Coverup of Sexual Abuse at Penn State Should Not Come as a Surprise

Jerry Sandusky

Perhaps one of the ugliest stories in the history of higher education is unfolding in an unlikely setting--State College, Pennsylvania, long known as "Happy Valley" and the idyllic home to Penn State University.

Happy Valley, and all of college athletics, has been rocked by reports that a former assistant coach for the Nittany Lions football team sexually abused at least eight boys, from 1994 to 2009. Jerry Sandusky was the defensive coordinator at Penn State until his retirement in 1999, and he long was seen as a likely successor to iconic head coach Joe Paterno.

Sandusky turned out dozens of defensive stars, helping Penn State become known as "Linebacker U." Allegations that he molested boys, both while working as a coach and as head of a youth charity called The Second Mile, have shocked the college-football world.

No one, however should be surprised at one aspect of the Penn State story--allegations that two high-ranking university officials lied under oath in an effort to cover up the scandal.

Tim Curley, Penn State's athletics director, and Gary Schultz, the school's senior vice president for business and finance, stepped down in the face of charges that they committed perjury and failed to notify state officials about allegations of sexual abuse.

Having worked in higher education for 19 years, I am not at all surprised by charges that university administrators lied under oath. In fact, I've seen similar behavior in an up-close-and-personal way since I was unlawfully terminated from my job as an editor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Indisputable evidence shows that I was targeted and fired because I write a progressive blog, on my own time, that apparently upset conservative forces in our state's political environment.

The public perhaps views college campuses as "citadels of  higher learning," where students, faculty, and staff are called to seek truth and insight. Many colleges offer required courses on ethics, and UAB even has an Ethics Bowl team. But when placed in a high-stakes, real-world situation, UAB administrators have shown that their ethics can quickly exit, stage left. In fact, I have evidence that they lied under oath in an ongoing federal lawsuit over my termination.

Higher ups at Penn State apparently have similar problems with "situational ethics."

How ugly is the Sandusky scandal? Consider this report from Huffington Post:

The allegations against Sandusky, who started The Second Mile in 1977, range from sexual advances to touching to oral and anal sex. The young men testified before a state grand jury that they were in their early teens when some of the abuse occurred; there is evidence even younger children may have been victimized. . . .

Sandusky is charged with multiple counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a child, indecent assault and unlawful contact with a minor, as well as single counts of aggravated indecent assault and attempted indecent assault.

One accuser, now 27, testified that Sandusky initiated contact with a "soap battle" in the shower that led to multiple instances of involuntary sexual intercourse and indecent assault at Sandusky's hands, the grand jury report said.

What about charges against the Penn State administrators? Those aren't pretty either:

Curley and Schultz also are accused of perjury for their testimony to the grand jury that issued a 23-page report on the matter Friday, the day before state prosecutors charged them. Sandusky was arrested Saturday and charged with 40 criminal counts.

Curley denied that the assistant had reported anything of a sexual nature, calling it "merely `horsing around,'" the grand jury report said. But he also testified that he barred Sandusky from bringing children onto campus and that he advised Spanier of the matter.

The grand jury said Curley was lying . . . adding that it also deemed portions of Schultz's testimony not to be credible.

Should we be surprised that Penn State administrators, making handsome salaries from taxpayer funds, would play "cover our butts" on matters of serious public concern? No, we should not. University higher ups have the same mindset here in Alabama.

Carol Garrison

Evidence in my federal lawsuit shows that at least one defendant clearly committed perjury, two others probably did, and several others came awfully close--including President Carol Garrison. Anita Bonasera, UAB's director of employee relations, stated in an affidavit: "I am not aware that any of the (sic) Shuler's speech on his blog or elsewhere was related to the decision to terminate Shuler's employment."

A tape-recorded conversation that I had with Bonasera, however, shows that she did know that content on my blog played a huge role in my termination. You can hear that conversation at the link below:

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

Here is a transcript from a key portion of the conversation between me (RS) and Anita Bonasera (AB), clearly showing that Bonasera and my supervisor, Pam Powell (and Powell's supervisor, Dale Turnbough), knew exactly why I was targeted and unlawfully fired:

RS: I told Dale Turnbough about this two weeks ago, and she never said a word about any of this. In fact, she said she was going to take care of it, she assured me absolutely that this had nothing to do with my blog—and then two weeks later I find out it’s all about my blog.

AB: It’s not all about your blog. Your blog was an insignificant piece. . . . The blog . . . was a very small part of the bigger picture. . . . again, related to other non-work related things. I didn’t see those non-work related things. Pam (Powell) sat down with the computer people—and I don’t know who else was there—and they reviewed what was work related and what was non-work related.

RS: And she’s the determiner of that, even though she has told us . . .

AB: She was able to determine what you were working on and whether it was related to your blog . . .

RS: Well, you just said it, it’s all about my blog. You just said that.

AB: That was a piece of it. Some of it was research related to your blog, from my understanding. I understand there were some things about Siegelman, screens up about Don Siegelman, things that they saw you doing that they consider to be research for your blog because then that was topics that you wrote about on your blog.

RS: Those are also news articles that we are supposed to keep up with, about Alabama, stuff in the news.

This indicates that at least three UAB management types knew that I was fired because of my blog content--specifically about the Don Siegelman case--and they lied about it in sworn affidavits. That probably meets the legal definition of perjury. Several other administrators, including President Carol Garrison, made similar statements that also might rise to the level of perjury.

Garrison perhaps had at least one moment of candor in her affidavit when she wrote: "I am not aware of any party outside UAB having any influence whatsoever over the decision to terminate Shuler or my decision to uphold that termination." That's probably because an Alabama politico or two went to someone on the UA Board of Trustees and asked them to have me canned. If the board member instructed Garrison to see that the dirty deed was done, that means no one outside UAB was involved--at least in Garrison's mind.

Administrators in higher education tend to think that lower forms of human life are stupid. But Garrison forgets that I worked at UAB for 19 years and have a pretty good idea of how the place works. The idea to fire me almost certainly did not originate with someone at the level of Anita Bonasera or even Pam Powell. And a manager in the area where I worked, such as Dale Turnbough, is not likely to take action--the kind that would invite a lawsuit--without consulting those above her. Even Garrison is not likely to take the kind of outrageous action found in my case without a push from, or the approval of, the Board of Trustees.

Again, higher ed is a "cover your ass" environment. Penn State officials knew they had criminal trouble on their hands in the Jerry Sandusky case, so they tried to cover it up. UAB officials knew they had significant civil trouble on their hands in my case, so they tried to cover it up--and it's possible that white-collar crimes were committed in the process.

Below is a copy of Anita Bonasera's affidavit in my lawsuit. After that, is a motion I filed, seeking to have bad-faith affidavits stricken and sanctions imposed.

These documents will show you why I am not surprised to know that Penn State officials are facing perjury charges in the Jerry Sandusky case. I've seen similar conduct here in Alabama.


UAB Lawsuit--Anita Bonasera Affidavit


UAB Lawsuit--Motion to Strike Affidavits

UAB's Carol Garrison Presents a "Profile in Courage" on Stadium Issue

Carol Garrison

The biggest story in Birmingham last week involved the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and its refusal to address plans for an on-campus football stadium at UAB--even though the chairman of the board's athletics committee had enthusiastically endorsed the plan in September.

Many UAB supporters are baffled and outraged, understandably so. After a presentation on the stadium proposal less than two months ago, Athletics Committee Chairman John McMahon said he thought the project would "get done and get done quickly." At last Thursday's board meeting in Tuscaloosa the project was pronounced dead.

