Breaking: Federal Court Is Pulling a Charade in the Siegelman Case

Don Siegelman

In a story that broke just moments ago, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed bribery-related convictions in the Don Siegelman case, but left other convictions in place.

Early wire reports are sketchy, but here is what appears to have happened: The 11th Circuit already had reversed the honest-services fraud convictions against Siegelman, and today's ruling kicks out the bribery convictions against both Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy. That appears to mean that the only remaining conviction against Siegelman is for an obstruction of justice count related to a transaction involving a motorcycle. It's unclear what exactly remains against Scrushy.

We have not had an opportunity to review today's ruling, but this outcome does not surprise us. In fact, we posted roughly two months ago that it appears federal appeals courts are issuing "split decisions" on Bush-era political prosecutions. By upholding at least one segment of the convictions, the appeals courts are giving the prosecutions some legitimacy and making it more difficult for victims to sue for monetary damages.

Victims might have their prison sentences greatly reduced, or eliminated, but justice still will not be served. In the Siegelman/Scrushy case, we still have motions to recuse trial judge Mark Fuller.

If the Eleventh Circuit has, in fact, left only the obstruction of justice count hanging against Siegelman, it proves what we have known for some time--our federal courts are a farce from top to bottom.

Under the law, none of the counts against Siegelman or Scrushy could be upheld. But upholding only the obstruction charge against Siegelman would be nutty. Our understanding is that obstruction, like conspiracy, usually is a "piggyback" charge that essentially rides on the back of another charge. If there is no other charge standing, how can there be an obstruction charge? Obstruction of what?

Here is what we wrote roughly two months ago regarding appellate courts' handling of political prosecutions, including the Siegelman, Sue Schmitz, and Paul Minor cases:

As we noted in a previous post (multiple posts, actually), federal judges often are more interested in protecting the interests of the legal profession than in administering justice. By rendering split decisions on the Siegelman, Minor, and Schmitz appeals, they allow a thread of legitimacy to cling to the trial-court proceedings. That will make it more difficult for the victims of political prosecutions to ever receive justice in the civil arena, from filing lawsuits against those who were likely responsible.

We have studied the Siegelman and Minor cases extensively and shown that the appellate courts, by law, had to overturn the convictions entirely. They didn't, and got away with it, because no one in this country holds federal appeals courts accountable--except the U.S. Supreme Court, and it hears only a tiny fraction of the cases that come before it. As we know from Clarence Thomas' recent machinations, the nation's highest court is itself ethically challenged.

At first glance, today's ruling appears to be another step in trying to cover up for the corrupt federal prosecutors and trial judges responsible for the Siegelman/Scrushy case. Americans should be outraged at such theatre of the absurd. Even if you don't live in Alabama, your tax dollars are being used to support federal courts that engage in clear and grotesque subterfuge.

A Lawyer's Threat Emits Noxious Fumes In Child-Custody Case

Tom Kendrick

A lawyer threatened me with a lawsuit recently for portraying his firm and one of its partners in "a false light."

Does the lawyer, Tom Kendrick of the Birmingham firm Norman Wood Kendrick and Turner (NWKT), have a legitimate claim? Not a chance--and I possess three public documents to prove it.

Kendrick apparently was flapping his gums while they were disengaged from his brain--a common affliction among lawyers. More specifically, he likely was spewing warm, foul air in my direction, in hopes of coming across as intimidating. He failed.

This raises five of our favorite Legal Schnauzer lessons: (1) Never assume that a lawyer knows the law, particularly if you are talking about an area in which he does not specialize; (2) Never assume a lawyer knows the relevant facts, particularly in a case that does not involve him; (3) If a lawyer tries the intimidation routine, either verbally or with a letter, there's a pretty fair chance he can't back it up; (4) Consult your local law librarian if a lawyer's behavior causes you alarm. Based on my experience, law librarians are far and away the most honest and capable people connected to the legal field. And they can be incredibly helpful; (5) Learn how to look up public records; they are your friend.

All of this is not to say that Tom Kendrick won't file a lawsuit against me. After all, this is America where you can sue almost anybody (except judges) for almost anything. For instance, our criminally inclined neighbor started our legal headaches by filing a lawsuit that claimed I had maliciously prosecuted him after swearing out a criminal trespass complaint against him--even though he admitted trespassing in the underlying trial. In other words, the guy confessed to the crime as charged, an Alabama judge found him not guilty anyway, and that allowed him to sue me for a disfavored tort that, by law, almost never gets very far.

Having to hire multiple lawyers to defend that case, before corrupt Alabama judges, cost us tens of thousands of dollars, wiped out our savings, and ultimately cost both my wife and me our jobs when I started writing about the case--and other hot-button issues--on this blog.

If Kendrick does sue me, he'd better be prepared for a counter assault--and this Schnauzer will be going for the jugular, against Kendrick or anyone else that tries to screw with me on the legal stage. Ten years of battling corrupt a--holes in court has taught me how to find the jugular and go for it. And you might say my patience has worn thin with individuals who use public resources to cheat others.

Why would my patience be running thin? Oh, I don't know . . . I had cause the other day to review several affidavits filed by various individuals from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in my ongoing employment lawsuit. Affidavits, of course, are sworn statements, signed under penalty of perjury. But at least three UAB types signed documents that are demonstrably false. And thanks to the corrupt federal judge overseeing the case--an 83-year-old Reagan appointee--they have gotten away with it so far.
My tax dollars go to support UAB and the federal courts--and yours probably do, too, whether you live in Alabama or not--and they are being used to screw me. Trust me when I say that kind of thing can make you mildly ticked off. To borrow a phrase from Scrubs' Dr. Perry Cox, it can almost induce a case of "ga-vomiting," a combination of gagging and vomiting that doesn't sound terribly pleasant.

