Just a thought before returning our attention to The Birmingham News.
I was surprised to discover that Don Siegelman was personally responsible for $500,000 of debt from his failed lottery campaign in Alabama. That debt evidently caused Siegelman to turn to Richard Scrushy for a donation, with Scrushy winding up with a place on a hospital-regulation board. That transaction was at the heart of the government's corruption case against Siegelman.
I figured the governor's office would have accounts designed to cover expenses for something like a lottery campaign. Had no idea that Siegelman, or any other governor, would need to personally guarantee campaign debt. Anybody have any insight on how this happens?
This all raises this question about current Alabama Governor Bob Riley: Did Riley have any debt from his failed campaign to reform the tax system in Alabama? If so, who paid for it and what, if any, benefits did this person or organization receive as a result?
I happen to be one Alabamian who supported Riley's effort to reform the tax system to better fund education and state services. I thought it took real political courage on his part to bring the program forward. In fact, I thought Riley might turn out to be the best governor Alabama had seen in my time living here for almost 30 years. (That was before I came to understand his ties to people like Jack Abramoff and Dax Swatek and the suspicious nature of his narrow win over Siegelman in 2002.)
Anyway, I've never seen the issue raised of any debt Riley might have faced from his failed tax-reform plan. Any readers have information or thoughts about this?
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Inside The Birmingham News
The strange story in yesterday's Birmingham News about the Siegelman/Simpson affidavit case raises some questions about Alabama's largest newspaper.
The News' story, written by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Brett Blackledge, seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to cover some Republican fanny--namely the fannies of Bill Canary and Karl Rove.
It's no secret that the News is a conservative newspaper. But just how conservative is the News? And how does that particular brand of conservativism affect the readers and community the paper serves?
My experience with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama has given me some insight into the News' operations. Here is some of what I've learned.
To understand the News' take on anything involving politics, you need to understand the politics--and the religion--of the Hanson family. Victor Hanson II, the paper's former publisher, is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, one of the largest, wealthiest, most conservative, and most politically active congregations in Alabama. (Victor Hanson III, son of Victor II, is the current publisher. Not sure if he is a member of Briarwood.) Dan Quayle, and other conservative luminaries, have spoken at Briarwood.
Briarwood is the founding church of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), which is not to be confused with the mainline Presbyterian Church USA. The PCA is a much more evangelical, conservative outfit than the USA church, and PCA was founded right here in Birmingham by former Briarwood pastor Frank Barker.
All of this is of great interest to me because evidence strongly suggests that Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, is somehow connected to the judicial wrongdoing that I've experienced. I will be spelling all of this out in future posts. But for now let's consider my case and how the News' reacts to a story idea that would cast Republicans (particularly those who might be associated with Briarwood Church) in an unfavorable light.
When I realized that Judge J. Michael Joiner in Shelby County was repeatedly making unlawful rulings in the lawsuit filed against me, I contacted Tom Scarritt, editor of The Birmingham News. Scarritt agreed to meet me at his office. I know newspaper editors are busy people who like it when folks cut to the chase, so I gave him an 8- to 10-minute overview of my experience. (The ordeal had been going on about three years at that point, so that's a very condensed version.)
I had legal documents, statutory law, and case law that clearly showed the pattern of wrongdoing by Judge Joiner. I also mentioned the unsavory background of opposing attorney Bill Swatek, and connections I had discovered between Swatek and Joiner that should have disqualified Joiner from ever taking the case. I did not mention that my research had indicated that both Judge Joiner and Bill Swatek had connections to Briarwood School.
What was Scarritt's response? "Well, sounds to me like you need a lawyer who's as good as Mr. Swatek?" That might be the single dumbest statement I've ever heard a human being utter. ("So this is what the 'watchdog press' has come to," I thought to myself.) Did Scarritt ask me any questions about my experiences or ask to see the documents I had on hand? Nope.
I already knew about the paper's Briarwood connections, and as the Briarwood name began to surface in my case, I was convinced I would never get anywhere with the News.