What happened between September and November? UAB supporters tend to point angry fingers at Paul W. Bryant Jr., president pro tempore of the Board of Trustees and son of UA's late, Hall of Fame football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant. Blazer fans are correct to be suspicious of Bryant Jr.'s motives; he long has been seen as an impediment to UAB's aspirations in the sports arena. But UAB President Carol Garrison should not escape scrutiny. Her weakness as a leader helped set the stadium fiasco in motion.

To be sure, Bryant Jr. is a shady character, and public documents show that Bryant is a businessman with deeply skewed ethics, as we pointed out in a post with a not-so-subtle headline:

Why Is Paul Bryant Jr. on the UA Board of Trustees and Not In Federal Prison?

Court documents from Pennsylvania show that one of Bryant's companies, Alabama Reassurance, engaged in a "wire fraud scheme" to deceive insurance regulators and "inflate financial statements." A Philadelphia lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart received a 15-year prison sentence in the case, but an investigation of Alabama Re was called off by U.S. Justice Department officials in Alabama.

According to Alabama Department of Insurance records, Bryant was one of five people on the Alabama Re board, and the company had two full-time employees. In such a closely held organization, it's hard to imagine that Bryant was unaware of a $15-million fraud scheme.

Bryant is not the only slippery character in the UAB stadium story. Carol Garrison has her own set of shaky ethics, and UAB is not likely to move forward until both Bryant and Garrison are out of power.

Like Bryant, Garrison has a disturbing history of being tied to financial shenanigans. In fact, she probably should have been fired for misuse of public funds during her first year on the job at UAB. But the Board of Trustees, already facing a likely lawsuit from UAB's previous president (W. Ann Reynolds), decided to keep Garrison on--ensuring that she would be their toady for the foreseeable future.

How weak is Garrison as a university president? Consider her almost comical response to the Board of Trustees' announcement that the stadium plan was going down. First, here is a portion of the board's statement:

A majority of the Board believes that an on-campus football stadium is not in the best interest of UAB, the University System or the State. It is the Board's duty to be responsible stewards of the limited resources available for higher education. In these difficult economic times of rising tuition and decreasing state funds, we cannot justify the expenditure of $75 million in borrowed money for an athletic stadium which would only be used a few days each year. The UAB football program has not generated sufficient student, fan or financial support to assure the viability of this project.

Here is Garrison's response:

I forwarded for consideration by the Board of Trustees the information on our proposed on-campus stadium. My responsibility is to make the best recommendations I can, based on the information that I have available to me. The responsibility of the Board includes reviewing the information and making their best individual and collective judgments. In this case the judgment was not to entertain this item. Together we need to refocus with the Board on all the important and exciting opportunities before this great university.

How's that for a "profile in courage"? That's really standing up for your constituents, isn't it? Garrison came across as a labradoodle, rolling over in hopes that someone would rub her belly.

Paul Bryant Jr.

It's really no secret what's happened over the past two months to torpedo the UAB stadium project. When the athletics committee met on September 16, the Blazers had an 0-1 record (an expected loss to SEC power Florida), and many experts thought the team had a decent chance for a winning season and a bowl game. The next day, UAB got blown out at Legion Field by a bad Tulane team--and the season has disintegrated since then. The Blazers are 1-8, ranked as one of the worst teams in college football, and Coach Neil Callaway now has a 16-45 record in his fifth year.

UAB fans are howling for Callaway's dismissal, and that apparently has ticked off Bryant Jr. It has been widely reported that Bryant Jr. forced UAB to hire Callaway, a former UA player and coach, after the board refused to let UAB hire its first choice, Jimbo Fisher (now Florida State's coach).

In an exchange last Thursday with al.com's Kevin Scarbinsky, Bryant strongly hinted that UAB and its fans are being unfair to Callaway:

Bryant: "Given the way the vote was, if it had gotten to me, I would've voted no (on the stadium project). I think there are a lot of things to be done to help the football program."

Q: Short of building an on-campus stadium?

A: "To start with, it's very difficult for them to have a chance recruiting with the facilities they have. It's very difficult for them to recruit when they can't admit players from Birmingham that qualify under NCAA requirements (but not under UAB's higher requirements). It's tough being the Vanderbilt of Conference USA, and that's what they're having to try to do. My main interest in it is to support the players and the coaches. I think last Friday there was something written in (a Hot Corner in The Birmingham News) whether to pull for them to win the (Marshall) game or not because you didn't know who you wanted the coach to be. I think that was a horrible thing to write. If anybody's looking at it that way, they ought to be doing everything they can to support the team to win games right now."

Bryant's comments are nonsensical, at best. If UAB's facilities make it hard to recruit football players, does Bryant think pulling the plug on a new stadium will help? As for UAB's tougher admissions standards for athletes, reducing special admits, those are an attempt to address problems with the NCAA's guidelines for Academic Progress Rate (APR). Does Bryant think the university should ignore those issues? As for the "Hot Corner" item in The Birmingham News, it was a written by one of the paper's sportswriters--not a UAB supporter. It doesn't represent an official UAB position--and it's not the sportswriter's job "to support the team."

If UAB had a respectable record in 2011--say, 5-4, with three games to play--would the stadium plan be moving forward? Did Bryant Jr. pull the plug on UAB's stadium plans because the university wants to can Callaway in the midst of a dismal season?

The answer to both questions, I think, is yes. And that brings us back to Carol Garrison.

She set this soap opera in motion by agreeing to hire Callaway in the first place. If Bryant Jr. and the board wanted to nix Jimbo Fisher, claiming he was too expensive, UAB could have gone in a different direction. The best choice probably would have been John Neal, a long-time UAB assistant who has been highly successful as secondary coach at the University of Oregon. Former Blazer players speak glowingly of Neal, and he has the kind of energetic, fiery presence the program desperately needs.

If Bryant balked even at Neal, Garrison could have pointed to page 18 of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees Board Manual. Under responsibilities of the campus presidents, it includes:

Personnel administration including employment and termination, wage determination, and conditions of employment for faculty and other employees of the campus.

Translation: The hiring or firing of a football coach--or any other UAB personnel--is the responsibility of the university president. And that would be Carol Garrison.

If Paul Bryant Jr. forced UAB to hire Neil Callaway, and he almost certainly did, it was a violation of university policy. If Bryant Jr. is punishing UAB for its desire to fire Neil Callaway, that also is a violation of university policy.

It appears that Paul Bryant Jr. doesn't take university policy seriously. But what do you expect from a guy with clear ties to massive financial crimes?

Sadly, Carol Garrison is not a whole lot better. And we will show why in an upcoming series of posts.

People who care about UAB should do everything in their power to expose Paul Bryant Jr. for the fraudster that he is. But they also should take immediate steps to help push Carol Garrison toward the exits.

The university will not thrive as it should until both of them are out of the picture.

Why Is Paul Bryant Jr. On The UA Board of Trustees And Not In Federal Prison?

Paul Bryant Jr. (right), with
 UA athletics director Mal Moore

The question hovering above today's meeting in Tuscaloosa of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees will be this: Should UAB be allowed to build a 30,000-seat on-campus football stadium?

But the big question, the one that really needs to be asked, is this: Why is a man with documented ties to insurance fraud serving on the Board of Trustees? In fact, why is that man, Paul W. Bryant Jr., presiding as president pro tempore over a meeting where decisions about large amounts of public funds are being made?

To put it in blunt and stark terms: Why is Paul Bryant Jr. serving on the board of Alabama's flagship university instead of serving time in a federal prison?