But back to matters at hand. The Beasley Allen firm of Montgomery recently taught us, with its complaint against Taco Bell, there is a big difference between filing a lawsuit and having a case. That's a lesson that Tom Kendrick would be wise to learn.

After all, public records from Turner v. Turner--the domestic-relations/custody case that has Kendrick in a lather--show there is nothing remotely false or defamatory about my coverage.

Turner v. Turner involves Kile Turner, the Turner in the title of Tom Kendrick's law firm, and Angela Turner Drees, who is also a lawyer and used to practice at the Birmingham firm Haskell Slaughter. The Turners were married and had triplets together before getting a divorce.

They initially had a shared-custody agreement, but that changed when Kile Turner stated under oath that Dr. Hajo Drees, Angela Turner Drees' current husband, had been convicted on two felony counts of domestic violence--one involving his ex wife and one involving his son. Richard Vincent, Kile Turner's attorney, seconded those statements in court proceedings, and that apparently played a key role in Turner receiving custody of the triplets, who are now 10 years old and have not seen their mother in two-plus years.

Are the charges that Kile Turner and his lawyer made against Hajo Drees true? Three public documents indicate they are not--and that Turner and Vincent now have acknowledged, in a proceeding before the Alabama State Bar, that they are not true.

How can a litigant get away with making admittedly false statements in a court proceeding? Apparently it helps to be a lawyer, with connections to influential law firms in downtown Birmingham. (As we noted earlier, it also must help to work at UAB.) Among those connections in Turner v. Turner is this: Kile Turner's current wife, Sara M. Turner, is a lawyer with the firm of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz.

What about those three documents we mentioned? One is from the Alabama State Bar and one is from an appeal of a State Bar decision to the Alabama Supreme Court. We will examine those documents, and the Alabama State Bar's mind-blowing actions related to Turner v. Turner, in upcoming posts.

But for now, we will focus on a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus that Angela Turner Drees filed, seeking three things: (1) An order for mediation in the case; (2) An order to allow the children counseling and reunification with their mother; (3) An order dealing with admitted misconduct by Kile Turner and Richard Vincent, in making misstatements of material fact on multiple issues in the case.

What kind of impact did those misstatements have in the custody case? In her petition, Angela Turner Drees states:

In the original agreement, the mother was the primary caregiver, as she had been prior to the divorce. Custody was then changed by Judge (R.A.) Ferguson, giving sole legal and physical custody to the father and new stepmother (the Intervenor) when the father presented false evidence of a criminal conviction against the mother's new husband, Dr. Hajo Drees.

The order also relieved the father of his obligation to pay the back child support owed (as a result of his misstating his income), as well as terminated any child support obligations for him for the future. This result represented a significant financial windfall for Mr. Turner and the Intervenor. As is now admitted by the Defendant, Kile Turner, as well as his lawyer Richard Vincent, the defendant and his attorney did not state the truth to Judge Ferguson at this custody trial. (See hearing ASB08-176(A) December 14, 2010.)

ASB08-176(A) is an Alabama State Bar document, and we will be looking at that soon. But for now, we have one court document, which is a public record, stating that Kile Turner made false statements in an official proceeding--and I have based my reporting on that document and two others.

You can read Angela Turner Drees' full Petition for a Writ of Mandamus below. It tells you that Tom Kendrick has no grounds for a lawsuit against a reporter who has based his coverage on public court documents. It also tells you that Mr. Kendrick is making an underhanded effort to shut down reporting on a case that is making his firm uneasy.

(To be continued)

Angela Drees Writ of Mandamus

Black Jacket Symphony Checks In at the Hotel California

Black Jacket Symphony

Alabama has one of the most godawful "justice systems" on the planet, and we have strived to expose it on this blog. Our state also has a sad history of electing quite a few buffoons to public office.

If you can get past those "hiccups," Alabama actually has a lot to recommend it. In fact, we covered many of our state's stellar qualities in a post titled "Alabama: Love It or Leave It?"

As we noted then, Alabama features abundant natural beauty, from one end of the state to the other. And we have a rich cultural heritage, marked by talented musicians from virtually all genres--Hank Williams, the Commodores, Emmylou Harris, the Temptations, and many more. It's not an accident that Alabamians Reuben Studdard, Taylor Hicks, Diana DeGarmo, and Bo Bice have made a splash on American Idol.

Alabama's musical talent, however, is not limited to the AI age range. We have some splendid veteran musicians who have been entertaining audiences for years. A prime example is a relatively new group called Black Jacket Symphony. It's led by J. Willoughby, and Damon Johnson. They have been on the regional and national music scene for a long time, with Johnson now a member of Alice Cooper's touring band.

Willoughby and Johnson have come up with an interesting concept for Black Jacket Symphony (BJS). They recruit a virtual all-star team of local musicians and recreate, note for note, classic albums--in their entirety. Once they perform the album, they come back for a second set of the featured band's biggest hits.

They will perform The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on June 3 at the Alabama Theatre.

Previous shows have featured Who's Next by The Who, Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd, and Abbey Road by The Beatles.

As a child of the '70s, I was most struck by BJS' recent performance, at WorkPlay in Birmingham, of The Eagles' Hotel California. That's the seminal album of my Midwestern youth, and I was stunned at what a superb job BJS did on it. I had heard these guys (and gals) were good, but their performance was even more than I expected.