But I decided to try a few other folks at the paper, just out of curiosity I guess, and told them about my experience via e-mail. Editorial page editor Bob Blalock and reporter Eric Velasco never responded. Neither did Blackledge, the future Pulitzer Prize winner. Montgomery reporter David White did respond, but quickly begged off on doing anything. The only person who genuinely seemed interested in learning more was columnist John Archibald, who had written about the Alabama Supreme Court's lawful, but absurd ruling in the Jack Cline case. Archibald indicated a time or two that he was interested in learning more about my experience. But he eventually quit responding to my e-mails. My impression? That someone at the paper got to him and indicated that he was not to look into my story.
After repeatedly reading editorials in the News that tsked-tsked public corruption, I decided to write a letter to the editor about the judicial corruption I had witnessed up close and personal. Did the News run the letter or contact me about it in any way? The answer, and the letter, coming up next.
The News' story, written by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Brett Blackledge, seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to cover some Republican fanny--namely the fannies of Bill Canary and Karl Rove.
It's no secret that the News is a conservative newspaper. But just how conservative is the News? And how does that particular brand of conservativism affect the readers and community the paper serves?
My experience with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama has given me some insight into the News' operations. Here is some of what I've learned.
To understand the News' take on anything involving politics, you need to understand the politics--and the religion--of the Hanson family. Victor Hanson II, the paper's former publisher, is a member of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, one of the largest, wealthiest, most conservative, and most politically active congregations in Alabama. (Victor Hanson III, son of Victor II, is the current publisher. Not sure if he is a member of Briarwood.) Dan Quayle, and other conservative luminaries, have spoken at Briarwood.
Briarwood is the founding church of the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), which is not to be confused with the mainline Presbyterian Church USA. The PCA is a much more evangelical, conservative outfit than the USA church, and PCA was founded right here in Birmingham by former Briarwood pastor Frank Barker.
All of this is of great interest to me because evidence strongly suggests that Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of Briarwood Presbyterian Church, is somehow connected to the judicial wrongdoing that I've experienced. I will be spelling all of this out in future posts. But for now let's consider my case and how the News' reacts to a story idea that would cast Republicans (particularly those who might be associated with Briarwood Church) in an unfavorable light.
When I realized that Judge J. Michael Joiner in Shelby County was repeatedly making unlawful rulings in the lawsuit filed against me, I contacted Tom Scarritt, editor of The Birmingham News. Scarritt agreed to meet me at his office. I know newspaper editors are busy people who like it when folks cut to the chase, so I gave him an 8- to 10-minute overview of my experience. (The ordeal had been going on about three years at that point, so that's a very condensed version.)
I had legal documents, statutory law, and case law that clearly showed the pattern of wrongdoing by Judge Joiner. I also mentioned the unsavory background of opposing attorney Bill Swatek, and connections I had discovered between Swatek and Joiner that should have disqualified Joiner from ever taking the case. I did not mention that my research had indicated that both Judge Joiner and Bill Swatek had connections to Briarwood School.
What was Scarritt's response? "Well, sounds to me like you need a lawyer who's as good as Mr. Swatek?" That might be the single dumbest statement I've ever heard a human being utter. ("So this is what the 'watchdog press' has come to," I thought to myself.) Did Scarritt ask me any questions about my experiences or ask to see the documents I had on hand? Nope.
I already knew about the paper's Briarwood connections, and as the Briarwood name began to surface in my case, I was convinced I would never get anywhere with the News.
But I decided to try a few other folks at the paper, just out of curiosity I guess, and told them about my experience via e-mail. Editorial page editor Bob Blalock and reporter Eric Velasco never responded. Neither did Blackledge, the future Pulitzer Prize winner. Montgomery reporter David White did respond, but quickly begged off on doing anything. The only person who genuinely seemed interested in learning more was columnist John Archibald, who had written about the Alabama Supreme Court's lawful, but absurd ruling in the Jack Cline case. Archibald indicated a time or two that he was interested in learning more about my experience. But he eventually quit responding to my e-mails. My impression? That someone at the paper got to him and indicated that he was not to look into my story.
After repeatedly reading editorials in the News that tsked-tsked public corruption, I decided to write a letter to the editor about the judicial corruption I had witnessed up close and personal. Did the News run the letter or contact me about it in any way? The answer, and the letter, coming up next.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Curious Reporting in Birmingham
I promise we will return to the issue of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department soon, but just had to weigh in on the strange story about the Don Siegelman saga in today's Birmingham News.