After all, that's where a Pennsylvania lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart has been residing for quite some time, after receiving a 15-year sentence for orchestrating a scam that left thousands of Americans with worthless insurance policies. Public documents show that Alabama Reassurance, a company owned by Paul Bryant Jr., was in the middle of the Stewart scam.

Stewart was convicted on all 135 counts against him. And court documents show that nine of those counts directly involved Alabama Reassurance in "a wire fraud scheme to deceive state insurance regulators involving reinsurance." What was the goal? To enrich the executives at three insurance companies "in order to inflate their financial statements."

One of those three companies was Alabama Reassurance. It had $238 million in "admitted assets" and fell under the umbrella of Greene Group, Inc., led by president Paul Bryant Jr.

Is it possible that Alabama Re underlings committed fraud without Bryant's knowledge? That seems unlikely. Documents from the Alabama Department of Insurance show that Alabama Re had only two full-time employees--a president named Scott Moore Phelps and a vice president/actuary named William Rodney Windham. They were joined on the board of directors by Paul Bryant Jr., president of Greene Group Inc.; Allen Wayne May, a Tuscaloosa veterinarian; and Sam Moore Phelps, a Tuscaloosa lawyer.

How do you run a $238-million company with two people? Perhaps that question should be posed to Paul Bryant Jr.

Alabama Re, it turns out, was one peculiar operation. We shined light on its business practices in the following post:

Paul Bryant Jr. and Alabama Reassurance: A Portrait of Fraud

In such a tightly held organization, is it possible that Bryant could not have known about massive fraud taking place on his watch? The answer clearly seems to be no.

If you care about UAB and its future--and everyone living in Alabama should--how do you feel about the notion that critical decisions are being made by a man who has expertise in insurance fraud--and how to get away with it?

It's not as if serious doubt exists about Bryant's connections to fraud. At the bottom of this post is a  ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that upholds Allen W. Stewart's convictions--and proves Alabama Re's role in the case. And we quote from a pertinent section of that ruling, encompassed in footnote 11:

11. The relevant portions of the charge read as follows:
Counts 24 through 32 charge a wire fraud scheme to deceive state insurance regulators involving reinsurance. The superseding indictment alleges that in late 1992 or early 1993 the defendant devised a scheme to deceive state regulators and others regarding the true and complete reinsurance arrangements involving Summit National Life Insurance Company, its subsidiary Fidelity General Life Insurance Company, and the Alabama Reassurance Company in order to inflate their financial statements.

Let's return to a question we asked earlier: Why will Paul Bryant Jr. be presiding today over a meeting of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees instead of sitting in a federal prison cell like Allen W. Stewart?

To be fair to Bryant, we should note that his company was tied to only nine counts while Stewart was convicted of all 135 counts. Had Bryant gone to trial and been convicted--a virtual certainty considering the strength of the evidence in the Pennsylvania case--he might have received a sentence considerably lighter than the 15 years that Stewart got.

So perhaps Bryant would be a free man today. But would he have been nominated to serve on the UA Board of Trustees? Even in Alabama, the notion of a convicted felon serving on a university board might be frowned upon.

It's also possible that Bryant would have received even a longer sentence than did Stewart. That's because we've never learned the full extent of the financial skulduggery at Alabama Re. Is it possible that Bryant's company concocted schemes that went way beyond anything involving Allen W. Stewart? Stewart must have turned to Alabama Re for a reason, right? Is that because he knew the company had a reputation for engaging in fraudulent schemes?

So why, again, has Paul Bryant Jr. never been held accountable for his apparent crimes? Why is he president of a major university governing board, despite his unmistakable ties to business fraud?

We haven't been able to fully nail down the answer to those questions. But we suspect it has to do with a certain individual who was serving in the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, a person who just happens to be a graduate of . . . the University of Alabama--a person who reportedly has a history of doing legal work for Paul Bryant Jr.

Here is how we explained it in an earlier post:

Public documents show that Alabama Reassurance was implicated in a $15-million scheme that netted a 15-year prison sentence for a Pennsylvania man named Allen W. Stewart in the late 1990s. An investigation of Alabama Re was called off, apparently because Bryant had friends in the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District of Alabama.

G. Douglas Jones, now a lawyer at the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter, had just become U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama when the Alabama Re investigation was called off. Multiple sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Jones has ties to Bryant and has done legal work for him. I twice have asked Jones if he called off the Alabama Re investigation, and he has refused to answer the question. In fact, Jones has refused to answer any questions from me--including questions about his work with Rob Riley, son of former Governor Bob Riley, on a federal HealthSouth lawsuit that netted millions of dollars for plaintiffs' lawyers. Jones' refusal to answer questions from me is odd, given that he regularly is quoted in various media outlets. He becomes mute when the subjects of Paul Bryant Jr. and Rob Riley are raised.

You might think that Doug Jones, as a former public servant and still an "officer of the court," would feel an obligation to discuss his decisions in the Alabama Re investigation--and his ties to Paul Bryant Jr. But you would be wrong; Doug Jones has made it clear that he feels no duty to answer to the public that paid his salary as a federal prosecutor.

Perhaps UAB supporters should be asking this: Is Doug Jones the guy who let Paul Bryant Jr. "skate" on apparent business crimes? Is UAB now paying a huge price because of Doug Jones' actions?

Alabama Re Memorandum Opinion

Football Struggles Signal Mismanagement and Disarray at UAB

UA Trustee Paul Bryant Jr.
and U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions

It's impossible to overstate the importance of UAB to the state of Alabama. The university is our largest employer at one location and our strongest economic engine. It provides a comprehensive undergraduate program for students from all socioeconomic strata, has one of the nation's top hospitals, and features a powerhouse biomedical research enterprise that brings in $485 million a year.

Football at UAB is what it should be at all universities--a sideline. But even at UAB, struggles related to the football program can be a sign of something deeper, maybe even sinister. Those struggles became front-page news this week, showing that the university suffers from blatant mismanagement and creeping decay. Will citizens, especially those who live in the metro Birmingham area, wake up and take action? They should because dysfunction is running rampant at UAB--and it could eventually have severe economic consequences.

The 2011 UAB Blazers are one of the worst teams in college football. They are struggling with a 1-7 record and coming off a 59-14 thrashing at Marshall. The Blazers play host on Saturday night to the nation's No. 1 offensive team, the University of Houston, and that game could get ugly in a hurry. As embarrassing losses pile up, calls for the firing of fifth-year head coach Neil Callaway are growing.

With clouds already hovering, UAB supporters took a kick to the gut this week. The University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which oversees the three campuses in Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, and Huntsville, announced that it is withdrawing plans to build an on-campus football stadium at UAB. The board meets today and tomorrow in Tuscaloosa, and the UAB stadium project was expected to be on the agenda. But word leaked Tuesday that the item had been removed from the agenda, and the board confirmed yesterday that the stadium project has been axed for now.

Kevin Scarbinsky, a columnist at al.com, smells a rat. He is not the only one.

UAB supporters are outraged, and many of them are venting on the Blazer Talk message board, understandably so. The Blazers play at antiquated, city-owned Legion Field, and construction of a 30,000-seat, on-campus stadium was seen as central to the football program's future. Perhaps most alarming, the board had approved a feasibility study, UAB officials presented preliminary stadium plans in September, and the board's athletics committee expressed enthusiasm for the project. Plus, UAB already had shown commitments for luxury suites at a new facility.

So why did someone pull the plug?

To help answer that questions, UAB supporters need to understand two things:

* The University of Alabama Board of Trustees is a corrupt mess, and it includes a prominent member who has documented ties to a massive insurance fraud scheme that netted a 15-year federal prison sentence for one man.

