Monday, January 11, 2021

If Trump did not get his way with electoral contest, GOP operative and Stop the Steal organizer Ali (Akbar) Alexander threatened to "light the whole sh*t on fire"

 

Mounting evidence suggests last week's assault on the U.S. Capitol was more brutal -- and had darker intentions -- than many originally had imagined, according to a report from Andrew Kreig at the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project (JIP).  Kreig notes that Ali (Akbar) Alexander, with ties to Alabama and Montgomery attorney/talk-show host Baron Coleman, was front and center in organizing the protest that turned into a riot.Writes Kreig:

This editor, whose office is located within two blocks of the protest march route in the District of Columbia, has reported for years on the topic of election fraud and several of the leading figures suspected of corrupting elections.These tactics include propaganda via blogs, broadcast and social media, plus courtroom efforts necessary to steal elections.      

As one of many examples, we helped investigate in 2012 a Republican operative named Ali Akbar, a convicted felon who helped found with the help of Republican patrons the National Bloggers Club. That "club" helped orchestrate a right-wing propaganda army when useful for the patrons' election or other political interests, with the website Crooks and Liars providing an in-depth report.

Akbar, now using the name Ali Alexander was a speaker at last week's pro-Trump rally at the White House. Via his association with the affiliated Proud Boys gang of white nationalists, Alexander played a significant role in organizing sinister activities in both the Georgia and Washington political events last week, according to an expose published on Jan. 9 by investigative reporter Greg Palast, a pioneering investigator of election fraud, including illegal vote suppression of racial minorities.

The Palast story Why did the Georgia GOP Team up with a riot instigator? is a cutting-edge column by the former BBC investigative reporter and author of multiple books on election fraud.

Another is the NBC News investigative report, Republican AGs group sent robocalls urging march to the Capitol by Laura Strickler and Lisa Cavazuti. It is another of the pieces suggesting that the march, mob action and failure of federal authorities to protect Congress with adequate security stemmed from a high-level plot to overthrow the elected government and certified November elections, not just the enthusiasm of ordinary Trump supporters recruited for diversion.

 The robocalls story has strong ties to Alabama and the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) -- and its affiliate, the ironically named Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF.) Alabama AG Steve Marshall is head of the RLDF and claims he had no knowledge of the group's efforts to promote the Jan. 6 protest. Jessica Medeiros Garrison, one-time campaign manager and alleged mistress (per former State Sen. Lowell Barron) to former AG Luther Strange -- and once an of counsel attorney at scandal-plagued Balch and Bingham -- is a former executive director of RAGA.

As for the Palast story, it unmasks Ali Alexander with surgical precision--and notes his incendiary role in working with the GOP on the Georgia Senate run-off. Palast writes under the headline "Why did the Georgia GOP team up with a Riot Instigator? “WE’LL LIGHT THE WHOLE SH*T ON FIRE!

The star of the GOP’s get-out-the-vote door-knocking program in the Georgia Senate run-off, standing next to Alex Jones, was blasting his threat through a megaphone in front of the Governor’s home. “We’ll light the whole sh*t on fire!”

Ali Alexander’s threat in December would become all too real when he repeated his performance on January 6 in Washington, DC.

In the US Capitol that day, looking over the scene of screams, teargas, and mayhem, Alexander said, “I warned you this would happen.”

Yes, he did. Nevertheless, the Georgia Republican Party’s Metro Atlanta Field Director Kevin Mason was more than happy to team up with Alexander. With his huge reach within the Alt-Right, Alexander could bring in a swarm of volunteers for the door-knocking campaign they desperately needed to hold back the looming Democratic victory in the US Senate run-offs.

The far-right celebrity was the magnet to draw scores of young enthusiasts to a January 3 training session at the DoubleTree Hotel in Roswell, an Atlanta suburb. The Palast Investigative Fund’s photojournalist, Zach D. Roberts, a specialist in white fringe violence who’d been tracking Alexander’s pitch for mayhem across the nation, signed up.

Roberts, who joined up through Alexander’s website, StopTheSteal.US, was quite surprised to receive instructions, not from the right-wing group, but from Daniel George of the National Republican Senate Committee.

Why would the GOP team up with Alexander, a leader of the Stop the Steal extremists, especially after his well-broadcast warning of violence? The threat was not out of character. There are widely circulated films of Alexander with Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes. And there is a video chat with Alexander yucking it up with a right-wing jokester holding up a giant flag with a Nazi Swastika flag.

That is, if “Alexander” is his real name. He adopted it after his reported conviction for a felony crime under the name “Ali Akbar.”

Alexander is a shapeshifter, sometimes the eye-swiveling crazy, sometimes the dapper guest for Alt-Right podcasts. We cannot link to his most incendiary outlets such as WildProtest.com because they’ve been taken down for inciting violence.

  Palast had questions, so he sought answers:

Curious, I called both the Georgia Republican Party’s Field Director, who worked with Alexander, as well as the National Republican Senate Committee to ask why they’d join forces with a known Neo-Fascist instigator of violence. So far, my calls have gone un-returned.

In Georgia, with Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes, a known white nationalist, Alexander hid nothing of his hopes for Washington on January 6. “Either they take Trump, prove that they won or they’re not going to hand them back the country again. We’ll light the whole sh*t on fire!”

Looking down on the Capitol, as the mayhem unfolded, he told his Twitter audience, “I don’t disavow this,” but later insisted, without evidence, that the Capitol violence was committed by slyly disguised Antifa rioters.

To fire up its base, the GOP is apparently willing to cavort with the violence-threatening fringe. The Grand Old Party dismissed Alexander’s warnings. And they also forgot John Kennedy’s warning that “Those who ride the tail of the tiger soon end up inside.”

 As ugly as the Capitol riot became, it could have been much worse, Kreig reports:

    A major new factor over the weekend was increasing recognition of the brutality and scope of the        pro-Trump mob's action. It resulted in the murder of a Capitol Hill policeman, the wounding of an        estimated 50 others, plus the deaths of four participants the protest-turned-riot that ostensibly began        with a Trump speech to a crowd assembled on the south side of the White House. The crowd then        marched east on Pennsylvania Avenue a little over a mile to reach the historic Capitol building.

    Most shocking to many has been new evidence of the brutality of some protesters — including                discovery of pipe bombs, explosives and plastic "ties" that terrorists would use to take hostages.

   There exists also significant but still-evolving evidence that parts of the mob action have long been       planned by Trump, top aides and allies scattered through government, quasi-government and private       organizations, including Republican office-holder funded by major corporations that are now facing       heat for how their political donations were being used.