Reporter Brett Blackledge, who recently won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the two-year colleges scandal in Alabama (which involves mostly Democrats), endeavors to inform us that Dana Jill Simpson's affidavit could have two meanings regarding Karl Rove.
The affidavit, Blackledge reports, could mean that Bill Canary said Rove instigated the Siegelman prosecution from the outset. Or it could mean that Canary merely was acknowledging that Rove knew about a prosecution of Siegelman that already was under way.
Early in the story, Blackledge reports that Simpson herself agrees that the affidavit could be interpreted two ways; she emphasizes that she simply was trying to report the conversation as factually as possible. (Simpson goes on to state that she believes, based on the conversation she heard, that Rove was involved in the prosecution. This is buried deep in a story that must run 30 to 40 column inches.)
The News states that numerous national publications, including The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, have reported the story as if Rove had been involved on the front end. But the News claims that Simpson's affidavit does not specifically say that.
Call me dense, but I fail to see what is open to debate in the Simpson affidavit regarding Rove. In item 16 in the affidavit, Simpson quotes Canary telling Rob Riley (son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley) "not to worry that he had already GOTTEN IT WORKED OUT WITH KARL and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department was already pursuing Don Siegelman."
Gotten it worked out with Karl? Where I come from, that's plain English for "Karl was involved on the front end."
While Rove's involvement has drawn much attention from the mainstream press and many bloggers (including yours truly), any alleged actions on his part are not the central story in Simpson's affidavit. In Simpson's own words, her main point was that Siegelman attorney Terry Butts had a conflict of interest, causing Siegelman to be denied his sixth amendment right to have an attorney who is free of conflict. And in exposing Butts' conflict, Simpson revealed the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution--regardless of what Rove knew and when he knew it.
By the way, Scott Horton of Harper's, saw this coming. He reported last night that the News was about to pull out one of its heavy hitters (Blackledge) to write a story that would spin the Simpson affidavit in a light most favorable to Republicans. Until now, Republicans have been saying the conversation outlined in Simpson's affidavit never took place. Horton notes that since it can be proven that the conversation took place, Canary & Co. are now taking a different approach--claiming that Simpson misunderstood what was said.
Remember, Horton reported this Saturday night, and the story appeared, just as he stated it would, in today's Birmingham News. More great reporting by Harper's on the Siegelman case.
My experience with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama has given me some insight into how The Birmingham News operates. I will be sharing those insights with you shortly.
Reporter Brett Blackledge, who recently won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the two-year colleges scandal in Alabama (which involves mostly Democrats), endeavors to inform us that Dana Jill Simpson's affidavit could have two meanings regarding Karl Rove.
The affidavit, Blackledge reports, could mean that Bill Canary said Rove instigated the Siegelman prosecution from the outset. Or it could mean that Canary merely was acknowledging that Rove knew about a prosecution of Siegelman that already was under way.
Early in the story, Blackledge reports that Simpson herself agrees that the affidavit could be interpreted two ways; she emphasizes that she simply was trying to report the conversation as factually as possible. (Simpson goes on to state that she believes, based on the conversation she heard, that Rove was involved in the prosecution. This is buried deep in a story that must run 30 to 40 column inches.)
The News states that numerous national publications, including The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, have reported the story as if Rove had been involved on the front end. But the News claims that Simpson's affidavit does not specifically say that.
Call me dense, but I fail to see what is open to debate in the Simpson affidavit regarding Rove. In item 16 in the affidavit, Simpson quotes Canary telling Rob Riley (son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley) "not to worry that he had already GOTTEN IT WORKED OUT WITH KARL and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department was already pursuing Don Siegelman."
Gotten it worked out with Karl? Where I come from, that's plain English for "Karl was involved on the front end."
While Rove's involvement has drawn much attention from the mainstream press and many bloggers (including yours truly), any alleged actions on his part are not the central story in Simpson's affidavit. In Simpson's own words, her main point was that Siegelman attorney Terry Butts had a conflict of interest, causing Siegelman to be denied his sixth amendment right to have an attorney who is free of conflict. And in exposing Butts' conflict, Simpson revealed the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution--regardless of what Rove knew and when he knew it.