* UAB President Carol Garrison is a feckless leader--in fact, she would have to improve to reach the "weak" level. Garrison probably should have been fired for her unseemly dalliance with the president of the University of Tennessee in 2002-03, her first year on the job at UAB. She managed to survive that debacle, but has become little more than a toady for the board.

UAB will not move forward until the board of trustees is exposed for the corruption in its midst--and the Birmingham campus is allowed to have a real leader.

Regular readers know that UAB issues hit close to the bone here at Legal Schnauzer. I worked at the university in various editorial positions for 19 years. Before that, I was a sports reporter at the Birmingham Post-Herald for 11 years, writing extensively about UAB athletics in both the P-H and several national publications.

In short, few people on the planet have done more than I have to portray UAB in a positive light over 30-plus years. But in May 2008, I was cheated out of my job as an editor in the UAB Publications office because I dared to write a blog about corruption in Alabama's "justice system." Legal Schnauzer obviously has ticked off some powerful individuals, as evidenced by the death threats I have received, and someone clearly instructed UAB officials to cook up bogus reasons to fire me. That, by the way, is not just my opinion. Anita Bonasera, the director of employee relations at UAB, admitted to me in a tape-recorded conversation that I was targeted because of my blog content about the political prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. I've run that audio several times, and here it is again:

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

A UAB IT employee named Sean Maher testified at my grievance hearing that he had been asked to monitor my computer usage at work for about a month. He gave no indication that he had been asked to monitor anyone else's work computer.  But even after checking my every keystroke for an extended period of time, Sean Maher reported that I had never written the first word of my blog on UAB equipment or time. He presented no evidence that I had worked on my blog in any way while on UAB equipment or time.

But I was fired anyway. And Carol Garrison upheld my termination, even after her own grievance committee found that I had been wrongly fired.

As you can see, I know a thing or two about dysfunction at UAB. And by the way, I have an ongoing federal lawsuit regarding my termination, and various UAB employees (past and present) have shown a willingness to lie under oath--while an 83-year-old judge named William M. Acker Jr. has repeatedly ruled contrary to basic procedural law. Experience has taught me that certain large, downtown law firms--especially Bradley Arant and Haskell Slaughter--more or less run Birmingham's federal courthouse and are willing to protect the thugs who run the University of Alabama System.

The University of Alabama Board of Trustees definitely includes a thug or two. UAB football fans are learning that now--the hard way.

Just how deep does the corruption go on the UA board? Consider that it's best known member is Paul Bryant Jr., the son of the late Hall of Fame football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant. Bear Bryant turned Tuscaloosa's Crimson Tide into one of the nation's powerhouse football programs, and "Bear Jr." reportedly does not like the idea of UAB having a program, much less a good one.

But more important is this: In the late 1990s, a company called Alabama Reassurance was implicated in a massive insurance fraud scheme in Pennsylvania. A federal trial ended with a 15-year prison sentence for a Philadelphia lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart--and with unmistakable evidence that Alabama Re was deeply involved in the crimes.

Who owned Alabama Re? Why, none other than Paul Bryant Jr.

Want evidence that Bryant Jr.'s company was involved in the Stewart case, one of the nation's largest insurance-fraud prosecutions at the time? Here it is, from one of our posts back in July:

Why has the case received so little attention in the South? It's not like the evidence against Bryant's company is hard to find; it's available with a simple Internet search. And it's not hard to understand; the language in a 2001 memorandum opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lays out the scheme clearly. (See the full memorandum opinion at the end of this post.) The document shows that the scheme involving Stewart and Alabama Re involved counts 24 through 32 of a 135-count indictment. Footnote No. 11, which begins on page 16 of the opinion, addresses Alabama Re's role in the fraud:

11. The relevant portions of the charge read as follows:
Counts 24 through 32 charge a wire fraud scheme to deceive state insurance regulators involving reinsurance. The superseding indictment alleges that in late 1992 or early 1993 the defendant devised a scheme to deceive state regulators and others regarding the true and complete reinsurance arrangements involving Summit National Life Insurance Company, its subsidiary Fidelity General Life Insurance Company, and the Alabama Reassurance Company in order to inflate their financial statements.

Alabama Re helped "deceive state regulators" to "inflate financial statements"? That's the kind of behavior that helped land a bunch of executives from Birmingham-based HealthSouth in federal prison. How did Paul Bryant Jr. escape the feds in Alabama, when convictions on all counts already had been reached in Philadelphia? We will look at that question shortly, but the more immediate question is this: How does a man with documented ties to insurance fraud wind up on a university board of trustees?

Neil Callaway

Posts on UAB message boards indicate that many Blazer fans believe Paul Bryant Jr. pulled the plug on the stadium project. Here's how the theory goes: It's been well reported that UAB wanted to hire then-LSU assistant Jimbo Fisher (now Florida State's head coach) when the Blazer coaching job came open in 2006. Bryant reportedly nixed that plan and forced UAB to hire Callaway, who was an assistant at the University of Georgia and had played for Bear Bryant at Alabama. In other words, Bryant Jr. wanted a member of the "Crimson Tide family" to coach UAB.

There have been only a couple of problems with that plan: Many UAB supporters have resented Callaway from the outset, and he has proven to be a colossal failure as a head coach.

Word is that UAB wants to fire Callaway, and it's hard to see how he can hang on much longer with a career record of 16-44.

Quite a few Blazer fans now suspect that Bryant Jr. axed the stadium project in retaliation for efforts to can Callaway. I'm guessing those fans are right on target. That's how things are done these days at UAB, and it's largely because Carol Garrison doesn't have the spine to stand up to the corrupt UA board.

Maybe that's because Carol Garrison is corrupt herself. We will be taking a detailed look at Garrison's questionable actions in an upcoming series of posts.

Meanwhile, here is a document about the Allen W. Stewart case, from the United States District Court for  the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It includes details about Alabama Re's involvement in the Stewart case. In a sense, Allen W. Stewart was Bernie Madoff, before the world had heard of Bernie Madoff--and Paul Bryant Jr.'s company helped pull off his dirty schemes.

Did anyone "vet" Paul Bryant Jr., and examine his business activities, before he was confirmed to the University of Alabama Board of Trustees? Sure doesn't look like it.

Alabama Re Memorandum Opinion

Viewing Mike Hubbard's Actions Through the Prism of the Don Siegelman Case

Don Siegelman

Attorneys for Don Siegelman go before a federal judge in Montgomery, Alabama, today to argue issues related to selective prosecution and government misconduct in the former governor's case.

That gives us a window through which to view recent news stories about House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn). It also calls to mind earlier reports about the questionable spending habits of Alabama Republicans.

Long-time followers of the Siegelman case will want to stay tuned on the fallout from today's hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody. Andrew Kreig, of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, has an excellent summary of issues that are expected to be addressed today:

Historic Siegelman Case Showdown Looms Nov. 2

How does all of this shine light on the evolving Mike Hubbard story? If we can use as an indicator the actions of prosecutors and judges in the Siegelman case--or in the case of the late Republican Governor Guy Hunt, for that matter--Hubbard and his GOP cohorts might be in trouble.

Why is that? If federal laws were applied to Hubbard the way they were applied to Siegelman--and the way state ethics laws were applied to Hunt--Mr. Speaker might want to start thinking about how he looks in an orange jumpsuit.

Translation: If equal protection of the law means anything in postmodern America--and last time I checked, the 14th Amendment still is prominently displayed in the U.S. Constitution--Mike Hubbard and some of his conservative brethren have earned serious federal and state investigations.