How good is BJS? Check out this performance of the title track from Hotel California, with Buck Johnson sounding an awful lot like Don Henley on lead vocals:



Here is Willoughby singing lead on the Don Henley/Glenn Frey classic "New Kid in Town":



BJS even had a string section for the haunting "Wasted Time (Reprise)":



From the greatest hits section of the show, here is "I Can't Tell You Why." Obviously the crowd knew all the words:



Finally, we have perhaps my all-time favorite Eagles tune--"The Last Resort," an epic tale about man's tendency to exploit the earth and degrade what we touch. It closes Hotel California and is one of the prime reasons the album probably will always stand among the finest works in rock/pop music:



How good is BJS on "The Last Resort"? You can check out the original here. I'm proud to say that Black Jacket Symphony calls Birmingham home.

Monica Goodling Ruling Shows That Legal Watchdogs Have No Teeth

Monica Goodling

Former U.S. Justice Department official Monica Goodling has received a public reprimand from the Virginia State Bar for her role in unlawfully mixing political considerations and hiring decisions in the George W. Bush administration.

What should the public take from this farcical outcome? We can think of at least two key points:

* President Barack Obama might have secured a sense of justice regarding Osama bin Laden, but Americans should be deeply concerned about the administration's efforts to provide cover for Bush-era bad actors.

* State bar associations, in too many cases, are incapable of policing rogue lawyers--and the public should have little, if any, confidence in these organizations. Can state bars be inconsistent? We are aware of a case in Alabama, which we soon will be covering in depth, where a lawyer received a one-year suspension for making statements in court documents that proved to be . . . absolutely true. In fact, the opposing party admitted the statements were true, but the lawyer still faces a one-year suspension. And Monica Goodling gets a public reprimand for helping to befoul our federal justice department? Do legal watchdogs expect to be taken seriously?

Why did a subcommittee of the Virginia State Bar even bother to slap Goodling on the wrist? Legal Times reports:

The subcommittee found that Goodling violated a bar rule against misconduct when she “improperly utilized political affiliation and other political considerations when making hiring decisions for career positions.” Goodling admitted to doing so while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee under oath in May 2007, the order says.

“I crossed the line of the civil service rules,” she said then, according to the order. “I believe I crossed the lines. But I didn’t mean to.”

She didn't mean to? This from a woman whose interview questions, put to candidates for career, non-political jobs, included, "Why are you a Republican?"

By the way, Goodling made the above admission only after asserting her Fifth Amendment rights before Congress and agreeing to testify under a grant of immunity. How did the Justice Department handle this "public servant" who admitted to crossing legal boundaries? Reports Virginia Lawyers Weekly:

After her testimony, the Justice Department conducted an investigation of her conduct and other allegations of improper political considerations in the department. The Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General issued a lengthy joint report in July 2008 that did not refer her conduct for criminal investigation.

Because she had resigned her position before the administrative investigation was concluded, the department took no disciplinary action against her.

That came under the Bush DOJ, which apparently had a doctrine that went something like this: "You can commit all kinds of wrongdoing, but if you resign when you're under fire, everything will be OK." Has the Obama DOJ been any better? Nope. It has made no move to reopen the case against Monica Goodling.

The DOJ report indicates Ms. Monica's actions are worth a second look. On page 45 of the report, from the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General, we find this:

In sum, we concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department.

On page 122 of the report, we learn this about Goodling's behavior:

Finally, we concluded that Goodling engaged in misconduct by making misrepresentations to the Civil Division attorneys representing the Department in the Gonzalez v. Gonzales litigation. An attorney from the Civil Division interviewed Goodling in January 2007 to learn how the OAG had handled the IJ hiring process. In the interview, Goodling told the attorney that she did not take political considerations into account in IJ hiring. The Civil Division attorney’s recollection of this point was specific and was corroborated by the memoranda he wrote contemporaneously and circulated within the Department in connection with deliberations about how to handle the lawsuit.

Bottom line? Monica Goodling violated federal law and then lied about it in an official proceeding. And her punishment is a public reprimand?

Perhaps most alarming is this: The DOJ, under both Bush and Obama, apparently has made no effort to follow the trail of sleaze to its origin. We know that Goodling took directions from her boss, Kyle Sampson. It certainly stands to reason that Sampson took directions from Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. And the DOJ report hints that the whole process was driven by the White House Office of Political Affairs, led by . . . Karl Rove.

Consider this from page 86 of the report, regarding the appointment of immigration judges (IJ) through the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR):

We found that the majority of candidates provided to EOIR by Sampson were from the White House Office of Political Affairs. For example, in September 2004, the Office of Political Affairs provided Sampson with the résumé of a candidate for an IJ position in El Paso, Texas. Sampson instructed EOIR to “reach out to” the candidate, and the candidate was eventually appointed as an IJ.

It probably would not take a super sleuth to connect these dots right to Rove's doorstep. But the Obama administration seems to be unwilling to do that. After all, that would involve "looking backwards"--and we mustn't do that. The president can order all kinds of daring missions to shoot Al Qaeda leaders in the head. But as long as he lets Bush crooks off the hook, his record on justice issues will be an embarrassment.

Monica Goodling was just one of many Bush officials who committed "acts of terror" against our constitution. She played a major role in corrupting the hiring process for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Because of Goodling, numerous unqualified lawyers now serve in the DOJ. Because of Goodling, numerous qualified lawyers do not serve in the DOJ. Because of Goodling, and many others, our justice department was used as a political tool.

Some pundits have stated that the killing of bin Laden almost assures Obama's re-election in 2012. But serious voters should look closely at Obama's overall justice record. The Monica Goodling episode is just the latest sign that his performance has been shameful.

The Horrors of Getting a New ID Photo

Perhaps no rite of American life is dreaded quite like having to pose for a new ID photograph.

Even the most photogenic people--the Christie Brinkley-type babes, the Fabio-type dudes--seem to cringe at the thought of having to get their pictures taken for a driver's license or some such.