By the way, Scott Horton of Harper's, saw this coming. He reported last night that the News was about to pull out one of its heavy hitters (Blackledge) to write a story that would spin the Simpson affidavit in a light most favorable to Republicans. Until now, Republicans have been saying the conversation outlined in Simpson's affidavit never took place. Horton notes that since it can be proven that the conversation took place, Canary & Co. are now taking a different approach--claiming that Simpson misunderstood what was said.
Remember, Horton reported this Saturday night, and the story appeared, just as he stated it would, in today's Birmingham News. More great reporting by Harper's on the Siegelman case.
My experience with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama has given me some insight into how The Birmingham News operates. I will be sharing those insights with you shortly.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
The Bush Crime Ring
Before returning to the notion of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department, just had to share this piece from Joseph. L. Galloway, military columnist for McClatchy Newspapers.
Galloway compares the Bush administration to a crime ring, a poorly run crime ring at that. And he weighs in on the disgraceful performance of the Bush Justice Department.
Galloway hardly could be called a left winger. He is co-author of the best-seller We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. He notes that he voted for Bush in 2000. But this column is one of the most scathing indictments I've seen of the Bush White House.
By the way, McClatchy Newspapers seems to be an excellent source of information on the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Here is a link to their Web site on the subject.
Galloway compares the Bush administration to a crime ring, a poorly run crime ring at that. And he weighs in on the disgraceful performance of the Bush Justice Department.
Galloway hardly could be called a left winger. He is co-author of the best-seller We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young. He notes that he voted for Bush in 2000. But this column is one of the most scathing indictments I've seen of the Bush White House.
By the way, McClatchy Newspapers seems to be an excellent source of information on the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Here is a link to their Web site on the subject.
Selective Prosecution in the Spotlight
U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) now is taking an aggressive approach to the Don Siegelman case and the general issue of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
Davis, from Birmingham, is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. The Birmingham News reports today that Davis has asked committee chairman John Conyers to include the Siegelman case in an upcoming hearing on selective prosecution in the justice department.
Davis' initial public statements about the Siegelman case were rather muted. But he says that he and other committee members were influenced by a recent New York Times editorial calling on Congress to look into the Siegelman prosecution.
Davis and other key members of Congress will be hearing from a certain Legal Schnauzer about the issue of selective prosecution. We'll tell you why next.
Davis, from Birmingham, is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. The Birmingham News reports today that Davis has asked committee chairman John Conyers to include the Siegelman case in an upcoming hearing on selective prosecution in the justice department.
Davis' initial public statements about the Siegelman case were rather muted. But he says that he and other committee members were influenced by a recent New York Times editorial calling on Congress to look into the Siegelman prosecution.
Davis and other key members of Congress will be hearing from a certain Legal Schnauzer about the issue of selective prosecution. We'll tell you why next.
Friday, July 6, 2007
The Road to Legal Perdition
Prepare yourself for a journey into the land where the law does not always make sense. In fact, in this land, the law sometimes contradicts itself. And regular folks, like you and me, can suffer the consequences.
This can happen even when we are in one of our most vulnerable moments--as the victims of a crime.
In our previous post we showed that, under the law, an acquittal is a relatively weak finding. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has found that "an acquittal is not a finding of any fact. . . . (It) can only be an acknowledgment that the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Furthermore, the nation's highest court has held that "acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt."
So if an acquittal is such a flimsy finding, how is it that a defendant who is acquitted of criminal charges can turn around and sue the person who signed the criminal complaint against him? That is exactly what happened to me, and it can happen to you if you are ever the victim of a crime.
In an earlier post, I noted that my road to legal perdition started when my Neighbor From Hell (NFH) repeatedly committed a crime against my wife and me. When I told NFH to refrain from violating our rights under the law, he threatened to sue me.
I took this threat seriously enough that I contacted an attorney acquaintance of mine. The attorney told me that NFH was violating criminal law and offered to write a warning letter that he thought would solve the problem. The attorney wrote the letter, but it didn't solve the problem.
When NFH continued to commit the crime, I consulted the district attorney's office in my county and swore out a criminal complaint against NFH. The case went to a bench trial in district court in Shelby County, Alabama, and NFH was acquitted.