Thursday, January 7, 2021

After leading protestors in a "victory or death" chant, Stop the Steal organizer Ali (Akbar) Alexander seems oblivious to riots that led to injury and death

Ali (Akbar) Alexander mugshots

Yesterday's "Stop the Steal" protest, which has roots in Alabama, devolved into a riot  -- with Donald Trump supporters storming the U.S. Capitol, leading to four deaths and numerous injuries. It should not have been a surprise, given the sketchy past of protest leader Ali (Akbar) Alexander and that Trump himself has been inciting violence for months

In fact, yesterday's Legal Schnauzer post showed "Stop the Steal" is driven largely by individuals from the right-wing fringe, suggesting the event might turn ugly. And on Tuesday evening, Akbar led protestors in a "victory or death chant" -- less than 24 hours before the event did turn ugly.

Still, many Americans probably awoke today in a state of shock. Perhaps adding to their discomfort is Akbar's out-of-touch response to the violence that transpired at a rally he organized. Consider this from a report at Newsweek

The national organizer of "Stop the Steal," a group boosting President Donald Trump's baseless claims that the presidential election was "stolen," refused to condemn pro-Trump violence at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday while suggesting that outside "agitators" were really responsible.

Group national organizer Ali Alexander said that he was refusing to disavow the actions of the violent Trump supporters, who assaulted police and stormed the Capitol building as Congress was meeting to officially certify President-elect Joe Biden's presidential election victory. Instead, he bizarrely claimed that the incident was "peaceful."

"I don't disavow this," Alexander said while standing outside with the Capitol building in the background. "I do not denounce this. This is completely peaceful, looks like, so far. And there are a couple of agitators that I obviously don't endorse."

"But this is completely peaceful," he added, pointing to the building. "This is we the people."

Akbar had a later opportunity to denounce the violence, but he chose to point fingers elsewhere. Writes Newsweek's Aila Sisco:

A later tweet from Alexander suggested that "Antifa agitation" could be to blame. Although other pro-Trump conspiracy theorists have taken to social media with similar claims, no credible evidence exists to support the notion. Video shows the group storming the building while wearing "Make America Great Again" hats and carrying pro-Trump signs and flags.

Alexander's claim that the situation was "completely peaceful" was clearly false. A woman who was shot inside the building amid the chaos was reportedly later pronounced dead, while several law enforcement officers and others were injured during the rioting.

Trump has continued to make unsubstantiated claims that the election was "fraudulent" despite the violence. He praised the rioters as "great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long" in a tweet that was later deleted by Twitter, urging his supporters to "go home" but "remember this day forever."

In addition to deleting Trump's tweets for the first time ever, Twitter suspended the president's account for 12 hours over concerns that it could incite further violence, while promising to permanently ban Trump if he makes similar posts when the suspension is lifted.

Some high-profile Republicans spoke out against the violence:

Other prominent Republicans have unequivocally condemned the rioting, including former President George W. Bush and several active members of Congress. Some have announced that they reversed their plans to officially contest Biden's win due to what took place.

Biden, who is set to be inaugurated as the 46th president in two weeks, said that "democracy is under an unprecedented assault" after the rioting started, adding that a "small number of extremists dedicated to lawlessness" had caused chaos that "borders on sedition."

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Ali (Akbar) Alexander and Baron Coleman, two fringe right-wingers with ties to Alabama, are helping spearhead today's "Stop the Steal" protest in D.C.

Ali (Akbar) Alexander

The "Stop the Steal" protest set for today in Washington, D.C., is more or less the brainchild of two right-wing agitators with ties to Alabama,, according to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Reports Michael Edison Hayden at SPLC's Hatewatch:

A law firm associated with activists on the far-right fringe registered the Limited Liability Company (LLC) Stop the Steal in Montgomery, Alabama, in November, state records show. “Stop the Steal” is the name of a nationwide protest movement focused on overturning President-elect Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 election based upon unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

George Coleman of the law firm Baron Coleman registered the Stop the Steal LLC in Montgomery on Nov. 13. Far-right activist Ali (Akbar) Alexander, 35, the self-described “National Organizer” for the Stop the Steal, told Hatewatch over text that Baron Coleman represents him. Alexander promoted Stop the Steal events to Twitter soon after it became apparent that Trump lost the 2020 election and has done so persistently ever since. Baron Coleman registered the LLC one day before protesters associated with Ali’s Stop the Steal movement descended on Washington, D.C. The event gave way to violent clashes between Stop the Steal supporters and counterprotesters.

How is this for irony and impeccable timing? The Coleman-Alexander rally, designed to deprive Joe Biden of an electoral victory that -- by all credible accounts -- he earned fair and square, comes three days after news broke of Donald Trump's phone call to the Georgia secretary of state showing that Trump really is trying to steal the election

Do Coleman, Akbar, and their acolytes care about, or even recognize, the irony of such a situation? Probably not. Writes Hayden:

Hatewatch has so far been unable to determine what the LLC does, but it borrows from a brand name first associated with Roger Stone Jr. A former adviser to Donald Trump and a convicted felon, Stone first launched Stop the Steal during the 2016 election as a group of poll watchers tasked with disputing Democratic votes in urban, multiracial areas. Like the current iteration of Stop the Steal, Stone gathered the group together under the auspices of fighting voter fraud, as Hatewatch has reported. Hatewatch reached out to Stone by phone and email, but he did not respond.

Baron Coleman also represents Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes in his defamation lawsuit against Southern Poverty Law Center, which is based upon its designation of them as a hate group. Alexander and lawyers for Baron Coleman appeared with McInnes outside the center’s headquarters in Montgomery on Feb. 4, 2019, when he announced that suit. Alexander told Hatewatch over text that Baron Coleman advised him in responding to Hatewatch’s request for comment.

“[Baron Coleman] advised me to tell you not to contact me while I’m representing a client suing y’all. Conflict of interest. Thanks!” Alexander wrote.

Alexander does not appear to be an attorney, so it is unclear what he meant by representing. Alexander is a far-right operative linked to a number of political smear campaigns and is known for posting disinformation to Twitter. One example of that behavior includes a sustained campaign he created promoting the unsubstantiated claim that Biden is “sick” and suffers from some form of otherwise unreported, degenerative illness. Mother Jones reported that Alexander is a convicted felon. Hatewatch obtained records showing Alexander entered a guilty plea on charges of “debit card abuse” in Tarrant County, Texas, in April 2008. He went by the name “Ali Akbar” at that time.

SPLC did not have much luck getting Akbar to comment on his sketchy past:

Hatewatch followed up with another text, but Alexander did not respond. Hatewatch was therefore unable to ask him about the LLC.

Baron Coleman sent Hatewatch the following comment:

I received your request for comment and don’t have much I can add. As you know any conversations between my clients and me are privileged.

         Stop the Steal, LLC, is an Alabama limited liability company I organized for clients             of mine. I’m afraid I’m limited by my professional duties to defer to my clients –                 owners of the privilege – on whether they would like to add anything more.

        I appreciate you reaching out. If you can think of anything else I can help you with,             please don’t hesitate to contact me at your convenience. I’ll do my best to answer                 anything that isn’t privileged.