Why would this simple procedure cause such angst? Gee, I don't know . . . the photos always are taken in lousy light, with a boxy looking camera that appears to have been in service for about 50 years, by an operator who probably doesn't know an aperture from an amputation. And the snap usually comes after you've been waiting in line for 45 minutes, so you are sure to be in a great, smiley mood.

Our boy cat, Baxter, might be the only living being I know who doesn't want to cough up a hair ball at the thought of having an ID photo taken. Of course, he's so handsome it's impossible for a camera to catch him at an off moment.

It certainly isn't hard for a camera to catch me at an off moment. I've never been particularly camera shy--although some might argue that I should be--but I've come to avert my eyes when being presented with the results of an ID-photo session.

One complicating factor is that I'm 6-4, and tall people apparently present problems for ID-photo takers. When I went to get my driver's license renewed recently, the woman behind the camera asked me to scrunch down. "Otherwise, we're going to get a nice shot of your Adam's apple," she said.

That instruction helped produce a positively "charming" image, one that gave me a nice "Hunchback of Notre Dame" quality. I can only imagine how much fun NBA players must have getting their ID photos taken.

Anyway, I suspect many Americans can identify with poor "Whiskers" below. Life is hard enough without having to turn your photo ID over to total strangers.



see more Lolcats and funny pictures, and check out our Socially Awkward Penguin lolz!

Alabama's GOP Delegation Voted Against Funding for Tornado Forecasting

Storm damage in Hueytown, Alabama

U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) spent the better part of two days last week touring areas of his state devastated by killer tornadoes. Bachus was in Tuscaloosa when President Obama toured perhaps the hardest hit area in Alabama. And Bachus issued a somber statement, calling on citizens to come together to help comfort those affected by the storms.

Bachus, however, apparently neglected to mention that he and other Republicans in Alabama's Congressional delegation voted against funding for satellites that are critical for accurate storm forecasting. The Web site climateprogress.org reports that Bachus and his fellow Alabama Republicans--Martha Roby, Mo Brooks, Robert Aderholt, Mike Rogers, and Jo Bonner--voted against a bill that would replace aging satellites that are the heart of America's weather-forecasting system.

The ability of those satellites to provide accurate weather information probably saved hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives last week in Alabama. But the satellites need to be replaced, and Alabama Republicans decided that was not necessary--just days before their state was hit with one of the deadliest tornadoes in American history.

Reports climateprogress.org:

On Thursday, as the search for survivors continued in devastated communities across Alabama and other southern states pummeled this week by massive, terrifying tornadoes, President Obama said “we can’t control when or where a terrible storm may strike, but we can control how we respond to it.” Unfortunately, thanks to the spending bill orchestrated by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, he couldn’t say we are doing everything in our power to protect Americans from future extreme weather events.

How important is modern technology in forecasting powerful storms?

The Associated Press characterized the number of fatalities from these storms –more than 340 as of Saturday — as something that “seems out of a bygone era, before Doppler radar and pinpoint satellite forecasts were around to warn communities of severe weather. Residents were told the tornadoes were coming up to 24 minutes ahead of time, but they were just too wide, too powerful and too locked onto populated areas to avoid a horrifying body count.”

It is precisely those “pinpoint satellite forecasts” that Congress, including every GOP member of Alabama’s delegation, decided were luxuries America cannot afford when it passed the continuing resolution to keep the government operating for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Alabama's GOP delegation, it turns out, had other priorities, besides protecting citizens of the state from killer storms:

As we have discussed in previous posts, this action eliminated funding to replace the environmental satellites that help make our forecasts a reality. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has stated in no uncertain terms that these aging satellites will fail, and our failure to buy new ones this year will cause at least an 18 month gap in coverage.

Clearly, Congressional Republicans were more interested in protecting the $5.5 billion in subsidies and foregone royalty payments for Big Oil—which collectively reported a total of more than $30 billion in first quarter profits this week—than they were in spending the $700 million necessary to literally save the lives of their constituents.

By the way, a recent report from the Center for American Progress shows that extreme weather is becoming increasingly costly--both in terms of dollars and lives:

These extreme events included “supercell thunderstorms” in Iowa, severe drought and record wildfires in Texas, and heavy rains across the United States. The recent southeastern storms and tornadoes took at least 297 lives across eight states. And heavy rains in the Mississippi River valley could cause the most severe, damaging floods there in nearly a century.

This extreme weather, though record setting in some places, may be the new normal. Last year, unprecedented extreme weather led to a record number of disaster declarations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The United States and the world were swept by flooding, severe winter storms, heat waves, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

Are Spencher Bachus and his fellow Republicans paying attention to the reality of extreme weather? Apparently not. Bachus was quick to issue platitudes to the suffering, but in the following video, you will notice that he makes no mention of his own actions that make Alabamians less safe. In fact, he notes that warnings via the media were critical in saving lives. But he doesn't say that those warnings are made possible by satellite technology, which the GOP refused to support:

Are Deadly Tornadoes a Sign of God's Wrath on the Deep South?

President Obama in Tuscaloosa, AL

When an earthquake devastated San Francisco in 1989, some conservatives said it was God's punishment for the city's welcoming attitude toward gays. When Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans in 2005, some conservatives said the supposed debauchery in the French Quarter had raised God's anger.

Here in 2011, we've learned that game can cut both ways. After last week's tornadoes killed more than 300 people in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and Louisiana, one can only conclude that God must be unhappy with the Deep South about something. The Big Guy must really be pissed at my home state of Alabama, where 236 people have been confirmed dead.

By the way, Southern conservatives aren't the only ones getting hammered by Mother Nature. Southwest Missouri, especially the country-music mecca of Branson, has been hit with major flooding. That part of the Ozarks is steadfastly GOP.