Now, we've just learned that the U.S. Supreme Court has found that "acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent." But acquittal, in Alabama and other states, gives the criminal defendant a weapon he can use to punish the victim who had the audacity to seek justice.
The weapon is a tort known as malicious prosecution. Criminal defendants who are acquitted (such as my Neighbor From Hell) often sue their victims for malicious prosecution and an associated tort known as false imprisonment. In Alabama--and I believe this is true in all other states--malicious prosecution is considered a "disfavored tort." It receives that label because citizens who feel they have been wronged, either criminally or civilly, are supposed to be able to seek redress in court without fear of being sued.
That's how things stand in theory. But in reality, crime victims are sued all the time by acquitted defendants--you are victimized by the crime and then victimized by a lawsuit.
My Neighbor From Hell was charged with a very low level crime--criminal trespass, third degree. In Alabama, this crime is considered a "violation," which is even lower than a misdemeanor.
But victims of serious crimes can still find themselves on the receiving end of a malicious prosecution lawsuit. All it takes is for the person who violated you the first time to find an unethical attorney who has no problem filing a lawsuit for a "disfavored tort." And my Neighbor From Hell found just such an attorney in Bill Swatek.
We will provide much more detail on the concept of malicious prosecution, and the threat it poses to crime victims.
But for the moment, let's savor this lovely contradiction in our justice system: An acquittal, under the law, is not a finding of fact and does not mean a criminal defendant is innocent. But a criminal defendant can take an acquittal and sue the person he victimized.
And the victim can wind up spending thousands of dollars and several years of his life (not to mention many sleepless nights) having to defend himself against a lawsuit that, in theory, is not supposed to be filed.
Does that sound fair and just to you? I didn't think so.
Could this happen to you? You bet it could.
One of my goals here at Legal Schnauzer is to help ensure that it doesn't happen to you. And to expose the corrupt judges, attorneys, and prosecutors who allow it to happen.
This can happen even when we are in one of our most vulnerable moments--as the victims of a crime.
In our previous post we showed that, under the law, an acquittal is a relatively weak finding. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has found that "an acquittal is not a finding of any fact. . . . (It) can only be an acknowledgment that the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Furthermore, the nation's highest court has held that "acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt."
So if an acquittal is such a flimsy finding, how is it that a defendant who is acquitted of criminal charges can turn around and sue the person who signed the criminal complaint against him? That is exactly what happened to me, and it can happen to you if you are ever the victim of a crime.
In an earlier post, I noted that my road to legal perdition started when my Neighbor From Hell (NFH) repeatedly committed a crime against my wife and me. When I told NFH to refrain from violating our rights under the law, he threatened to sue me.
I took this threat seriously enough that I contacted an attorney acquaintance of mine. The attorney told me that NFH was violating criminal law and offered to write a warning letter that he thought would solve the problem. The attorney wrote the letter, but it didn't solve the problem.
When NFH continued to commit the crime, I consulted the district attorney's office in my county and swore out a criminal complaint against NFH. The case went to a bench trial in district court in Shelby County, Alabama, and NFH was acquitted.
Now, we've just learned that the U.S. Supreme Court has found that "acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent." But acquittal, in Alabama and other states, gives the criminal defendant a weapon he can use to punish the victim who had the audacity to seek justice.
The weapon is a tort known as malicious prosecution. Criminal defendants who are acquitted (such as my Neighbor From Hell) often sue their victims for malicious prosecution and an associated tort known as false imprisonment. In Alabama--and I believe this is true in all other states--malicious prosecution is considered a "disfavored tort." It receives that label because citizens who feel they have been wronged, either criminally or civilly, are supposed to be able to seek redress in court without fear of being sued.
That's how things stand in theory. But in reality, crime victims are sued all the time by acquitted defendants--you are victimized by the crime and then victimized by a lawsuit.
My Neighbor From Hell was charged with a very low level crime--criminal trespass, third degree. In Alabama, this crime is considered a "violation," which is even lower than a misdemeanor.
But victims of serious crimes can still find themselves on the receiving end of a malicious prosecution lawsuit. All it takes is for the person who violated you the first time to find an unethical attorney who has no problem filing a lawsuit for a "disfavored tort." And my Neighbor From Hell found just such an attorney in Bill Swatek.