        Sincerely,

        Baron Coleman

 As for Roger Stone, he seems to be creeping along the edges of the "Stop the Steal" orbit:

Stone appeared with Alexander in the trailer of an apparent film about Stop the Steal activism, which was published to Twitter on Dec. 9. The trailer also featured an appearance by white nationalist live-streamer Nick Fuentes and anti-immigrant pundit and VDARE contributor Michelle Malkin, among other activists who are promoting the falsehood that Trump won the 2020 election. Proud Boys have also turned up at Alexander’s events. At a Stop the Steal-linked event on Dec. 12, members of the hate group reportedly took down two Black Lives Matter banners from two historic Black churches in Washington, D.C., and destroyed them. The Washington Post reported that police were investigating the incidents on hate crime charges.

Tuesday, January 5, 2021

Joann Bashinsky, Golden Flake heiress and renowned Alabama philanthropist, dies of heart attack after ugly court battle over her $218-million estate

 

Joann Bashinsky

Joann Bashinsky, the Golden Flake heiress and one of Alabama's most prominent philanthropists, has died. Her death, at age,89 from a heart attack, came roughly eight months after she was embroiled in a battle over her estate, prompted by two former employees, two local attorneys (one with Balch and Bingham, one connected to former U.S. Sen. Doug Jones) and a judge who retired after making a series of peculiar rulings. From a report at al.com:

Joann Bashinsky, the potato chip queen of the South and the widow of the Golden Flake CEO Sloan Bashinsky, died Sunday. She was 89 years old.

“My grandmother was a champion for those in need for decades, and her passing will be felt by countless people whose lives were touched by her kindness and incredible compassion for humanity. Most of all, this loss will be felt by my family and me,” her grandson, Landon Ash, said in a statement. “Nonny was my champion as well, and I loved her dearly for the guidance and direction she gave me throughout my life.”

Ash said his grandmother died from complications of a heart attack.

Bashinsky, of Mountain Brook and known as “Mama B” or “Mrs. B,” is the widow of Sloan Y. Bashinsky, who owned the majority stock in Golden Enterprises Inc. and was the founder, chairman, and CEO of Golden Flake Foods – a 96-year-old Birmingham-based company. In 1968, Golden Flake went public and, in 2016, Pennsylvania-based Utz Quality Foods bought Golden Enterprises, Golden Flake’s parent company, for $141 million.

“Words can’t describe my sorrow for my grandmother’s passing, though I take comfort in knowing she was one of Alabama’s finest women to ever live and that she is now with the rest of her family in heaven.” Ash said.

As for the estate controversy, we reported on that in a series of posts last summer. From a May 27 post:

One of Birmingham's wealthiest and most prominent citizens is the target of apparent elder abuse and exploitation -- driven partly by the embattled Birmingham law firm Balch Bingham -- according to reports from altoday.com and banbalch.com. At the heart of the controversy is big money. Also involved is a recording that reveals two local attorneys engaging in highly dubious scare tactics.

Joann Bashinsky, 88, is the widow of Golden Flake founder and CEO Sloan Y. Bashinsky Sr -- and her estate reportedly is worth $218 million. Two former family employees -- lawyer John McKleroy and finance manager Patty Townsend -- have filed a petition in Jefferson County Probate Court, claiming Mrs. Bashinsky has dementia, is incapable of handling her affairs, and her estate needs the appointment of a guardian and conservator. Mrs. Bashinsky's attorneys deny those claims.

From K.B. Forbes, publisher of banbalch.com:

A bombshell story on Alabama Today last Friday is rocking the legal and law enforcement community in Birmingham, Alabama.

A Balch Bingham attorney, Amy Adams, . . .  was allegedly involved in a scheme that appears to be {elder] abuse and exploitation while the FBI and U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town . . . have done nothing to investigate.

The target of this alleged scheme: 88 year-old Joann Bashinsky, known as Mrs. B.

Court records indicate Adams, the Balch lawyer, has been working in concert with Greg Hawley, the former law partner of U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL). Reports Apryl Marie Fogel at Alabama Today:

In a continuance of her ongoing fight for independence, Bashinsky (known to many as Mrs. B or Mama B) told me a story of intimidation, scare-tactics and questionable ethical actions by two powerful and well-known attorneys. It’s a story that would sound as if it were ripped straight from the headlines of any long-running t.v. crime and legal drama, or was the plot of a novel if not for the fact – there’s audio.

The lawyers involved, are Greg Hawley and Amy Adams. Hawley is the former law partner of U.S. Senator Doug Jones. Adams is an attorney from Balch Bingham, a firm long considered a state and national powerhouse (with strong connections to former U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions).

The facts below are supported by a recording that was made by Mrs. B on a day she unsuccessfully fought back efforts to retain her voting rights in SYB Inc, a company whose board she’d been a part of for decades.

The conversation and actions between Hawley, a man the court-appointed to protect Mrs. B’s interest, and Amy Adams, a woman who in her own words Mrs. B said used “scare tactics” to intimidate her into firing her current counsel and hiring her are painful to read or listen to, but let me summarize them for you below.

How did the audio come about and how painful does it get? As for the second part of that question, it reveals lawyering at its ugliest. As for the first part . . . here is more from Fogel (with quotes from the audio recording highlighted in green.):

Hawley pulled Mrs. B aside before and then again after the board meeting, refusing to allow her chosen attorney in the room and leaving her alone with Adams for a period of time. Their goal: have Mrs. B fire her current legal council and hire Adams. When that didn’t happen, Hawley hired her anyway himself.

Here are 3 of the most alarming parts of the conversation:

1. Financial scare tactics

The first, yet not even the most concerning issue arises in the first couple of minutes when Amy Adams meets Ms. B and says “I’ve seen your finances”.

Those documents are or at least should be confidential. At this point, Adams (Balch  Bingham), had not been retained by anyone in the case nor had Mrs. B. given her permission for them to be reviewed. She wasn’t even expecting to meet with Adams that day or at any other point.

But what’s worse? Not that Adams has seen the documents, but that she misrepresents them repeatedly.

She tells Mrs. B that she could potentially lose her house and staff and run out of money. These “scare tactics” as Mrs. B calls them is repeated, no fewer than 10 times over the course of their 2 conversations. With Adams saying things like,

“You’re not going to have enough money to live off of the rest of your life if you keep going through your money the way you’ve gone through it the last couple of years.”

“It takes a lot of money to stay in your house and you’re not keeping enough money to stay in your house. You realize that right?”

“Okay. I’m just telling you – I’ve looked at it you’re not keeping enough money.”

She doesn’t stop there, at the threat that Mrs. B losing her house. She goes on to suggest that Mrs. B might need to fire some of those who help her at her home. Trusted employees, some of whom have been with her for many years. Adams says this about them, “We might have to get rid of some of the people that are on your staff.”

The problem is Mrs. B owns her house and has tens of millions in liquid assets, not including stock. This painful conversation goes on for several minutes at a time off and on during both meetings. The basic theme of Adams being if you want to stay in your house you need to hire me or my firm Balch Bingham — at $425 per hour. She goes on to joke though if retained drinks with her would for free, “I wouldn’t charge you for that,” she says.