Since it's "established" that liberals can raise God's hackles with their permissive ways, we can only assume from last week's storms that God doesn't like stuffed shirts either. (Which raises the question, "Who in the heck does God like?") After all, the seven states hardest hit by the storms were staunchly conservative. Talk about an angry God.

What have conservatives done to get the Big Guy riled up? Let's consider a few possibilities:

* One of the prime tenets of modern conservatism is that tax rates must be cut for the richest Americans. The Bible, the book Southerners seem to treasure, says it's easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19: 23-24.) Have conservative Southerners been ignoring God's word? Is that why the skies darkened and the winds blew last week?

* Another tenet of modern conservatism is this: Those near the bottom of the economic ladder should wait on crumbs from the upper reaches to "trickle down" to them. In other words, we must take care of the wealthy's needs first before considering the plight of the poor. The Bible, which many Southerners claim to know, sings a different tune. It instructs Christians to serve "the least of these." (Matthew 25:40.) Again, has the conservative South been ignoring God's word, replacing it with the Gospel of John Boehner?

* Based on his words, as reported in The Bible, Jesus Christ was a man of considerable intellect. It's unlikely that anyone can read the Sermon on the Mount, for example, without realizing these are profound words, from a deep and probing mind. So why do Christ's modern followers, especially those of a conservative bent, turn away from intellectual rigor? Why do they ignore the teachings of our brightest minds on profound subjects, such as climate change? In the wake of last week's storms, a leading climate scientist said we must not ignore the role climate change plays in triggering killer tornadoes. Reports Truthout, in an article dated April 30, 2011:

Conservatives attack any discussion of climate policy within the context of the killer tornadoes as “grotesque,” saying that to do so is blaming the victims.

In an email interview with ThinkProgress, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, one of the world’s top climate scientists, who has been exploring for years how greenhouse pollution influences extreme weather, said he believes that it is “irresponsible not to mention climate change” in the context of these extreme tornadoes. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, added that the scientific understanding of how polluting our atmosphere with billions of tons of greenhouse gases affects tornadic activity is still ongoing:

"It is irresponsible not to mention climate change. … The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences (global warming). Tornadoes come from thunderstorms in a wind shear environment. This occurs east of the Rockies more than anywhere else in the world. The wind shear is from southerly (SE, S or SW) flow from the Gulf overlaid by westerlies aloft that have come over the Rockies. That wind shear can be converted to rotation. The basic driver of thunderstorms is the instability in the atmosphere: warm moist air at low levels with drier air aloft. With global warming the low level air is warm and moister and there is more energy available to fuel all of these storms and increase the buoyancy of the air so that thunderstorms are strong. There is no clear research on changes in shear related to global warming. On average the low level air is 1 deg F and 4 percent moister than in the 1970s."

Is God angry at conservative Southerners for ignoring the science on the dangers of climate change?

An examination of the twisters' paths through Alabama raises even more questions about conservatism and the wrath of God. Tuscaloosa, home to the University of Alabama, was the hardest hit city in the state. Why was that? Well, many of our state's business titans, who often seek to comfort the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, are products of the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration. Many of the lawyers and judges who have turned our "justice" system into a cesspool are products of the University of Alabama School of Law.

Heck, Tuscaloosa's best known longtime resident is Paul Bryant Jr., the son of Hall of Fame football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant. And as we have reported in numerous posts here at Legal Schnauzer, Bryant Jr. and one of his companies (Alabama Reassurance) have extensive ties to massive insurance fraud.

Tuscaloosa also has an ugly history on race relations. George Wallace made his famed "stand in the schoolhouse door" at Foster Auditorium on the University of Alabama campus. UA's Greek system is notorious for The Machine, a secret coalition of white fraternities and sororities that has influenced campus and state politics for years. Products of The Machine, I'm told, land at boardrooms and law firms across Alabama, contributing to a cloud of bigotry and entitlement that hangs over our state. Esquire did a major expose of The Machine in its April 1992 edition. Racism in the Greek system at UA remains a source of concern and embarrassment for the state.

The Schnauzer household was spared in last week's storm--and for that, we are deeply grateful. But talk about the seediness that surrounds Tuscaloosa hits close to home. I worked for 19 years at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) before being cheated out of my job in May 2008 because of the progressive tone of this blog. And I'm not guessing about what caused me to be unlawfully fired. I've got audiotaped evidence to prove it, in the form of a conversation I had with Anita Bonasera, a human-resources official at UAB:

Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case

UAB is one of three campuses in the University of Alabama System, which is governed by a board of trustees based in . . . Tuscaloosa. UAB President Carol Garrison signed off on my unlawful termination. But there is little doubt that she did it at the direction of, or with the blessing of, someone from Tuscaloosa.

And now major portions of Tuscaloosa have been blown to smithereens. Were last week's storms the Revenge of the Schnauzer?

I'm not serious about that, of course. I suspect most progressives don't subscribe to the notion that a loving God uses the laws of nature to punish people--no matter how despicable they might be. I certainly don't subscribe to such a notion. After all, many storm victims in Tuscaloosa were from the lower ends of the economic scale, folks who already were struggling just to get by. The truly despicable folks in T-town, certain elites, appear to have been mostly unscathed in the storms.

Regardless of what reality tells us, some conservatives clearly believe that God can get so ticked off about certain things that he can manipulate nature in order to inflict all sorts of suffering on those who have made Him unhappy. If that's the case, Southern conservatives might want to consider becoming liberals.