We will provide much more detail on the concept of malicious prosecution, and the threat it poses to crime victims.
But for the moment, let's savor this lovely contradiction in our justice system: An acquittal, under the law, is not a finding of fact and does not mean a criminal defendant is innocent. But a criminal defendant can take an acquittal and sue the person he victimized.
And the victim can wind up spending thousands of dollars and several years of his life (not to mention many sleepless nights) having to defend himself against a lawsuit that, in theory, is not supposed to be filed.
Does that sound fair and just to you? I didn't think so.
Could this happen to you? You bet it could.
One of my goals here at Legal Schnauzer is to help ensure that it doesn't happen to you. And to expose the corrupt judges, attorneys, and prosecutors who allow it to happen.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Meaning of an Acquittal
One of many strange moments in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman came when U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller stated that he would consider charges of which Siegelman was acquitted in determining a sentence.
Many Siegelman supporters (and maybe a few Siegelman detractors) responded with, "What the heck, how can that be?" (or words to that effect). It just didn't seem to make sense.
But the good folks at TPM Muckraker did a public service by consulting an expert who stated that Fuller was operating within the law by taking a broad view of charges against Siegelman during the sentencing phase. In the process, TPM Muckraker educated us on how an acquittal actually is viewed under the law.
And we will show how these concepts connect to the case we are examining here at Legal Schnauzer.
TPM's expert cited the case United States v. Vernon Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). In Watts, the U.S. Supreme Court makes two key findings regarding the nature of an acquittal under the law:
* "We have explained that acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt." (U.S. v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 1984)
* "An acquittal is not a finding of any fact. An acquittal can only be an acknowledgment that the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Without specific jury findings, no one can logically or realistically draw any factual finding inferences. . . ."
I must confess that I was among those Siegelman supporters who thought Fuller surely must be acting outside the law by considering charges of which Siegelman had been acquitted. But I thank TPM Muckraker for setting me, and many others, straight.
In the end, we learn that an acquittal is not as powerful a finding, under the law, as we might have thought. Next, we look at what implications that idea has on our case here at Legal Schnauzer.
Many Siegelman supporters (and maybe a few Siegelman detractors) responded with, "What the heck, how can that be?" (or words to that effect). It just didn't seem to make sense.
But the good folks at TPM Muckraker did a public service by consulting an expert who stated that Fuller was operating within the law by taking a broad view of charges against Siegelman during the sentencing phase. In the process, TPM Muckraker educated us on how an acquittal actually is viewed under the law.
And we will show how these concepts connect to the case we are examining here at Legal Schnauzer.
TPM's expert cited the case United States v. Vernon Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997). In Watts, the U.S. Supreme Court makes two key findings regarding the nature of an acquittal under the law:
* "We have explained that acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt." (U.S. v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 1984)
* "An acquittal is not a finding of any fact. An acquittal can only be an acknowledgment that the government failed to prove an essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Without specific jury findings, no one can logically or realistically draw any factual finding inferences. . . ."
I must confess that I was among those Siegelman supporters who thought Fuller surely must be acting outside the law by considering charges of which Siegelman had been acquitted. But I thank TPM Muckraker for setting me, and many others, straight.
In the end, we learn that an acquittal is not as powerful a finding, under the law, as we might have thought. Next, we look at what implications that idea has on our case here at Legal Schnauzer.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
McCain Keeps Bad Company
The presidential campaign of Senator John McCain appears to be imploding. In a sense that is unfortunate because there certainly is a lot to admire about McCain.
The mainstream press seems to be attributing McCain's problems to his support of President Bush's unpopular policies on Iraq and immigration. It also cannot help that McCain is seen as an honest moderate in a Republican party dominated by dishonest right-wing vipers.
But McCain has other problems. At least in Alabama, he hasn't been keeping the best of company. One of his campaign advisors in Alabama was Dax Swatek. This is the same Dax Swatek who, according to Harper's, created a fictitious organization to help support Channel One, a client of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The mainstream press seems to be attributing McCain's problems to his support of President Bush's unpopular policies on Iraq and immigration. It also cannot help that McCain is seen as an honest moderate in a Republican party dominated by dishonest right-wing vipers.