When Hawley returns to the conversation, he makes it clear that Adams' repeated misrepresentations about Mrs. B being in dire financial straights can’t be verified, “What I don’t know yet is, I don’t have the whole financial picture so I can’t say, I can’t say that yet.” That doesn’t stop [Adams]  from saying it a few more times as the conversation continues, though.

2. HIPAA compliance questions

Mrs. B sat for several competency tests. The results of which she describes as showing she is perfectly capable of managing her own affairs. Again, results that the court never even heard.

That said, when Hawley brings up one of the initial tests, it was clear his office sent them to Adams. While Hawley is looking for them himself, Adams says, “I might have it on my phone.” Note this report would fall under the category of private health information (PHI) covered by HIPAA.

[Adams] proceeds to check, confirming that Hawley’s assistant Margaret sent private and confidential medical records.

Hawley’s casual dismissal of the fact she has them and his office sent them, should send shock waves through his client list, “Margaret was supposed to just send you the letters of conservatorship but anyway…” he says, as if this sort of mistake happens every day and is just fine.

I emailed Hawley and among the questions I asked him was if his office was HIPAA compliant. In his response, in which he did not answer the HIPAA questions following his signature was this boilerplate messages, “CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. Do not read this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any information contained in or attached to this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by replying to the sender or calling the sender at (205) 490-XXXX and destroy the original email and its attachments without reading or saving it. Thank you.”

I don’t think it takes an expert to know Adams should have known better than to read private medical information that came from another attorney’s office before she was formally engaged by either party.

3. Hawley hires Balch Bingham

After Amy Adams spoke alone with Mrs. B, Hawley continues to push Mrs. B to hire Adams. Refusing to allow Mrs. B’s existing lawyer to be in the room. When Mrs. B decided not to hire Adams, telling me that she felt like Adams talked down to her, tried to use scare tactics, and made her feel disrespected, you’d think this would be the end of Adam’s chapter in this sordid situation. It wasn’t. After this meeting, Hawley hired Adams himself.

Nevermind that at the beginning of the conversation Adams gives her word that she’s not interested in helping Hawley just in being Mrs. B’s attorney, “When Greg called me I told him the only way I’d do it is if we could fire him because I wasn’t going with him. I’d only go with you and that’s what I told him that’s the only way I would come.”

It wasn’t just a promise by Adams that she would only represent Mrs. B. Here’s what Hawley said, “Let me tell you, there are lawyers – Amy’s very decisive. Some people use the B-word to describe her, okay. She’s a great lawyer, but she’s very decisive, and she will represent you. And I even told her, and I’ll tell you this and I’ll tell you this, in front of her, and I’ll put it in writing that if she ever sees a conflict of interest developing between what’s best for you and something different I say, I want her to represent you, not me.”

“I want her to represent you, not me.” Those were his words and then he hired her anyway after Mrs. B said she didn’t want her engaged. It’s enough to make one’s head explode.

 
Understandably alarmed by what she hears on the recording, Fogel wonders about the ethics rules that are supposed to govern such interactions:

Can you imagine a loved one going through this? I cannot.

What’s more, I cannot begin to imagine how intimidating it would be find yourself at the mercy or a court who didn’t allow your voice to be heard before placing you in the “protection” of a lawyer who among, other concerning actions could willy nilly allow your medical and financial documents to be shared with others, by a lawyer who brought onto your case someone you clearly didn’t and wouldn’t hire yourself, someone you felt bullied by. This whole situation leaves many questions to be answered.

I asked about this situation, their code of conduct for lawyers, and a host of other questions to Adams' direct supervisor at Balch Bingham, Stan Blanton. I received a response to reach out to their media relations person. The spokesman sent the following statement after a call, “It is our understanding that Mrs. Bashinsky expressly stated that she did not want the conservator to engage Amy Adams as her attorney, and therefore no attorney-client relationship was formed. Balch Bingham has not taken any position adverse to Mrs. Bashinsky. Nevertheless, we notified the conservator of the firm’s intent to withdraw from our representation of the conservator in this matter to avoid being a distraction.” I responded to that message repeating questions from my first inquiry about their code of conduct or ethics and did not get a response.

It seems to me that keeping your word would be included in any code of conduct required of Adams, and as such, she shouldn’t have taken any role in this case after her promises to Mrs. B that she would only engage if she could engage on her behalf.

What I found after examining this case and conservatorship, in general, is that there is an exceptional lack of openness and transparency in the process. Seniors all over the country have found themselves seemingly railroaded by the court system and the attorneys who are supposed to “protect them”.

So I close this first story of a multi-part series posing the following questions:
Are conservatorship/guardianship courts failing seniors here in Jefferson County or more broadly throughout Alabama? Who is going to stand up for the seniors who can’t stand up for themselves?

A ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court helped Bashinsky regain control of her personal finances:

Joann Bashinsky, heiress to the Golden Flake Snack Foods fortune and one of Alabama's most admired philanthropists, has regained control of her financial resources after an effort in Jefferson County Probate Court to have her declared mentally unfit and placed under a conservator.

The move comes after the Alabama Supreme Court, taking a dim view of actions in the trial court, overturned appointment of a temporary guardian and conservator. From a report at al.com:

In its . . .  ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court (ASC) criticized decisions made by Bashinsky’s former employees, their lawyers, and the probate judge. The state Supreme Court said the probate court Judge Alan King’s decision to not give Bashinksy time to get a lawyer at an October 2019 hearing was “unfathomable.” The court also ruled that Bashinsky’s “basic due-process rights, were egregiously violated.”

For Alabama's highest court to issue such a stern rebuke to a trial court is highly unusual and suggests even the ASC could smell the foul odor wafting from the case. The ASC opinion clearly hints at ugliness in the trial court, apparently centered around Judge King (now retired), Conservator Greg Hawley, and Balch Bingham lawyer Amy Adams, with much of it caught on audiotape. That's why the Bashinsky matter should not be over; it should be thoroughly investigated, and if corruption is found, the qppropriate parties must be held accountable.Reports al.com:

 

Joann Bashinsky, heiress to the Golden Flake Snack Foods fortune and one of Alabama's most admired philanthropists, has regained control of her financial resources after an effort in Jefferson County Probate Court to have her declared mentally unfit and placed under a conservator.

The move comes after the Alabama Supreme Court, taking a dim view of actions in the trial court, overturned appointment of a temporary guardian and conservator. From a report at al.com:

In its . . .  ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court (ASC) criticized decisions made by Bashinsky’s former employees, their lawyers, and the probate judge. The state Supreme Court said the probate court Judge Alan King’s decision to not give Bashinksy time to get a lawyer at an October 2019 hearing was “unfathomable.” The court also ruled that Bashinsky’s “basic due-process rights, were egregiously violated.”
Reports al.com yesterday:

The Alabama Supreme Court released a ruling in July 2020 ordering that the appointment of a temporary guardian and conservator was void. The court also ruled Greg Hawley, the temporary guardian, must “account for all of Ms. Bashinsky’s funds and property.” The court dismissed the emergency petition for a guardian and conservator, but did not dismiss the permanent petition, because that had not been decided by the probate court so it was not an issue the high court could consider.