Here is terrifying news footage of the storm approaching Tuscaloosa:

University of Kentucky Hires a President With Ties to Medicare Fraud

Eli Capilouto at the U of Kentucky

The new president of the University of Kentucky has connections to massive research fraud from his previous position as chief academic officer at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

Eli Capilouto became provost at UAB in 2002 and remained in that position until being named UK's president yesterday. According to two whistleblower lawsuits, filed under the U.S. False Claims Act, UAB engaged in a research-fraud scheme involving hundreds of millions of dollars during much of the time Capilouto was a dean or provost at the school.

The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Alabama, allege that UAB engaged in about $600 million worth of research fraud over at least a 10-year period. The Bush Justice Department settled the qui tam cases in 2005, while Capilouto was provost, for $3.4 million, which was less than one percent of the alleged fraud. Under the treble-damages provision of the False Claims Act, UAB could have been liable for approximately $1.5 billion.

As we reported yesterday, Capilouto was part of a UAB administration that took steps to essentially condone racist and sexist language in official university policies. But UAB also faced charges of major financial mismanagement during Capilouto's time at the school, including his time as provost.

Allegations in the qui tam complaints involve misappropriation of funds from Medicare, Medicaid, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other federal entities. The government alleged that UAB submitted claims under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, which involves health insurance for the aged and disabled. UAB also allegedly defrauded a health-insurance program for military personnel and their dependents.

As we reported previously, a source has told Legal Schnauzer that the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama at the time, Bush appointee Alice Martin, did not even investigate the claims. The settlement figure was based on one claim to which UAB officials admitted wrongdoing. More than 100 similar cases within UAB were ignored by Bush officials.

No wonder the Lexington Herald-Leader reported Tuesday that Capilouto had supported a number of conservative political figures, including U.S. Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), plus . . . President George W. Bush.

No wonder the Obama administration had to deal with exploding health-care costs when it took office. No wonder a UAB administration headed by President Carol Garrison and Capilouto unlawfully terminated me for writing what could be called a progressive blog, outlining wrongdoing by mostly Republican judges in Alabama and officials in the Bush DOJ--especially related to the political prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.

Thomas Gober, a former auditor and research-compliance director at UAB, filed the first whistleblower complaint. Gober now has his own forensic-accounting firm and was featured in a Newsweek article about fraud at financial giant AIG.

Dr. Jay Meythaler, a physician who practiced in rehabilitation medicine at UAB until his resignation in 2004, filed the second whistleblower complaint. He now serves on the faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit.

Here is a timeline of Capilouto's rise to power in academia and the allegations of fraud in the qui tam complaints:

* 1991--A UAB scheme to submit false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and NIH begins at least by this date. It might have started earlier.

* 1994--Capilouto is named dean of the UAB School of Public Health.

* 2001--Gober files his whistleblower complaint and resigns from UAB.

* 2002--Capilouto is named UAB's provost, the chief academic officer.

* 2004--Meythaler files his whistleblower complaint and resigns from UAB.

* 2005--The U.S. Justice Department consolidates the two claims and settles the case with UAB.

* 2011--Capilouto is named president of the University of Kentucky.

Research fraud at UAB took several forms, and Gober's complaint provides devastating details. (See the full complaint at the end of this post.)

* Improper effort reporting--Effort reporting is supplied in a grant application to inform the government of the applicant's time and effort available for a grant or research program. Gober states that UAB failed to disclose overlap support "on hundreds and perhaps thousands" of grant applications. Such false claims resulted in UAB receiving approximately $72 million in federal funding--in 2000 alone.

* Double billing and improper billing--Gober states that UAB routinely submitted claims to federal health-care programs that should have been billed to non-federal entities. In some cases, UAB already had received compensation from non-federal entities but billed the federal government anyway. In other cases, UAB already had received compensation from one federal entity but billed another federal entity anyway. Hence, the term "double billing."

How insidious was the deception on the part of UAB officials? From the Gober complaint:

The double billing occurred when the Defendants billed the Federal Medicare, Medicaid, and CHAMPUS Programs [Civilian Health and Medical Program for Uniformed Services] for patient care services that the Government had already provided funds for through the PHS Grant Program [Public Health System] for patients who took part in research trials. This fraudulent double-billing harmed the Treasury of the United States. The number of fraudulent charges for the year 2000 is over 1,000, and upon information and belief, may exceed 10,000 for the past 10 years. The amount of fraudulent charges, at a minimum total approximately $30,000,000 for the year 2000, and based upon information and belief, exceeds $100,000,000 in double billing for the past 10 years.

As we noted earlier, part of the fraud involved a Social Security program for the aged and disabled. And what is CHAMPUS? Now known as TRICARE, it provides civilian health benefits for military personnel, military retirees, and their dependents.

In other words, UAB's scheme involved bilking federal programs designed for the aged, the disabled, veterans, active-duty military personnel, and their dependents.

The University of Kentucky chose a president who was in the midst of all that? Have UK officials ever heard of "doing your homework"?

Actions under the False Claims Act (FCA) are considered "quasi criminal" and often describe misconduct that could be considered criminal under associated statutes. FCA cases are civil in order to encourage whistleblowers to come forward, allowing them to share in any proceeds that are recovered for the government.

An article from justia.com provides an overview of qui tam/whistleblower cases and describes how they are prosecuted:

A whistleblower must file a qui tam suit under seal with a U.S. District Court, and the Justice Department then conducts an investigation of the facts involved in the complaint. When its investigation is complete, the government has the option to take over the case, or intervene. In some cases, the U.S. Attorney will open a criminal investigation based on the qui tam allegations and the civil case will not proceed until the criminal investigation is complete. Whether or not the government takes over the case, the whistleblower is entitled to a share of any successful qui tam action recovery. If the government decides not to participate, the whistleblower may pursue the case on behalf of the government. The filing, investigation, and trial in a qui tam action may take many years to complete.

