but English subtitles helped bring the scene into modern-day Alabama.

In the original, several henchmen are giving Hitler some news he obviously does not want to hear, sending The Fuhrer into a fury. In the Alabama version, Riley is the Hitler character, and he becomes enraged that he can't figure out a way to stamp out the evil of electronic bingo.

It was cleverly done and elicited numerous cackles from Mrs. Schnauzer and me. We don't know who produced the Alabama video, but we assume they are gambling supporters who were getting a kick out of poking fun at Riley.

Turns out they are not the only folks who have used the Hitler clip to comic effect. Some brief research taught us that the Alabama clip is only one of about 100 such parodies on the Web, all spawned by a highly acclaimed 2004 German-Austrian film called Downfall (Der Undergang). It was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

Perhaps the best known of the parodies is called "Hillary's Downfall," where Hitler (as Hillary Clinton) can't believe that Barack Obama actually is overtaking her/him in the Democratic primaries:



You can almost keep up with current events by watching Hitler parodies. Here he discovers that the new iPad isn't all it's cracked up to be:



And here, Hitler learns that Jay Leno is bumping Conan O'Brien off The Tonight Show. Hitler's a big Conan O'Brien fan? Who knew?



We're pleased that we could play a small role in helping keep the Hitler parodies alive and well. In fact, Mrs. Schnauzer and I have talked about staging our own re-enactment. It would have Hitler learning that he's going to have to defend a bogus lawsuit in Shelby County, Alabama, only to have corrupt judges screw him at every turn--and then when Hitler decides to write a blog about what he's experienced, he gets cheated out of his job!

Now that would really tick Hitler off. We're working on the dialogue right now. We're trying to figure out what roles our cats, Baxter and Chloe, can play.

While we're on the subject of viral videos, let's revisit one of the classics--the "Dancing Cadet" from the U.S. Air Force Academy. Enjoy.

It's Time For Obama to Play Rough With Richard Shelby

President Barack Obama has tried to play nice with U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), showing unusual deference on federal nominations--especially for the sensitive U.S. attorney position in the Middle District of Alabama.

What was Obama's reward for his careful approach to Shelby? A knife between the shoulder blades. And it appears to be driven by Republican Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, leaving Democrats without a super majority in the Senate.

Shelby has announced that he is putting a hold on at least four nominees for top federal jobs because he is unhappy with the White House's handling of an Air Force refueling-tanker contract. The Mobile Press-Register reports that, according to a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Shelby has gone even further. Writes reporter Sean Reilly:

A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said via e-mail that Shelby had placed a "blanket hold" on administration nominees, a move that could affect dozens of candidates awaiting confirmation for a variety of posts.

"He is holding up all of the president's nominations," the spokeswoman, Regan Lachapelle, said.

Alabama Democrats have been alarmed for months because the Obama administration has allowed Shelby and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to block two highly regarded nominees--Michel Nicrosi and Joseph Van Heest--for the U.S. attorney position in Montgomery, Alabama. The delay means that Bush appointee Leura Canary, who oversaw the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, remains in office more than a year after Obama became president.

The latest nominee reportedly is Montgomery lawyer George Beck, who has drawn heavy criticism from Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson. Beck's law firm, Simpson says, has strong ties to former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove and Business Council of Alabama President Bill Canary.

What should Obama do? It appears that Scott Brown's victory has convinced Shelby that he can play hardball with the administration. It's time Obama played hardball in return.

We made a suggestion almost three months ago, and it still holds up today--even more so, now that Shelby has shown his true stripes on matters of federal nominations. Obama should move to nominate a U.S. attorney who is from outside Alabama. We even presented an excellent candidate:

A person from outside of Alabama is exactly what the Middle District needs. A Justice Department source even has given us the name of an excellent external candidate--Christa Deegan of Columbus, Ohio.

Deegan served briefly in the Middle District of Alabama, and our source said she resisted the toxic culture in Canary's office and wound up being replaced by Anna Clark Morris, who was more than happy to go along with the dysfunctional status quo. Ironically, Morris has family ties to prominent Democrats, and her name has been floated as the possible new U.S. attorney in Montgomery. Our source says such a choice would be "disastrous."

But Deegan, according to our source, is exactly what the office needs. Here is what we wrote about Deegan in an earlier post:

Christa D. Deegan, who had 16 years as a federal prosecutor in Cleveland, Ohio, moved to the Montgomery office in March 2007. "She was an excellent prosecutor, a mover and a shaker, very competent--too competent for such a mediocre office," the source says. "More importantly, she conducted herself in a professional manner and worked very hard. She immediately opposed the hostile work environment, refused to participate in the afternoon gossip sessions, and refused to conform to the toxic culture of the office."

After about seven months on the job, Deegan was fired because she "didn't fit in." Said our source: "She was replaced by Clark Morris, who was more than willing to conform, even embrace the culture."

Deegan now is Ohio's director of industrial relations, where she took over an office that was plagued with allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. Deegan has vowed to restore staff morale in the Ohio agency. "Except for her experience in Montgomery, Alabama, she has a spotless record for competency, ethical conduct, and professionalism," the source said.

If Christa Deegan (or someone like her) is appointed in Montgomery, she will have no shortage of dirt bags to investigate. And one of them should be Richard Shelby. Consider this from one of our earlier posts:

Alabama's senior senator reportedly has curious ties to Doss Aviation, the firm of which U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (who handled the Siegelman case) is an owner. Scott Horton, legal affairs contributor at Harper's magazine, has written about the Shelby/Doss Aviation ties:

So now let’s look at another prominent Alabama government contractor with a recent streak of politically-linked successes: Doss Aviation. On Shelby’s own website, there’s a press release from February 2006 in which Shelby says “I am disappointed that the Air Force did not choose Selma as the site for their Introductory Flight Training program . . . ” It sounds like the story of an earmark gone wrong. But there at the end of the press release there’s this: “It was announced today that the program was awarded to Pueblo, Colorado, teamed with Doss Aviation.”