Much still is not known about Mike Hubbard's "boss style" actions as chairman of the Alabama Republican Party (2007-10) and speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives (January 2011-present).   The story is unfolding, and Hubbard is fortunate that the right-leaning mainstream press in Alabama has ignored it. But the portrait of Hubbard in two recent Montgomery Independent (MI) articles is deeply troubling.

Two traits seem to be apparent in Mike Hubbard's style of bare-knuckles politics:

* He likes to use public funds for partisan political reasons; and

* He likes to set up a "pay to play environment," where he benefits personally from his role as a lawmaker.

If the principles of the Siegelman and Hunt cases are applied, Mike Hubbard should be "defecating in his dungarees"--to borrow a phrase from a devoted and learned Legal Schnauzer reader.

Let's look at some specifics of criminal law: In the Siegelman case, prosecutors argued that the former governor violated federal law by accepting a contribution to an education-lottery fund from former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy and then appointing Scrushy to a hospital-oversight board--one he had served on under three other governors.

Siegelman was indicted under two primary federal statutes: 18 U.S.C 666 (federal funds bribery) and 18 U.S.C. 1346 (honest services mail/wire fraud). The 666 statute does not require that federal funds be directly involved; it requires only that the entity involved--a state, for example--receives at least $10,000 a year in federal assistance. The State of Alabama clearly receives such assistance, and that's why 666 applied in the Siegelman case.

Based on news reports so far, the same federal statute probably would apply in the Hubbard case. The full title of 666 is "Theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds." Allegations of bribery were at the heart of the Siegelman case; allegations of theft might be in play with Hubbard.

Here is how we summarized the MI's reporting on Hubbard in a recent post:

We learned in the first article that since 2007, the year Hubbard became Alabama Republican Party chair, about $136,000 of taxpayer funds have been used for what appear to be purely partisan activities. The money went to David Azbell, of the Montgomery lobbying firm Swatek Azbell Howe and Ross (SAHR), with at least $80,000 going for public-relations work on behalf of the House Republican Caucus. An undetermined portion of the total appears to have gone for Azbell's work in "helping Hubbard with research, writing, and editing" on Storm in the State House.

Particularly curious is the fact that Azbell's monthly check shot from $2,000 to $8,000 in March 2011, about the time Hubbard began to express interest in writing a book.

Now, let's look at the key language in 666 regarding theft:

Whoever . . .

(A) embezzles, steals, obtains by fraud, or otherwise without authority knowingly converts to the use of any person other than the rightful owner or intentionally misapplies, property that-(i) is valued at $5,000 or more, and (ii) is owned by, or is under the care, custody, or control of such organization, government, or agency; or

(B) corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more; or

(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or Indian tribal
government, or any agency thereof, in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

That's a lot of legalese to digest, but the bottom line is this: The theft component of 18 U.S.C. 666 might be applicable to the transactions between the Alabama GOP and David Azbell, which apparently were made with Hubbard's OK. If Azbell's partners in the Montgomery lobbying firm of Swatek Azbell Howe and Ross (SAHR) were in on the scheme, they could be included under a federal conspiracy charge.

MI Editor Bob Martin raises an important issue about possible federal violations in the Hubbard scenario:

There have been suggestions around the legislature that the Speaker has rewarded his friends and fellow legislators with . . . perks. If that has happened I wouldn’t suggest there is an explicit quid pro quo attached, but such might not even be necessary.

Martin has a point. We see no sign that a quid pro quo provision ("something for something" agreement) exists for the theft component of 666. An "explicit" quid pro quo, of course, is required for the bribery component--and that was a central issue in the Siegelman case. But possible theft, not bribery, is at the heart of the Hubbard story, so far.

Even if bribery becomes an issue, here is where the Siegelman prosecution could wind up being bad news for Hubbard. U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, contrary to clear federal law, did not give an "explicit quid pro quo" jury instruction in the Siegelman case. And in an act of stunning unlawfulness, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Fuller's jury instruction was perfectly fine.

The appellate court found that the Siegelman jury was free to "infer" that an unlawful quid pro quo existed, whether evidence showed an explicit agreement or not. This is contrary to precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court and a blatant violation of the stare decisis principle upon which American jurisprudence is built.

Residents of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama--the states covered by the Eleventh Circuit--can only assume that the "explicit" quid pro quo requirement no longer applies in our neck of the woods. So Bob Martin is correct, on multiple grounds, when he notes that an explicit agreement might not be necessary in any prosecution of matters concerning Mike Hubbard.

Guy Hunt

If Hubbard did not step in doo-doo on the federal side of the fence, he almost certainly stepped in it on the state side. We turn to the Guy Hunt case for a little history in Alabama ethics laws.

Here is how The New York Times summarized the state charges against Hunt in a 1993 article:

Guy Hunt, the Primitive Baptist preacher who in 1986 became Alabama's first Republican Governor since Reconstruction, looked on calmly today as prosecutors in the first day of his felony trial accused him of illegally using his office to collect $200,000 for his personal use.

Deputy Attorney General Steve Feaga said the state would prove that Governor Hunt, deep in debt, used the money raised for his inauguration for personal needs ranging from mortgage payments to cattle feed and failed to report the transfer of money as required under state ethics laws.

Hunt was prosecuted primarily under the Alabama ethics law, which is found at Code of Alabama 36-25 (5-27). Among other things, this prohibits:

* Use of official position or office for personal gain. (36-25-5)

Code of Alabama 17-17-5 addresses "Improper use of state property, time, etc., for political activities" and holds:

No person in the employment of the State of Alabama, a county, or a city whether classified or unclassified, shall use any state, county, or city funds, property, or time, for any political activities.

Did Mike Hubbard OK the use of $80,000 in public funds for public-relations work on behalf of a particular political party? Did Hubbard OK the use of $56,000 in public funds for similar partisan activities--perhaps including "research, writing, and editing" on a book about the GOP takeover of the Alabama Legislature?

Alabamians need to be asking such questions--and so do officials in the U.S. Department of Justice and the Alabama Attorney General's Office.

Bob Martin and The Montgomery Independent are not the only folks to raise questions about GOP spending. Bradley Unruh, a former member of the Alabama Republican Party Steering Committee, filed an ethics complaint against former Governor Bob Riley in spring 2010.

Unruh, of Warrior, accused Riley of using his office to "enrich not only himself but also members of his family . . ." Unruh also has called for an audit of the Alabama Republican Party, pointing particularly to expenditures involving Minda Riley Campbell, the former governor's daughter.

Given that Mike Hubbard long has been closely aligned with the Riley family, now might be a good time to ask a couple of questions:

* What happened with Brad Unruh's ethics complaint?

* What happened with Brad Unruh's call for an audit of the Alabama GOP? If an audit was conducted, what did it show?

Here is a video of Brad Unruh discussing his concerns about GOP spending under the Riley/Hubbard cabal:

Michele Rollins Helped Ensure That Her Grandkids Would Wind Up on Food Stamps in Alabama

If Republican Michele Rollins had won the 2010 race for Delaware's at-large seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, she immediately would have been one of the wealthiest lawmakers in Washington, D.C.

So what is the public to make of court documents that show Michele Rollins took affirmative steps to ensure that two of her grandchildren would wind up on food stamps in Alabama?

The documents are from a divorce case that Sherry Carroll Rollins filed in Greenville, South Carolina, against Ted Rollins, the son of the late multimillionaire businessman John W. Rollins. Michele Rollins was John Rollins' third wife and the heiress to his fortune. That makes her Ted Rollins' stepmother and the step-grandmother to his two daughters.