At the time of Bashinsky’s death, the permanent petition was still being sought.

Lindsey Graham's arm-twisting over vote totals, and then denying he had done it, prompted Georgia SOS Brad Raffensperger to record Trump phone call

Lindsey Graham
 

An earlier episode of election-related arm-twisting from U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) helped lead Georgia's secretary of state to record Saturday's phone call with Donald Trump, setting off a bombshell story that has dominated news cycles since it broke on Sunday. From a report by Marc Caputo at Politico "Playbook":

It started on Saturday when Trump and his team reached out to talk to [Brad] Raffensperger, who, according to an adviser, felt he would be unethically pressured by the president. Raffensperger had been here before: In November he accused Trump ally and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham of improperly exhorting him to meddle in the election to help Trump win Georgia. Graham later denied it.

So why not record the call with the president, Raffensperger’s advisers thought, if nothing else for fact-checking purposes. “This is a man who has a history of reinventing history as it occurs,” one of them told "Playbook." “So if he’s going to try to dispute anything on the call, it’s nice to have something like this, hard evidence, to dispute whatever he’s claiming about the secretary. Lindsey Graham asked us to throw out legally cast ballots. So yeah, after that call, we decided maybe we should do this.”

The call took place Saturday afternoon. “Mr. President,” announced Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, at the top of the call, “everyone is on the line.” Little did he know. Trump made his ask and did most of the talking for the next hour, trafficking in the same conspiracy theories about election fraud that no court or criminal investigator has found credible. At the end of the call, Trump complains, “What a schmuck I was.”

Raffensperger’s team kept quiet about the call and the recording and waited. The president made the next move, claiming on Sunday morning via Twitter that Raffensperger was “unwilling, or unable, to answer” questions about his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. “Respectfully, President Trump: What you're saying is not true,” Raffensperger replied at 10:27 a.m. “The truth will come out.” It wasn’t an empty promise.

This isn’t the first time that a call or his recorded comments have threatened Trump (see: Access Hollywood, Ukraine president).

Even analysts from the political right have chastised Trump for the phone call, noting its possible negative impact on today's U.S. Senate elections in Georgia:

“This phone call is bad,” Georgia conservative commentator Erick Erickson said on Twitter. We asked him to expand on that, and here’s what he added: “I think the general worry is that the GOP early vote actually came on strong [late] and there’s a real worry that the president shows up tomorrow and messes it all up. The North Georgia GOP has to turn out on Election Day. They’ve lagged the whole state. The President goes to Dalton tomorrow to get them out and now people are worried he spends his time attacking the GA GOP … There is real nervousness.”

Erickson and other Republicans have been concerned since November that the president’s voter fraud rhetoric will dampen turnout, a fear intensified by far-right activists who’ve suggested that Trump voters not go to the polls unless Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue fight harder to somehow cancel Biden’s Georgia win. Trump’s handling of a coronavirus relief package and his vetoing of a defense bill is another concern: Congress overrode the vote, but Perdue and Loeffler skipped out so they weren’t crosswise with Trump. Loeffler on Sunday avoided answering how she would’ve voted on the defense bill.

“Look, voters aren’t paying attention to all this stuff, people like us are,” one Georgia Republican strategist who’s working to elect Loeffler and Perdue told "Playbook." “But at a certain point, all these little things that don’t look like they matter could matter. I still feel OK. But this doesn’t help.

Monday, January 4, 2021

Trump's phone call to Georgia secretary of state, urging him to "recalculate" vote totals, raises all kinds of questions about criminality and election fraud

 

A prominent attorney and legal scholar is calling for a criminal investigation of Donald Trump's phone call Saturday to pressure Georgia's top election official  to "recalculate" vote totals so that Trump would be determined the winner in the state's presidential election. From a report at politicususa.com:

Neal Katyal says that a criminal offense may have been committed on the #TrumpTapes and the DOJ needs to open an investigation if not now, then on January 20 after Biden takes office.
 

Katyal said on MSNBC:

Trump asking the Georgia officials to find him 11,780 votes. Maybe that works in the Soviet Union or something, but it is not the way that American government has operated. So I see both, you know, really truly an impeachable offense here in is the heart of what abuse of power that our founders worried about so much. It is the idea that a government official can use the power of his office to stay in office to try and browbeat other officials that disagree with him. So whether or not a high crime and misdemeanor has been committed, the tape makes it sound like there has. The second is whether or not there is a criminal offense and the federal code 53 USC 2511 prohibits a federal official from interfering in a state election process. And again, that sure seems like what we heard on the tape. and so I think the Justice Department has to open an investigation if not now, then at least on January 20. I think that is the least of what will happen here.”

Katyal also said that criminal liability to prosecute Trump would be easier because the Justice Department will no longer be protecting him. It is fairly clear that Trump committed election fraud when he tried to pressure Georgia Republicans into finding enough votes to overturn the election for him.

The Georgia call will likely not be Trump’s last potential criminal offense, and the right thing for the incoming DOJ to do would be to launch an investigation into Donald Trump’s election-related crimes.

Katyal was not the only expert to address the possibility of criminality related to Trump's phone call. From a report at Yahoo!

As word spread Sunday of President Trump’s astonishing phone conversation with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger the day before, there was widespread speculation that the president had committed one or more crimes in his effort to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, including extortion and, ironically, election fraud.

A recording of the one-hour call was released Sunday by The Washington Post. The president is heard pressuring Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” that would put him in the lead over President-elect Joe Biden in Georgia, which has already certified its results.

Trump also threatens Raffensperger with the possibility of criminal charges unless he comes up with the votes to overturn the election results.

“You know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen,” Trump says on the call. “That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk.”

The Post did not say who recorded the call or how it obtained the tape.

Trump offered no direct evidence of voter fraud in Georgia, instead offering second-hand conspiracy theories about manipulated voting machines, ballots being scanned multiple times and votes simply being thrown out — all of which were investigated by Georgia law enforcement and the FBI, and found to be untrue. But Trump went beyond trying to prove that he won the state by “hundreds of thousands of votes,” pressuring Raffensperger to simply announce a new vote total showing him beating Biden.

“There’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated,” the president said.

Joined on the call by his general counsel, Ryan Germany, Raffensperger calmly and methodically disputes Trump’s election theories.

“Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong,” Raffensperger said.

Trump’s actions could constitute election fraud. Section 52 of the U.S. Code concerns voting and elections, and provides for a sentence of up to five years. . . . 

Trump’s citing possible criminal charges for Raffensperger unless he produces a different election result in Georgia could be seen as extortion, which section 18, chapter 41 of the U.S. code expressly prohibits.Donald Trump

The former lead counsel in Trump’s impeachment trial — which was predicated on what Trump called his “perfect phone call” to the president of Ukraine — agreed that this was also a less-than-perfect call by the president.