This paragraph, plus language in the settlement agreement, makes it clear that some UAB officials were in danger of facing criminal prosecution. Given the huge sums allegedly involved, federal prison sentences were a real possibility--if a genuine investigation had been conducted.

A Bush-appointed U.S. attorney provided cover for Birmingham's largest employer, and so far, no one at UAB has had to don an orange jumpsuit.

Could Eli Capilouto have been in the criminal cross hairs? The answer to that question is not clear from documents filed in federal court. But it's certainly easy to understand why he supports conservative politicians.

In future posts, we will examine the settlement agreement and the Jay Meythaler complaint, which provides details about the provost's role in the UAB research scheme. For now, here is the Tom Gober qui tam complaint. Such complaints, by law, are filed under seal, so this kind of information often escapes public inspection. We obtained this document, and others, after the seal on the UAB case was lifted:


UAB Qui Tam Complaint (Gober)

Is the University of Kentucky About to Hire a President Who Condones Racist and Sexist Language?

The University of Kentucky today is set to name Eli Capilouto, provost of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), as its next president.

Are UK officials aware that Capilouto was part of a UAB administration that has taken steps indicating it condones racist and sexist language? The answer seems to be no.

In fact, no one in Kentucky appears to have examined the toxic environment that Eli Capilouto helped create over the past 10 years or so at UAB. It's an environment so ugly that I was cheated out of my job as an editor, after 19 years on the job, because I write a blog that has focused on the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman--and other justice-related issues at the state, regional, and national levels. Was I unlawfully terminated for exercising my First Amendment rights to free speech? The answer unquestionably is yes--and I will provide proof later in this post.

The dysfunction goes way beyond my personal story, including multiple discrimination lawsuits from veteran faculty members, multiple cases of academic fraud, research fraud totaling an estimated $300 to $600 million, multiple lawsuits alleging discrimination against international medical trainees, connections to a physical therapy company that has been charged with Medicare fraud in a federal whistleblower lawsuit . . . and the beat goes on.

We outlined the UAB sleaze of the past five to 10 years in the following post:

UAB Dysfunction Doesn't Happen In A Vacuum

The University of Kentucky wants its next president to be an administrator who was in the middle of all that? Astonishing. And that list doesn't even count a most curious step UAB's administration has taken--a step we discovered only recently--essentially saying racist and sexist language on the Birmingham campus is A-OK.

Am I making this up? No, I am not--and we will provide proof in a moment. But first, some background:

American society has made a significant effort over the past 45 years or so to greatly reduce some of the ugly language that once was a regular part of our soundscape.

Words that once were commonly acceptable now can draw a serious backlash--just ask Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who stepped in doo-doo last summer for her not-so-creative use of the "N" word. But UAB, once considered a major higher-education success story in the Deep South, actually seems to be going in the opposite direction.

How did this happen? Well, we have documented part of the story here at the Legal Schnauzer blog.

In December 2008, a UAB employee named Pamala Gibson used her university computer to send an anti-gay message to a gay-rights group in California. At about the same time, a UAB employee named Ashla Jana Campbell used her university computer to send a racist e-mail about Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats. (Campbell's nasty missive now looks almost un-American in light of the Obama administration's recent actions against Osama bin Laden.)

Both the Gibson and Campbell stories were reported in the mainstream and/or Web press. And both were violations of the university's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which governs the use of computers, networks, and associated equipment.

Here is how we described a key passage in UAB's policy at the time:

Examples of violations under UAB's Acceptable Use Policy include "creating, displaying, or transmitting threatening, racist, sexist, or harassing language and/or materials."

The policy clearly prohibited the use of UAB equipment to send racist or sexist messages--not to mention messages that are threatening or harassing. The AUP called for violations to be handled with progressive discipline--an oral warning for a first violation, a written warning for a second, and possible termination for a third.

In a post dated February 11, 2009, we reported about the message that Ashla Jana' Campbell sent:

UAB Employee Sends Racist/Anti-Obama E-Mail

We also contacted the office of UAB President Carol Garrison for comment. She did not return our call.

But what did the UAB administration do? It changed its Acceptable Use Policy--eight days after our post was published.

Yes, the UAB Acceptable Use Policy now says that it was revised on February 19, 2009. And it no longer includes the prohibition against racist, sexist, threatening, and harassing language.

You can check it out here:

University of Alabama at Birmingham: Acceptable Use of Computers and Network Resources

Here is how the relevant section now reads:

These resources may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal. Further, these resources may not be used for activities which interfere with the ability of UAB to support its mission, compromise the character and reputation of UAB by association, or violate the UAB Conflicts of Interest Policy.

A UAB employee apparently now can send all the racist or sexist messages she wants, and it's fine--as long as she doesn't make the university look bad. And being a racist or homophobe isn't illegal, so . . . no problem. It now seems to be up for debate whether such messages "compromise the character and reputation of UAB by association." That, of course, assumes that UAB has a character or reputation worth compromising.

Is it mere coincidence that this policy change came only eight days after I reported about the anti-Obama e-mail and contacted UAB President Carol Garrison's office for comment? I doubt it.

I wonder how many black faculty, staff, or students were included in the decision to remove the reference to racist language from the UAB policy? My guess would be none.

As for my personal experience with UAB's dysfunctional environment . . . well, there is no doubt why I was unlawfully terminated. UAB initially made vague allegations that I was using my university computer to write my blog. When I filed a grievance after being fired, UAB information-technology employee Sean Maher testified that he had been asked to monitor my computer usage for a month or so. What was the result of Maher's investigation? He stated in the hearing that I had not typed the first keystroke on my blog, while at work. In fact, I had never even opened my blog while I was on UAB equipment or time.