But McCain has other problems. At least in Alabama, he hasn't been keeping the best of company. One of his campaign advisors in Alabama was Dax Swatek. This is the same Dax Swatek who, according to Harper's, created a fictitious organization to help support Channel One, a client of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Recall that Dax Swatek's father, Bill Swatek, is the Pelham, Alabama-based attorney who filed the lawsuit against me that will be examined in detail here on Legal Schnauzer. Bill Swatek has a lengthy history of ethical violations in his distinguished legal career. And his client in the case against me, my Neighbor From Hell (NFH), has at least eight criminal convictions in his background. But Bill Swatek and his client were the beneficiaries of repeated unlawful rulings by Republican judges in the lawsuit against me. And this ensured that Swatek would not be held accountable for filing a groundless lawsuit.
Republicans like to say that they are strongly opposed to baseless lawsuits. But they don't seem to have a problem with them when they are filed by the father of one of their fund-raisers. And they don't seem to mind them, even if the attorney who files them (Bill Swatek in this case) has left a lengthy paper trail of sleaze in his wake.
The McCain campaign probably did not know about Dax Swatek's connections to Jack Abramoff. And they almost certainly did not know about the shady history of Swatek's father. Connecting yourself to folks like the Swateks seems to be no way to run a Straight Talk Express.
But perhaps the point is moot. The Express appears to be going off the tracks, and it's taking Dax Swatek along for the ride. He was among those cut loose in the McCain campaign bloodletting.
More Craziness in Alabama
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has been sentenced, and he is in a federal prison in Atlanta. But the intrigue continues in his peculiar prosecution.
The Associated Press reports today that the office of one of Siegelman's lawyers was ransacked Sunday night or Monday morning. Attorney Susan James reported that the intruders did not take a number of valuable items, but appeared to be looking for client files. Her files on the Siegelman case were at her home, not at her office.
This comes on the heels of a mysterious house fire and automobile crash involving Dana Jill Simpson, the attorney who stated in an affidavit that Republican operative Bill Canary and White House strategist Karl Rove instigated a politically motivated prosecution of Siegelman.
Scott Horton of Harper's points out that there is no evidence that Rove, Canary or their associates were involved in any of these strange events. But he also states that the people who were behind the highly irregular Siegelman prosecution probably would not be put off by the idea of a petty burglary.
How does this relate to the case we are outlining here at Legal Schnauzer? Well, it is public record that Rove and Canary were behind the campaign wizardry that led to Alabama's state courts becoming dominated by Republicans. And if the charges in Simpson's affidavit prove to be on target, would we expect Alabama's state courts to be operated in an honest, above-board way?
I don't think so. And we will show that, to a great degree, the Republican state judges in my case engaged in conduct that is very similar to that for which Siegelman was tried and convicted.
Here's a quote worth remembering from a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release on the day Siegelman was convicted (June 29, 2006):
"The Justice Department will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials and those who conspire to corrupt them."
That's from Alice S. Fisher, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Criminal Division.
Will Fisher & Co. back up their words by taking action against the corrupt judges and lawyers in the Legal Schnauzer case? Or will they ignore Republican wrongdoing, adding to the growing body of evidence that indicates the DOJ has been politicized beyond recognition?
The Associated Press reports today that the office of one of Siegelman's lawyers was ransacked Sunday night or Monday morning. Attorney Susan James reported that the intruders did not take a number of valuable items, but appeared to be looking for client files. Her files on the Siegelman case were at her home, not at her office.
This comes on the heels of a mysterious house fire and automobile crash involving Dana Jill Simpson, the attorney who stated in an affidavit that Republican operative Bill Canary and White House strategist Karl Rove instigated a politically motivated prosecution of Siegelman.
Scott Horton of Harper's points out that there is no evidence that Rove, Canary or their associates were involved in any of these strange events. But he also states that the people who were behind the highly irregular Siegelman prosecution probably would not be put off by the idea of a petty burglary.
How does this relate to the case we are outlining here at Legal Schnauzer? Well, it is public record that Rove and Canary were behind the campaign wizardry that led to Alabama's state courts becoming dominated by Republicans. And if the charges in Simpson's affidavit prove to be on target, would we expect Alabama's state courts to be operated in an honest, above-board way?