The girls, now teen-agers, live in Birmingham with their mother, Sherry Rollins--and all three of them are on food stamps, thanks to bizarre machinations in a divorce case that was litigated for roughly three years in one state before unlawfully being moved to another.

Ted Rollins now is the CEO of Campus Crest Communities, a company that completed a $380-million IPO and has developed roughly 30 student-housing projects at universities across the country. Before Campus Crest became a hot topic on Wall Street, Ted Rollins managed to get the Rollins v. Rollins divorce case moved from South Carolina to Alabama, where Sherry Rollins and her daughters were forced to flee--after Ted Rollins failed to keep up court-ordered payments on their home.

D. Al Crowson, a circuit judge in Shelby County, Alabama, granted Ted Rollins a stunningly favorable divorce judgment--based largely on Rollins' sworn statement in a child-support document that he made roughly $50,000 a year, all from a mortgage company in Brentwood, Tennessee. The CS-41 document included no mention of Campus Crest, St. James Capital LLC, the Crescent Center, or other ventures related to the Rollins family.

South Carolina judges found that Ted Rollins belongs to one of America's wealthiest families, but he got away in Alabama with portraying himself as a regular "working Joe"--one who just happens to have multiple private jets. That largely explains why his ex wife and two daughters now are on food stamps.

But that's not the whole story. South Carolina court documents show that Michele Rollins also played a role in making sure that Alabama members of her family tree would live barely above the poverty line.

Those documents show that an original pendente lite order required Ted Rollins to pay a total of $8,355 in monthly child support and alimony. That came after early evidence in the case showed that Rollins lived a high-end lifestyle and was a member of an extremely wealthy family, the folks behind Orkin Pest Control. Upon reconsideration by the court, Rollins' monthly obligation was reduced to $4,500 in unallocated family support.

Rollins still was not happy with that amount. He went back before the court to argue that even the second pendente lite order was excessive. In a contempt order dated October 17, 2002, South Carolina Family Court Judge Robert N. Jenkins Sr. discussed Ted Rollins' efforts to reduce his family support further:

[Mr. Rollins] also presented evidence that he is among nine (9) contingent remainders to his deceased father's marital trust estate and that his access to this possible source of funds is permanently restricted to the discretion of his deceased father's widow who does not intend to give him an advance.

The "deceased father's widow" would be Michele Rollins--and the South Carolina document indicates she controlled the marital trust estate of the late John W. Rollins. The document also indicates that Michele Rollins flatly refused a request from Ted Rollins to access funds to help pay his child-support obligations. (See page 6 of 11 in the full contempt order at the end of this post.)

I don't pretend to be a matrimonial lawyer, but this information raises several troubling questions:

* Was it lawful for Michele Rollins to deny access to funds that apparently belonged to Ted Rollins, through his father's estate? The court indicates that Ted Rollins was seeking an "advance," not a handout. It seems clear that he was entitled to these funds, and he needed them to pay child support. What lawful grounds did Michele Rollins have for denying access?

* Courts tend to treat child-support obligations with the utmost seriousness. Child support, for example, cannot be released in a bankruptcy case. So why was Michele Rollins apparently allowed to put a hold on funds that were needed to pay court-ordered child support?

* Was Sherry Rollins' lawyer in South Carolina asleep at the switch when he apparently let this go without questioning it?

* Is Michele Rollins the kind of woman who would rather let her grand kids go on food stamps than slightly loosen her iron grip on the marital trust estate? In her political statements, Michele Rollins indicates she is a conservative who believes in limited government. Why then, did she not take reasonable steps to ensure that members of her own family would not need government assistance?

Rose Hall Resort in Jamaica

Democrat John C. Carney wound up winning the Delaware Congressional race, and the American people probably should be thankful that he did. Is Michele Rollins the kind of person we want making decisions in Washington, D.C.? If she doesn't care about the plight of her own grandchildren, why would she be expected to care about issues involving members of your family--or mine?

By the way, just how wealthy is Michele Rollins? She apparently is wealthy enough that she tries to deceive the public about certain sources of income. Politico reported in August 2010 that Rollins dumped a substantial investment in Venezuela's state-owned oil company as she was preparing paperwork for her Congressional run. That article went on to shine considerable light on Michele Rollins' assets:

The Venezuelan state-owned oil entity is hardly the only of Rollins's assets. Should she be elected to Congress, Rollins would immediately become one of Washington's wealthiest lawmakers. Her assets are worth between $90 million and $350 million, placing her in the financial neighborhood of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry (worth at least $184 million) and California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (worth at least $156 million).

Rollins's financial portrait is large and complex. It includes assets as varied as municipal bonds, a beachfront resort in Jamaica and a hotel and casino in Delaware. She has as much as $50,000 in oil-drilling contractor Schlumberger Limited, more than a $250,000 in Citigroup equity, at least $5 million each in Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment and Dover Motorsports and at least $1 million in Rose Hall Resort in Jamaica. Rollins also derives income from several dozen separate oil and gas ventures.

A woman with all of those oil and gas investments--not to mention interests in resorts, gaming, and motorsports--has grandchildren on food stamps? I sent Michele Rollins several questions via e-mail regarding her role in the Rollins divorce case. She failed to respond.

This might be a good time to illustrate why I have called Rollins v. Rollins "the most blatant example of courtroom corruption in a civil matter that I've uncovered." As noted above, Sherry Rollins started out with $8,355 in monthly support--and that was from a pendente lite, which is a temporary order issued while litigation is pending. That figure could have gone higher based on full discovery of the marital assets.

Sherry Rollins wound up receiving $1,315 a month from an Alabama court that had no lawful jurisdiction over her case--and she received virtually nothing from marital assets that accumulated over 14 years of marriage to Ted Rollins.

That's why Sherry Rollins and her daughters qualify for food stamps. And we now know that Michele Rollins was not a clueless bystander while this gross injustice took place. She helped make it happen.


Ted Rollins Contempt Order

Should Mike Hubbard's Book Be Called "Scam In the State House"?

Mike Hubbard

House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) made news recently with reports that he plans to write a book called Storm in the State House, about the Republican Party's 2010 takeover of the Alabama Legislature.

A followup report, from Bob Martin of The Montgomery Independent, indicates Hubbard might want to change the name of his tome. Scam in the State House probably would be a more appropriate title.

If Hubbard's ethics looked shaky in the initial article, they look positively Nixonian in the followup.

We learned in the first article that since 2007, the year Hubbard became Alabama Republican Party chair, about $136,000 of taxpayer funds have been used for what appear to be purely partisan activities. The money went to David Azbell, of the Montgomery lobbying firm Swatek Azbell Howe and Ross (SAHR), with at least $80,000 going for public-relations work on behalf of the House Republican Caucus. An  undetermined portion of the total appears to have gone for Azbell's work in "helping Hubbard with research, writing, and editing" on Storm in the State House.


Particularly curious is the fact that Azbell's monthly check shot from $2,000 to $8,000 in March 2011, about the time Hubbard began to express interest in writing a book.

All of this raises troubling questions:

* Why is it OK, ethically or legally, for taxpayer dollars to be used for partisan PR work? Azbell's work apparently did not promote the work of the Alabama House as a whole; it promoted the interests of the House Republican Caucus. How does that promote of the interests of Alabama taxpayers?

* Why is it OK, ethically or legally, for taxpayer dollars to be used for production of a book on a partisan subject--the GOP takeover of the legislature?


* Could these actions, if proven, constitute violations of state and federal laws?