NYU law professor and former DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissmann also noted the similarity with Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. Said Weissmann: Trump's threats to Georgia Sec of State; Trump, to Ukraine President; Trump to US Senators who won't violate the Constitution for him - and on and on - are all examples of POTUS criminal extortion and election tampering. And those who knowingly assist him violate 18 USC 2 & 371.

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

New investigative article at Ban Balch shines white hot light on the slimy road from Mike Thompson to Drummond Company to Luther Strange's pocket

Jessica Medeiros Garrison and Luther Strange

How shady were Luther Strange's activities related to the North Birmingham Superfund bribery scandal? For that matter, what about Jessica Medeiros Garrison, Strange's one-time campaign manager and alleged mistress (per former State Sen. Lowell Barron) who happened to hold an "of counsel" position at the Balch and Bingham law firm, where "the plan" was hatched to defeat EPA regulations that threatened to present more than $100 million in clean-up costs for corporate polluters that reportedly had saturated the mostly black neighborhood with deadly toxins?

Answers to those questions, and many others, apparently were covered up during a criminal trial where U.S. attorney Jay Town reportedly protected powerful political figures and business interests. A $75-million fraud lawsuit from former Drummond Company executive David Roberson promises to shine light, much of it unflattering, on Strange and his associates in the new year.

The Roberson civil case essentially is a rebirth of the EPA scandal, and a report earlier this week from banbalch.com raised new questions about Strange's role in the seediness. Ban Balch Publisher K.B. Forbes, under the headline "Eye of Federal Investigators? Crosswhite, Drummond Family, and Balch’s Biggest Stooge,"focuses on the Alliance for Jobs and the Economy (AJE), the corrupt entity behind $360,000 in bribes to former state lawmaker Oliver Robinson. Writes Forbes:

The AJE was the alleged brainchild of Alabama Power and as we reported in 2017, Mike Thompson of Thompson Tractor was listed as a director of the money laundering entity.

Thompson was also the fundraising chairman in 2017 of Balch’s biggest stooge U.S. Senator Luther Strange and allegedly has had deep and close friendships with Crosswhite and the Drummond family.

Strange involved himself in the North Birmingham EPA matter, allegedly provoked by Balch, even though Strange had no authority to do so. At the time, the Governor had delegated the Alabama Department of Environmental Management to handle all issues related to the North Birmingham EPA matter.

  • On October 13, 2014, convicted felon and Balch-made millionaire Joel I. Gilbert sent Luther Strange, then the Alabama Attorney General, a draft letter about the North Birmingham EPA matter.
  • Four days later, on October 17, Strange accepted a $25,000 contribution from Drummond Company.
  • Six days later after the money was deposited, Strange signed the ghost-written letter and dispatched it on his official letterhead to the EPA on October 23, 2014. (Read the source documents here.)

 

The Alabama Supreme Court  has denied Drummond's request for a stay on discovery in the Roberson case, meaning evidence should start flowing in the weeks ahead. The court has released no ruling on Drummond's petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to be dismissed from the Roberson case. As a practical matter, it's hard to see how the court could deny the stay on discovery but grant the mandamus petition -- especially given that state precedent clearly shows Drummond is not entitled to mandamus relief, as a matter of law.

As for Jessica Garrison, we know she beat a hasty retreat at Balch and Bingham-- and her social-media presence evaporated -- after Strange's name first was tied to the Superfund scandal.

As for Mike Thompson, a Ban Balch scoop raises questions that figure to resonate well into 2021:

We have now learned from sources that the $25,000 was allegedly hand delivered in 2014 to Attorney General Strange when Thompson brought him over to Drummond Company’s executive offices, circumventing government affairs (Roberson's department) and meeting with members of the Drummond family directly.

All that was missing was a brown paper bag.

Friday, December 18, 2020

Drummond Company seeks relief from Alabama Supreme Court to which it clearly is not entitled

Drummond Coal
 

The Alabama Supreme Court should need about 30 seconds (at most) to deny Drummond Company's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to overturn the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss in David Roberson's $75-million fraud lawsuit.

That's because the court long has held a writ of mandamus is an improper vehicle for review on denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Why that holding? The simple principle is this: In most cases, a post-trial appeal will be available to the aggrieved party -- as it will be for Drummond in the Roberson case -- and that is the proper remedy.

We don't have an exact number of appellate cases that cite this rule, but it appears to be dozens. Burt Newsome, attorney for Roberson and his wife Anna, cites five of them in a motion to dismiss the mandamus petition filed yesterday. (The Roberson motion and Circuit Judge Tamara Harris Johnson's denial of Drummond's motion to stay discovery in the trial court are embedded at the end of this post.) From the Roberson motion to dismiss:

The issues Drummond raises in its mandamus petition have previously been held by the Alabama Supreme Court to be not reviewable by mandamus. In Ex Parte Sanderson, 263 So. 3d 681 (Ala., 2018) -- cited by Drummond in its mandamus petition -- the court refused to review the case and said, "The denial of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment generally is not reviewable by a petition for writ of mandamus, subject to certain narrow exceptions . . . " (These narrow exceptions include things like lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by the trial court, which are not at issue in this case.) Drummond cites no cases holding that its defenses based on collateral estoppel, the Hinkle rule or the plaintiffs' alleged failure to state a claim are reviewable by mandamus.

In Ex Parte Nautilus Insurance Company, 260 So. 3d 823 (Ala, 2018), this honorable court stated:

Initially, LFC argues that it was entitled to a dismissal of Precision's claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because, LFC says, those claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, the denial of a motion to dismiss based upon Rule 12(b)(6) is not reviewable by petition for a writ of mandamus. Ex Parte Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts and Co., L.P., 78 So. 3d 959 (Ala., 2011). Any alleged error in the [trial] court's decision to deny the motion to dimiss for failure to state a claim . . . can be adequately remedied by appeal. . . . Accordingly, we do not address LFC's arguments in this regard. 

Why is Drummond seeking a remedy to which it clearly is not entitled? We can only guess, but it appears the company is desperate to avoid discovery.

As for Judge Johnson's order denying Drummond's request for a stay of discovery in the trial court, she writes:

The court file reflects . . . Defendant Drummond has requested and received, in part, discovery from plaintiffs. Yet now, the Defendant Drummond is asking for a stay on discovery requested to be produced by defendant. In other words, Defendant Drummond has participated in the discovery process, as long as it was requesting and receiving discovery; yet, it now asks this court for a stay in the entire discovery process, once discovery is being requested from it. . . .This Court did not provide defendant with the relief sought, to wit: an emergency stay of discovery, as the court finds that the defendant had already begun the discovery process, the requested stay was no longer justified as an emergency.


Thursday, December 17, 2020

Does Doug Jones' background include unpleasantness that could turn his confirmation process into a Clarence Thomas/Brett Kavanaugh slugfest?