With that established, UAB tried to allege that I was "researching" my blog while at work. That didn't hold water, either, as we explained in a previous post:

This "researching my blog" charge is nonsensical on multiple levels. The claim seems to be that I was checking various news items about the Siegelman case, and then posts would show up on my blog about the Siegelman case. In making this charge, UAB conveniently ignored my job description. My fellow editors and I were charged with, among many other things, keeping up with current events so that we could present possible story ideas for our some 20 alumni publications, covering almost every academic subject at a major research university.

The Siegelman story was of particular interest because (a) It was the biggest story in Alabama at the time, one with major national interest; (b) Siegelman, when he was governor, was ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which governs UAB; (c) Richard Scrushy, Siegelman's codefendant, was (and is) UAB's most famous alumnus and had his name on any number of buildings before he went to prison; (d) It touched on political science, Alabama history, criminal justice--all topics of study at UAB.

In short, I would have been neglecting my duty if I had not been keeping up with the Siegelman story. So I essentially got fired for doing my job.

I have an ongoing federal lawsuit over my termination, and in the discovery process, UAB has changed its tune again. The charges now seem to be that my work performance had been declining, and I had ignored various warnings about use of university equipment. Do those claims hold water? Not exactly. Pam Powell, my supervisor, was asked at my grievance hearing, "Do you have any documents to support your claims that Roger's work performance was a problem." Answer: No. (In fact, I had received a positive performance review just a few weeks before being placed on administrative leave and then fired.) Powell also was asked, "Do you have any documents to show that you warned Roger about his use of university equipment--or any other issues?" Answer: No.

In other words, there was nothing in my personnel file to indicate there was anything wrong with my performance or my use of UAB equipment. And an IT guru monitored my every keystroke for more than a month and found nothing amiss. Yet, I still got fired--and President Carol Garrison upheld my termination, even after the grievance committee found that I should not have been fired.

So why was I really fired? The answer is obvious in a three-minute audiotape of a conversation I had with UAB human-resources official Anita Bonasera a few days after I had been placed on administrative leave. I had been told that I could file a written response to the charges against me, and I called Bonasera with several questions about that process. In the first part of the audio I try to explain the nature of my job description, addressing charges that I had engaged in excessive "non work-related activity." From about the 1:50 to 2:10 mark, Bonasera admits that I was targeted because of my blog, especially its content about the Don Siegelman case. You can listen to the tape here:

Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case

What have we learned about UAB? That it fired a 19-year employee because someone in Alabama's Republican hierarchy was upset about the content of his blog, which he wrote on his own time. (I received numerous anonymous threats on my blog in the weeks leading up to my termination--including one threat that specifically mentioned my job--and there is little doubt that those comments came from Alabama GOP operatives.) UAB also has changed the language in its Acceptable Use Policy to essentially make racist and sexist language OK, particularly when it targets our nation's first black president, a Democrat.

If we needed any more evidence to prove that UAB's current administration is morally bankrupt, this should do it. And the University of Kentucky is turning to the Birmingham campus for its next president?

Dissecting the Economic Debacles of the George W. Bush Administration

George W. Bush signs tax cuts into law.

Insightful historians likely will someday argue that George W. Bush oversaw the most disastrous administration in American history.

More evidence to support that claim came over the weekend from Washington Post reporter Lori Montgomery. In a piece titled "Running in the Red: How the U.S., on the Road to Surplus, Detoured to Massive Debt," Montgomery shows how choices made shortly after Bush took office turned the Clinton surpluses into record deficits.

Montgomery provides perhaps the most concise description yet of the events that led to an economic calamity in which we still are mired. And many Americans remain clueless about how we got here.

Writes Montgomery:

Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

It didn't have to happen, Montgomery reports. In fact, this is a classic self-inflicted wound, one that happened because Americans did not know how to deal with prosperity. Bill Clinton left an economy that was so strong the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted the U.S. could pay off all its debts within a decade. A rational, informed electorate would have given the 2000 presidential election to Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, in a landslide. But enough Americans inexplicably voted Republican to make the election close, and GOP chicanery carried the day in Florida, ushering Bush into the White House.

Were Americans tired of peace and prosperity under Clinton? Apparently they were, and Bush quickly set the nation on a new course:

Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. “In the end, the floodgates opened,” said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

Montgomery's article might be the single most important piece of political reporting in the past 10 years. It shows that Republicans who try to blame the burgeoning debt on Democrats and President Barack Obama are . . . well, full of feces. But how many Americans will read the article? How many will grasp what it means?

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.

Montgomery should be applauded for a tough, hard hitting article. But she is being much too kind to Bush here. She lays $1.7 trillion in new debt at Obama's feet, while putting $7 trillion of new debt under Bush. But almost all of the Obama-era choices were an attempt to jump-start an economy drowning in the Great Bush Recession. That means the blame for almost all of the $8.7 trillion in new debt should fall on Bush.

How do we get out of this mess? Montgomery says that new tax revenue must be part of the equation. But with House Speaker John Boehner calling new taxes a "non-starter," that means Americans probably lack the political will to get their economic house in order:

As Congress prepares this week to launch a high-stakes battle over whether to raise the legal limit on borrowing, the analyses offer a clearer view of the drivers of the debt — and of the difficulty of re-balancing the budget without new tax revenue.

Even former U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who played a pivotal role in pushing the Bush tax cuts, now admits they probably were ill advised:

“Nobody would have thought that all these things would have happened after you cut taxes,” Domenici said. “That you’d have two wars and not pay for them. That you’d have another recession. A huge extravaganza of expenditures” for the military and homeland security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “You would pause before you did it, if you knew.”

So why are Congressional Republican intent on making the Bush tax cuts permanent--even though "CBO forecasts are unrelievedly gloomy, showing huge deficits essentially forever," according to Montgomery?

No one seems to have an answer for that one.