We learn in Martin's second report that Hubbard seems to be running the State House with a form of "boss style" politics that would be fitting in Richard Daley's Chicago or Tom Pendergast's Kansas City.
Writes Martin:

Hubbard is also president of the Auburn Network, which is owned by IMG College and was recently purchased from ISP Sports. State records and other reports I have seen show that since State Fiscal Year 2008, over $4 million in state funds have been spent on advertising with the Auburn Network or its parent company. This is the firm which has the contract to broadcast Auburn football games and other Auburn sports events . . . and, of course, sell advertising for those events.

It is the observation of most Goat Hill regulars that Speaker Hubbard has a virtual iron grip on the passage or failure of legislation before the House. Therefore is there any state agency with legislation and budgets before the House who would not want to please the Speaker by patronizing his business? I doubt it.

Is Hubbard running a "pay to play" scheme? It sure sounds like it--and that's not just The Legal Schnauzer talking. Writes Martin:

Some Capitol observers have suggested that the very nature of these transactions between Hubbard or Hubbard’s business and state agencies amounts to “silent intimidation.” Some have used stronger language.

Martin proceeds to list state agencies that have spent serious bucks with Hubbard companies--in an apparent effort to gain favor with the speaker:

The Alabama Department of Public Health has purchased the greatest amount of that $4 million-plus in advertising, nearly $2.2 million.

The Alabama Secretary of State has spent $135,000.

The Alabama Department of Public Safety, Alabama Department of Human Resources, The Emergency Management Authority, The Forever Wild Trust Fund, and the Board of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Contractors started purchasing ads after the 2010 General Election when Hubbard was elected Speaker.

The Department of Human Resources paid $15,000 from the Public Welfare Trust Fund to the company in December of 2010; the Department of Public Safety $63,000 in February of 201l; and the Forever Wild Trust fund $60,000 in September of this year.

If you have a conscience, this information might make you want to wretch. If that won't do it, this piece of propaganda from Mike Hubbard's personal Web site surely will:

"Serving as a Member of the Alabama Legislature has been an honor and a privilege," Hubbard said. "I have consistently worked for the betterment of District 79 as well as to restore honesty and integrity to government and to make those charged with your tax dollars accountable."

You were going to "restore honest and integrity," and you were going to "make those charged with your tax dollars accountable"?

Exactly how are you doing that, Mr. Speaker?

More Back and Forth With "Ron Burgundy"

Ron Burgundy

When we last reported on "Ron Burgundy," our favorite contrarian reader, "Ron" said he found it "far fetched" that certain vulgar comments have arrived here from someone at the Business Council of Alabama (BCA).

I responded by giving Ron the IP address that was attached to the comment. That prompted the following reply from Ron. It turns out he's not a fan of the vulgar dude, either:

According to my searches I received "invalid address." I don't know if it worked for you or not, but it sure didn't for me. I would first like to distinguish myself from the moron who commented as "Legal Rottweiler." While my comments may be offensive to you (rightfully so) I will never stoop to calling you "autistic." Pretty childish if you ask me. More so than being named Ron Burgundy at least.

Also, you have yet to name your sources. If it is such a big deal to you that I remain anonymous then why are you insistent on leaving your sources anonymous. If they are legitimate and have this scandalous information than let them be made public! Let us all glorify them for their good work.

Lastly, while I resent your work and your personal opinions I do respect the fact that you are pursuing a difficult task that is digging up dirt on our corrupt government. I think you have an uncanny ability to get under people's skin and I wish you would set your aim on some more noteworthy recipients. (maybe the Obama administration or GOP candidates)

Hopefully that was more coherent. Stay classy, San Diego.

Since Ron was having trouble running the IP address, I thought I would help him out--and respond to a couple of his points:

Ron:

I didn't say your anonymous status is a big deal to me. But I think you stated that parts of my reporting were inaccurate, and I replied that I would be glad to interview your and/or the Canarys to help correct any inaccuracies. (I apologize if I have mixed up you and Mr. Rottweiler; I'm going from memory here.) I can't do that, of course, if I don't know who you are. You have every right to remain anonymous, just as I have the right to engage in the common journalism practice of using anonymous sources.

There has been some jocularity in our communications, but you probably can appreciate the seriousness of this issue. One of my sources has specifically stated that he/she would fear for his/her safety if his/her identity were to become known. Given a number of curious deaths in Montgomery over the past 12 months or so (Ralph Stacy, Bob Caviness)--and the fact I've received death threats myself--I can understand those feelings.

Anyway, on the subject of the IP address, here is what I found when I keyed the address into one of many lookup sites on the Web:


General IP Information

IP: 216.77.58.7
Decimal: 3628939783
Hostname: 216.77.58.7
ISP: BellSouth.net
Organization: Business Councile Of AL - MGM
Services: None detected
Type: Corporate
Assignment: Static IP
Blacklist:

Geolocation Information

Country: United States
State/Region: Alabama
City: Montgomery
Latitude: 32.3934
Longitude: -86.3222
Area Code: 334
Postal Code: 36104



As you can see, there is no doubt about the origination point of certain ugly comments.


Roger

So we have established the geolocation of the IP address 216.77.58.7. As for other issues, Ron and I probably will agree to disagree. But I appreciate his reference to San Diego, which is a signature Ron Burgundy line. I've been to SD a couple of times, and it's one of my favorite places. It's also interesting that Ron seems to share my disdain for GOP candidates (some in his case, pretty much all in my case), and neither of us is particularly high on the Obama administration. Give peace a chance.

What About the Motives of Prosecutors In the Alabama Bingo Trial?

Myron Thompson

A federal judge last week correctly pointed out the impure motives of Republican legislators who served as witnesses in the Alabama bingo trial.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson also had a point when he stated in a new order that a prominent defendant had financial incentives to commit acts of bribery.

But Thompson ignored the most important question: What about the motives of federal prosecutors who launched a clearly flawed case in the first place?

We do have some interesting news on that front. The Montgomery Advertiser reports that local prosecutors Louis Franklin and Steve Feaga have been removed from the bingo-trial team. That means the case will be handled totally by Washington, D.C.-types on the second go-around.

That, however, does not address the big question about the prosecutors--and Thompson did not address it in last week's order either. (See the full order below.)

Yes, Sen. Scott Beason (R-Gardendale) and Rep. Benjamin Lewis (R-Dothan) revealed they were driven not by a desire to clean up corruption in Montgomery, but by racist thinking and political opportunism. And yes, VictoryLand owner Milton McGregor was under the kind of financial duress that could lead a man to cross the boundary from lawful lobbying to unlawful bribery.

But regardless of what one might think about Beason, Lewis, and McGregor, they would not have been in position to commit questionable acts if federal investigators and prosecutors had not launched a bogus case to begin with.

The important questions in the Alabama bingo trial are as follows:

* What motivated federal prosecutors to bring a case that was so flawed it produced zero convictions the first time around?

* Why do federal prosecutors seem determined to retry the case on issues where the original jury was deadlocked?

* What hugely important constitutional protections did the bingo prosecutors violate?

That last question represents the "big enchilada" because it goes to the heart of the political prosecutions that started under the George W. Bush administration and have continued under the Barack Obama "justice" department.

That last question goes to the heart of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania, the firings of U.S. attorneys from one end of the country to the other . . . well, you get the idea--it's a big deal.

Which makes us wonder why Myron Thompson doesn't raise it? Here's our best guess: Myron Thompson is a lawyer, and the prosecutors are lawyers--and lawyers are duty bound by the unwritten rules of their corrupt tribe to protect one another. That's why, we suspect, Myron Thompson feels free to rip into non-lawyers such as Scott Beason and Milton McGregor. But question the motives of federal prosecutors? It's the rare judge who will do that. And Myron Thompson is not that kind of ballsy judge.