 

Doug Jones

Part Two

U.S. Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) is seen by many as the most confirmable of Joe Biden's possible nominees for U.S. attorney general. But the D.C.-based publisher of the Justice Integrity Project (JIP) hints that a thorough investigation of Jones' past might unearth ugliness that could turn his confirmation process into a lugfest.

Journalist-lawyer-author Andrew Kreig  suggests Jones' background might include some unpleasantness that could make his confirmation more difficult than some might imagine:

If any senators from either party dared dig beyond the surface? A confirmation proceeding could well become more explosive than any other in modern times, making the Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh court confirmations seem tame by contrast, and might well tarnish top figures in the Obama-Biden administration for failures to clean up what are reliably reported as shocking levels of official corruption in Alabama in recent years. 

It took many years until nearly the present even for [Tommy] Gallion and [Don] Siegelman to publish 2020 books that penetrate the inherent secrecy of the Justice Department in such sensitive matters.

So, it is no surprise or embarrassment that one of the major Washington Post stories, as of this writing, Biden narrows attorney general list, portrayed Jones as perhaps the most readily confirmable of attorney general candidates because of perceptions that he is a moderate who gets along with most Republicans.

Read further for a deeper view.

Alabama has been riddled with corruption since at least the mid 1990s -- for much of Doug Jones' professional life. And yet, the junior U.S. senator has done precious little to improve the situation, Kreig reports. In essence, Kreig writes, Jones saw the Alabama swamp and dove right in, splashing around with the swamp rats. That hardly seems to make him the kind of rock-ribbed reformer that likely will be needed for justice-related positions in the post-Trump era. That, Kreig writes, would make Jones a particularly poor choice as Joe Biden's nominee to be U.S. attorney general. 

Here is more from a post dated 12/14/20 at the JIP -- under the headline "Sen. Doug Jones As ‘Confirmable’ Biden AG? Bad Idea!". Kreig notes that some Alabamans who have worked closely with Jones do not speak highly of him. That includes Montgomery lawyer Tommy Gallion. Writes Kreig:

Indeed, one of his former law partners, the prominent Alabama attorney Thomas T. Gallion III, published a book this year surveying nearly seven decades of official corruption in the state — and names Jones as part of a "Cabal" working with powerful Republicans in moneymaking schemes that flagrantly violate the law, legal ethics and other  core values of justice and democracy.

The book, Shadow Government, Southern Style: A Saga of Political Corruption From DC to Dixie, was first published in May by Gallion, a partner in the Montgomery firm Haskell Slaughter. Among other posts, he has been County Attorney for Montgomery County (encompassing the state capital) since 1985.

Gallion identifies as a Republican. But his book is a non-partisan slam at those whom he regards as corrupt, including Jeff Sessions, President Trump's first Attorney General after decades as Republican senator and prosecutor in Alabama. Other targets of Gallion include the recent two-term Republican Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (2003-2011), and longtime Bush Family political aide Karl Rove, a White House senior advisor to President George W. Bush.

Regarding Jones (who failed to respond to our invitation this week to comment for this column), Gallion drew on his extensive study of the senator's career to pose near the end of his book a page-long series of questions that he challenged Jones to answer under oath.

Mentioning such allegations does not mean they are true, of course. Nothing like Gallion's allegations have surfaced in national reporting about Jones's unsuccessful campaign for Senate re-election this fall or regarding the Biden-Harris Transition Team appointment process to pick an Attorney General.

That lack of national coverage for allegations against Jones continues as of this writing. That's so, at least for now, even though the Gallion book is receiving good reader reviews and it reports about legal skullduggery of a kind often suspected in Alabama. That's a state where one-party domination creates lucrative opportunities for those close to office-holders and thwarts checks-and-balances, as evidenced by the ouster of the state's governor and House speaker for unrelated scandals in recent years.

More generally, Stealing Our Democracy: How the Political Assassination of a Governor Threatens Our Nation, published in June by former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, covers much of the same ground as the Gallion book.

Siegelman, a Jones client and a Democrat who served from 1999 until the Republican Riley took office in 2003, was imprisoned on corruption charges in 2007 in what became a notorious case worldwide because of allegations supported by whistle blowers and legal scholars that he and others had been framed for political reasons.

Kreig writes that Jones' power base has been built on a form of "go-along-to-get along careerism":

At first impression, the moderate and sometimes pro-Trump Jones voting record in the Senate confers confirmable status, especially coupled with Jones's former work as a Judiciary Committee Senate staffer.

But some in the Democratic base are already complaining about Jones as too moderate. That could escalate with wider recognition that he tilts to “go-along-to-get-along” careerism. It hardly helps that he is a white man and that reform pressures are coming most heavily from minorities and civil rights groups, including the NAACP.

Most relevant here is that Jones's connections failed to save his client in one of his biggest legal cases, aside from his duly-praised successes in leading a 1990s civil rights federal prosecution of 1960s Alabama church bombing murderers.

This case, the Bush Administration prosecution of Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, became a worldwide human rights scandal. A seemingly separate civil lawsuit enriched Jones with legal fees, helping make it possible for him to secure the support enabling his ongoing leadership in the fractured, cash-strapped and largely ineffective Alabama Democratic Party.

Jones thus ascended in 2017 to the Senate seat, which he lost in November’s elections. He is now positioning himself as a front runner for the AG post.

 

 Does Jones merit front-runner status? No, says Kreig:

Vulnerabilities of Jones are well-documented and are likely to embarrass the Biden team if he is nominated.

That’s especially so because the Jones problems illustrate the concerns that Black and Hispanic criminal justice reformers are voicing already (albeit without the specifics below) about a need for a hard-hitting expert voice helming the Justice Department.

My conclusions endorsing those criticisms of Jones are based on more than a decade of in-depth investigation by the non-partisan Justice Integrity Project of mind-boggling abuses in Alabama where Jones built his career with only occasional demonstrations of extraordinary commitment to rectifying the state's massive official corruption. . . . 

What could all of this mean for Joe Biden's presidency? Writes Kreig:

Before providing a Jones rebuttal to these allegations of defense shortcomings, let’s sketch some of the implications for the incoming Biden-Harris administration.

For one thing, the Obama-Biden Justice Department remained oblivious at best to the allegations and evidence, and at worst aggressively assisted the cover-up for reasons hard to explain, except at best a “don’t rock the boat” mentality.

Thus, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder fired Justice Department paralegal Tamarah Grimes in 2009 when she stepped forward to document what Grimes regarded as outrageous conduct by Leura Canary in supervising Siegelman’s prosecution and specific abuses on a near-daily basis. The conduct included vast spending at the Air Force base, according to Grimes, even though Canary supposedly recused herself. Siegelman, Scrushy and their attorneys have never been able to obtain the paperwork on Canary’s supposed “recusal” despite innumerable requests dating back to their trials.

For another thing, the Obama Justice Department vigorously resisted the appeals of Siegelman and Scrushy, just as it did for other obvious victims of the Bush-Rove “U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal” of 2006, whereby up to nine of the nation’s presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys were fired for failing to bring dubious cases and many others were retained under pressure to indict Democrats regarded as having promising futures.