Horton goes on to note some curious connections between Fuller, the judge in the Siegelman case, and Richard Shelby:

Today, Fuller and Shelby even have offices in the same building–One Church St. in Montgomery. That’s also where Doss Aviation was registered, with Mark Fuller listed as the company’s president, from 1999-2002.

Sure, it was peculiar that Fuller listed a government building as the registered address of a private company that contracts with the government. But what’s also peculiar is that the offices for Fuller’s previous gig as District Attorney for the 12th Circuit, were at 98 North Edwards in Enterprise (see also). I have no idea why Doss Aviation, with Fuller as president, was registered at One Church Street (the home of numerous government offices including the office of Senator Shelby) years before Fuller became a federal judge. But it does raise a very curious question: who, exactly, was picking up that mail?

Indeed, who was picking up that mail? And here's an even better question: Was Richard Shelby using his power in the Senate to steer contracts to a company in which he held a financial interest? If that is ever proven, could the senator be in some serious doo-doo? Is that why he's so concerned about who becomes U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama?

This sounds like a job for Christa Deegan--or someone just like her. Could the Obama administration be thinking along those lines?

If Obama was not thinking along those lines then, he certainly should be now. It's time to play hardball with Richard Shelby.

Veteran Investigator Calls for Impeachment of Siegelman Judge

A veteran investigator and journalist, who is in hiding because of apparent threats on his life, is calling for impeachment proceedings against the federal judge who oversaw the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

John Caylor, who has reported extensively on corruption in south Alabama and northwest Florida, says U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller acted corruptly in the Siegelman case and should be the subject of an investigation by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

Caylor and Fuller grew up together in Enterprise, Alabama, which Caylor says became a destination point for organized-crime figures after nearby Phenix City was cleaned up in the 1950s. Caylor says Fuller has ties to the Dixie Mafia, a loosely knit outfit with connections to cocaine smuggling from South America.

"Mark Fuller is dirty," Caylor says. "I personally know he is dirty. Moreover, I know the whole damn bunch associated with him."

How does Caylor know? It's partly because of his own family ties to the Dixie Mafia. Caylor's father was police chief in Enterprise, a welcoming figure for mobsters looking for a new home after being kicked out of Phenix City. Fuller's father was a state district attorney in Enterprise.

Fuller, Caylor says, has held a longstanding grudge against Siegelman and railroaded the former governor as part of a sweeping effort by the George W. Bush administration to prosecute prominent Democrats. Caylor once lived near Karl Rove in north Florida, and says the former White House strategist directed the scheme to target Siegelman and others.

Caylor's mother was fatally beaten several years ago, and Caylor says Florida officials had her killed in retaliation for his investigative work, which is featured at his Web site, insider-magazine.com.

Some of Caylor's work, at first glance, seems "out there." But a number of sources whose opinions I greatly respect, both inside and outside of Alabama, tell me that Caylor is not a nut job--and his reporting focuses on issues that are real and serious.

Here is how Caylor describes his background:

I'm an Alabama-raised investigative reporter reared in Enterprise, which is located near the Gulf and became Alabama's center for the Dixie Mafia of organized crime. Mobsters moved to my hometown after Phenix City to the east forced them out following a particularly notorious assassination in 1954.

My jobs have included work as a private investigator and undercover federal drug investigator. In the course of such work or the social conversations growing out of it, I've met former CIA Director and future President George H.W. Bush, retired Cuban Mafia leader Santo Trafficante and Iran-Contra leader Oliver North.

One of my first jobs was as a photographer for Cliff Wentworth, an attorney and friend of my father's who would go on to become a notorious cocaine smuggler working directly with Colombia's most notorious kingpins, Pablo Escobar and Carlos Lehder, to distribute a billion dollars of cocaine throughout the Southeast.

Wentworth was later convicted and given a slap on the wrist: Six years, suspended after six months served in a country-club type minimum security facility. That illustrates the kind of federal judges we see in my neck of the woods who coddle their friends in such matters without any real scrutiny from Congress, the Justice Department or the media

When Caylor sought records about his mother's death, under Florida's Sunshine Law, he was arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct. Now free on bond, Caylor calls himself a "fugitive for justice" and is living in an undisclosed location.

Caylor's allegations about Fuller come in a lengthy article that was originally posted by investigative journalist Wayne Madsen at his subscription Web site. Madsen granted Legal Schnauzer permission to use the Caylor article.

What should be the focus of an investigation into Fuller and the Siegelman case? Caylor writes:

* One focus should be on Judge Fuller's long-running help for what Justice Department Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson described in 2005 to Rove's office as the "loyal Bushies." They included federal prosecutors nationwide who were framing Siegelman and other Democrats to remove them from office.

* Another focus must be on Fuller's already documented fraud, seeking $300,000 from Alabama's taxpayers in a scheme involving Doss Aviation, Inc., the former drug-smuggling company that Fuller controls as its largest stockholder.

* I am among the many who will step forward to testify on these matters. But first, the Judiciary Committee must take the lead to holding public hearings calling these criminals to testify public alongside whistleblowers. Do-nothings in the Justice Department will never start this on their own because too many secrets will come out.

Caylor's report includes revelations on a number of justice-related topics, and we will discuss it further in future posts. Part I of the Caylor article can be read in its entirety below:

John Caylor Article on Judge Mark Fuller