In his order, Thompson does briefly touch on the motives of prosecutors. But he does not do it in any substantive way:

To be absolutely clear, there is no indication whatsoever that the prosecutors in this case condoned or shared any of the biases of their cooperating witnesses. But eliminating bribery will treat only one symptom of political corruption in this State. To cure the larger disease, it is essential to address with equal force the politics of racial prejudice and exclusion.

Why is there "no indication whatsoever" that prosecutors were driven by biases? Because no one--including Thompson--has scrutinized them.

The problem with the Alabama bingo prosecution has been evident from the outset: At the heart of the case were efforts by lobbyists to influence legislators on bingo-related bills. Evidence shows that the lobbying was a two-way street--some influence peddlers favored electronic bingo, others were against it.

But prosecutors scrutinized only the actions of those who were for electronic bingo. God only knows how many acts of bribery and fraud were committed by anti-bingo forces. The public will never know about those because they did not fit into the prosecutors' agenda.

That, by definition, is a political prosecution--and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits it. Judge Thompson surely knows that. So why is he ignoring the issue?

We have not ignored the issue here at Legal Schnauzer. In fact, we faced it head on in a post titled "Don Siegelman and the Evils of a Political Prosecution." Here are the basics:

The U.S. Supreme Court has held "selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws is, of course, subject to constitutional constraints." U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 144 (1979).

The nation's highest court also has found that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits selective enforcement "based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification." Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962).

Clearly, enforcement based on political affiliation falls under the kind of arbitrary classification that is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.

Here are the specifics:

Federal courts generally have accepted the two-pronged test for selective prosecution set out in U.S. v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d 1207 (1974):

To support a defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution, a defendant bears a heavy burden of establishing, at least prima facie, (1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for prosecution, and (2) that the government’s discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights. These two essential elements are sometimes referred to as ‘intentional and purposeful discrimination.’

What does this mean in everyday lingo? Perhaps it best can be explained by looking at the Siegelman case.

The record is clear that Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy violated no law because an explicit quid pro quo ("something for something" agreement) was not present--and federal judge Mark Fuller gave improper jury instructions on that point of law. But even if the jury instructions had been correct--and the evidence had shown an unlawful agreement--the Siegelman prosecution still would have been unlawful. That's because prosecutors did not pursue "similarly situated" individuals who had engaged in roughly the same conduct. In legal terms, prosecutors engaged in "intentional and purposeful discrimination" against Siegelman and Scrushy--the defendants were "singled out."

Prosecutors are engaging in the same behavior against McGregor and the other bingo defendants.

Judge Myron Thompson got some things right in last week's order. But he did not even address the most important issue of all.


Bingo Order--GOP Racists

"Ron Burgundy" Returns to Defend the Honor of Leura and Bill Canary

Ron Burgundy

We introduced you last week to a reader named "Ron Burgundy," who sent us comments under an obviously fictitious name in an effort to counter our report about marital troubles for Alabama GOP heavyweights Leura and Bill Canary. "Ron Burgundy" has made a return visit.

Also coming out of the woodwork again is a reader we have named "Mr. Dick Cheese," a Canary defender with a foul mouth, a disregard for punctuation, and an apparent inability to string together coherent sentences.

We offered up the original missives from "Ron" and "Dick" in an effort to help our readers understand how Republican thugs really think and communicate. In that spirit of public service, we provide the latest from a couple of guys who sound like characters from an X-rated graphic novel.

What's on "Ron Burgundy's" mind? Check it out:

Today I saw your article that you wrote on your responses to the Leura Canary articles. I found it humorous. I realize my last email may have seemed rather rash and hard on you, but since then I have rallied how truly insignificant you and your blog are. I would still like to know who your "multiple sources" are. If you were to write a paper and cite your text as "multiple sources" it would be invalid and so sir I would like legitimate sources. Yes, I am a Will Ferrell fan. Also, I would like to know why believe that the comment about "dick cheese" came front the BCA? That seems a little far fetched to me.

I have to admit that I kind of look forward to hearing from "Ron." He's an insulting cuss, but I have to give him high marks for coming up with a clever cover name, one that automatically interjects a touch of humor into the proceedings. Here's how I responded to our very own "anchorman":

Ron:

If my blog and I are "insignificant," why are you writing me again? In fact, why did you write me the first time?

If my blog is insignificant, why are you afraid to reveal your true identify so we can have a legit discussion. If I reveal your identify, no one reads my blog anyway, right? It's insignificant, right?

I posted the IP address from which the comment came. My blog analytics show that very clearly, and they show it came from BCA. Analytics also show that someone (or several someones) from BCA are spending quite a bit of time reading my blog. Why are they reading my insignificant work?

I would suggest you take the IP address I posted and run a geolocation on it. You will find where it came from. Here is the IP address:

216.77.58.7.

Why would you be concerned about that, though, considering that my blog is insignificant?

Why am I "being watched"--your words--if I'm insignificant?


Roger

As you can tell, I was not in a fun-loving mood when I wrote that reply. If I had it to do over again, I'd try to throw in something to tickle Ron's funny bone. Perhaps I could have noted that the movie version of Ron Burgundy had a dog named "Baxter," and Mrs. Schnauzer and I have a cat named "Baxter." In fact, our cat--who already had his name when we adopted him at age 1--probably received his name from Ron's dog.

As for Mr. Dick Cheese (MDC), I don't see anything amusing about him. He comes across as a truly disturbed individual. Here is part of his latest "charm offensive":

you clearly don't know how to use fucking facts. Name some sources, I guarantee my contrary evidence is more legitimate than anything you can pull out of your well laid ass.

If MDC had been to Sunday School since his previous missive, it apparently didn't take. Here is my reply:

If your evidence is so strong, please share it--along with your true identity.

Also, I would be glad to interview both Bill and Leura Canary on this and other matters. I assume you know them, so please feel free to relay this offer. Would be glad to interview you, too.

What do you say?

How did MDC respond? Apparently by changing his name to "Legal Rottweiler" and responding on a different post:

Legal Schnauzer is a run in the mill autistic human being. He has not produce a single citation/ form of evidence showing who his so called "informants" are, and that he has requested an email. I honestly feel sympathy for all of the followers of this blog who believe all of the BS he says. I, being close friends with the Canary's, can truthfully inform you that all of the information provided by Legal Schnauzer is false. I do agree with what Ron Burgandy previously said about him lying.

PS- If your gonna name your blog after a dog, don't name it after a "pussy of a dog"

MDC refers to me as an "autistic human being." He must have no idea what autism is or he enjoys making sport of people with disabilities. Either way, he clearly is a Republican. My response:

You appear to be a rottweiler with no teeth, afraid to reveal his real identity. I can hear you shivering all the way from your post in Montgomery.

I would be happy to interview you, Billy, Leura and anyone else you would care to bring along.

Let me know when you want to set it up.

Want more disturbing stuff from Mr. Rottweiler? Remember, this appears to be the same guy whose original post came from a computer at the Business Council of Alabama. Really makes you wonder about the kind of folks hanging around at the BCA offices:

If you would like to know my identity then i would like to report you as an internet predator, you sick fuck. Do you honestly think i would put my name and information on this blatantly shady and misinforming website? I think that this all reinforces my previous statements, you sir are in fact autistic.

This is the last item I am posting from Mr. Rottweiler. I think we have a strong enough sample size to see that this fellow is in danger of becoming unhinged--as if he were ever "hinged" in the first place.

As for "Ron Burgundy," I wouldn't mind hearing back from him. He clearly has a sense of humor, which indicates there is at least a hint of humanity there. That puts him ahead of many Republicans.