Siegelman, the only politician in Alabama history to win election to all four of the state’s top political offices, had once been regarded as a future presidential contender, in part because his popularity bridged Black and white constituencies.

Remarkably, the Obama-Biden administration kept Alabama’s Leura Canary in her presidential appointed Justice Department post for more than two years after Obama took office, and long after the scandals broke on the 2008 CBS 60 Minutes broadcast and otherwise.

Then the new Democratic administration replaced her as U.S. attorney (at the suggestion of Alabama’s two Republican senators) with George Beck, the former Nick Bailey attorney who was thus in a perfect position to maintain a cover-up of official misconduct through the end of the Obama-Biden administration.

Before Beck’s confirmation, our Justice Integrity Project published a four-part series documenting why the U.S. Senate should examine Beck’s track record and deny his confirmation. Beck, at age 62 was taking a job normally awarded to a younger attorney, thereby raising questions why he wanted it.

That series had no discernible impact on a self-absorbed Senate and Obama-Biden administration. But it did serve to provide the Bailey-supporting critic Luther "Stan" Pate with a forum to describe Beck as the worst, most despicable attorney he had ever observed because of his failure to protect his client. Beck, like judge Mark Fuller, declined comment. Fuller would go on to be forced to resign from the federal bench after his arrest for beating his second wife, who had been his court clerk during the Siegelman-Scrushy trial -- yet another curiosity in a trial marred by a host of other irregularities.

The series also enabled Jones to defend his conduct at length, via an email reprinted here:

George is eminently qualified to be US Attorney. He is a veteran lawyer who is respected by judges and lawyers on both sides of the aisle. He will be fair and balanced, and not driven by any political agenda, which is especially important for that particular U.S. Attorney position.

This is not a lifetime appointment. So, I am not concerned at all about his age. I think that office needs a seasoned lawyer with a steady hand regardless of age, and he certainly fits that bill.

With regard to his representation about Nick [Bailey], it is not a question whether he might be conflicted. He will be conflicted from any involvement in the case. I think that the real question will be whether it causes the entire office, including the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who prosecuted the case, to also be recused. A strong argument can be made that this case is so controversial that the entire office should be recused, and either another U.S. attorney appointed to oversee the case or someone out of Main Justice. That's a decision to be made by the hierarchy at DOJ.

Finally, all I can say about any questions that have after the fact been raised regarding my representation of Gov. Siegelman while also working on a civil matter against Richard Scrushy is that Don was well aware of the civil case and it was never an issue with us and that is all that matters to me. Moreover, as you know I did not represent him at trial due to a trial conflict with another matter and it is the trial where the rubber meets the road with regard to such issues. Scrushy was ultimately dismissed from our case without any settlement or judgment against him.

Any reporter, as I was throughout the early part of my career before I became a lawyer and federal judge’s clerk, appreciates the willingness of a news subject to provide comment in response to questions on highly sensitive matters that Jones, among others, was in a position to ferret out and, if he so desired, protest.

In fairness, the Jones remarks above show that he is confident and facile in his explanations, qualities that have served him very well, as indicated by such stories as the Washington Post report on Dec. 12 suggesting that he had emerged as the leading candidate for the post even compared to former Obama-Biden Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, whose management and relevant leadership is far more recent than the regional office work of Jones during the 1990s.

Thus far, Jones has been able to leverage his team’s 1990s prosecution of Alabama church-bombing racists who murdered four schoolgirls in 1964. That has provided Jones with an image of civil rights advocacy cited in most news profiles of him that counters the complaints of Black civil rights leaders who are pressuring Biden for a Black attorney general.

But true civil rights advocacy should not focus simply on identity politics and high-profile jobs for Blacks and other minorities. Instead, the Justice Department, courts and prisons need an expert, passionate and non-partisan recommitment to human rights and justice.

The abuses of the Siegelman-Scrushy case were readily apparent to Republicans like Grant Wood and Stan Pate, as well as a host of other observers. In contrast, after Eric Holder’s retirement from leading the Justice Department I asked him about the Siegelman case following a speech he delivered at the Center for American Progress. He told me as we walked together after the lecture toward his law office he was not familiar with the Siegelman case.

Bottom line: Doug Jones, well-connected as he might be to his current Senate colleagues, has lived a privileged career, buttressed with some major successes but also not buttressed with the extraordinary qualities needed for these times. There are many posts that a former senator and prosecutor can pursue with dignity but supervising the Justice Department at this time is not one of them.

And if Joe Biden and his new administration fail to see why his former staffer Jones fails this test in such a notorious case as Siegelman’s, which is by no means unique considering the untold tales elsewhere in the legal system, that failure is all the more personal to the incoming president and his party because they would have knowingly picked image over substance.

The stakes are high. And, post-Trump, the public is watching.

In an apparent act of panic, Drummond seeks emergency stay with Alabama Supreme Court

Drummond Coal
 

In an apparent act of "widespread panic," Drummond Company yesterday filed an emergency motion with the Alabama Supreme Court to stay discovery in David Roberson's $75-million lawsuit -- and to consider Drummond's petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss.

The filing comes before Jefferson County Circuit Judge Tamara Harris Johnson had a reasonable chance to consider Drummond's emergency motion to stay discovery in her court.

What appears to have Drummond in such a panic? In its motion to the state's high court, Drummond states that it is not "practicable" to wait for a ruling from the trial court, "given the approaching deposition dates." Drummond notes that Roberson attorney Burt Newsome has set depositions to begin on Monday (12/21/20), continuing through the holidays and into January 2021. Drummond makes no claim that such a schedule is improper, but it voices concern about the "burden" and "expense" such discovery will impose.

Specifically, Drummond notes that Newsome seeks to subpoena documents from Alabama Power and testimony from its CEO, Mark Crosswhite. From the motion:

The vast majority of the expense for the parties and expenditures of resources by the parties, non-parties, and the trial court lies in plaintiffs' claims concerning the legality of "The Plan" that underlies Roberson's federal conviction. . . . The discovery currently seeking to be stayed in effect seeks to relitigate Plaintiff Roberson's criminal conviction and would be unnecessary if Drummond's petition is granted.

Never mind that Roberson's civil claims involve individuals, entities, and issues that were not part of the criminal trial. And never mind that Drummond already has propounded discovery requests of its own.

The motion goes on to express concerns about interrogatories and depositions that already are set for various executives at Drummond and Alabama Power:

If this court grant's Drummond's petitition for writ of mandamus, all the foregoing discovery will be irrelevent. Accordingly, it does not serve the interests of justice, the parties, or the court system to go through the expense and effort of discovery in this case until this court rules on Drummond's pending mandamus petition.

Is Drummond's concern really about "expense and effort," or does it not want to participate in evidence gathering at all? Is discovery likely to unearth wrongdoing that Drummond wants to keep under wraps?