I don't think so. And we will show that, to a great degree, the Republican state judges in my case engaged in conduct that is very similar to that for which Siegelman was tried and convicted.
Here's a quote worth remembering from a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release on the day Siegelman was convicted (June 29, 2006):
"The Justice Department will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute corrupt public officials and those who conspire to corrupt them."
That's from Alice S. Fisher, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's Criminal Division.
Will Fisher & Co. back up their words by taking action against the corrupt judges and lawyers in the Legal Schnauzer case? Or will they ignore Republican wrongdoing, adding to the growing body of evidence that indicates the DOJ has been politicized beyond recognition?
Monday, July 2, 2007
Fallout in Alabama?
Will there be fallout from the Alabama chapter in the growing U.S. Attorneys scandal? Scott Horton, of Harper's, says the answer might be yes.
Horton notes that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman drew the attention of The New York Times editorial page. The Times calls on Congress to investigate Bill Canary, Karl Rove, and others who are alleged to have instigated a politically motivated prosecution of Siegelman.
Horton also notes that even some members of Alabama's lapdog press are showing signs of consternation over the Siegelman case. This, of course, does not include The Birmingham News or the Montgomery Advertiser, who seem to specialize in ignoring Republican wrongdoing. But newspapers in Tuscaloosa, Anniston, and Florence have questioned whether justice was done in the Siegelman case.
Horton compares certain characters in the Siegelman case to Javert, the corrupt prosecutor in Victor Hugo's classic Les Miserables. Javert, Horton says, is convinced of his devotion to the law, but he uses its tools to create injustice."On the surface he is a prosecutor, but deep down inside he remains in fact, a criminal," Horton writes.
The spirit of Javert is alive and well in Alabama, Horton concludes. And he is so right. Javert lives not only in the federal courtroom where Siegelman was convicted and sentenced. He also lives in Alabama's state courts, starting at the lowest level (district court) and rising to the top (Alabama Supreme Court).
Legal Schnauzer was struck by the similarities between Horton's description of Javert and the unctuous, self-righteous--and criminal behavior--the Schnauzer has witnessed from Alabama state judges.
How will fallout from the Siegelman case manifest itself? Horton hints that a story is developing concerning dealings between the Bush White House and the former head of the Public Integrity Division (PID) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
The former PID head in question probably is Noel Hillman, and Horton says the story will have direct ramifications for the Siegelman case. Bush nominated Hillman for a federal judgeship while Hillman was in the midst of investigating the Jack Abramoff scandal. You will recall that several Alabama Republicans, including sitting Governor Bob Riley and fund-raiser Dax Swatek, have ties to Abramoff.
And it was Swatek's father, Bill Swatek, who instigated the baseless lawsuit that will be examined in detail here on Legal Schnauzer.
Will attention eventually be focused on corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts? Time will tell. But the DOJ evidently takes honest services mail fraud seriously. After all, that was at the heart of the case against Siegelman.
Legal Schnauzer will be laying out a case of clear honest services mail fraud against Republican judges and at least one attorney in Alabama state courts. We'll see if the DOJ and its U.S. Attorneys in Alabama have the same hunger to prosecute these members of the GOP as they showed in the Siegelman case.
Horton notes that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman drew the attention of The New York Times editorial page. The Times calls on Congress to investigate Bill Canary, Karl Rove, and others who are alleged to have instigated a politically motivated prosecution of Siegelman.
Horton also notes that even some members of Alabama's lapdog press are showing signs of consternation over the Siegelman case. This, of course, does not include The Birmingham News or the Montgomery Advertiser, who seem to specialize in ignoring Republican wrongdoing. But newspapers in Tuscaloosa, Anniston, and Florence have questioned whether justice was done in the Siegelman case.
Horton compares certain characters in the Siegelman case to Javert, the corrupt prosecutor in Victor Hugo's classic Les Miserables. Javert, Horton says, is convinced of his devotion to the law, but he uses its tools to create injustice."On the surface he is a prosecutor, but deep down inside he remains in fact, a criminal," Horton writes.
The spirit of Javert is alive and well in Alabama, Horton concludes. And he is so right. Javert lives not only in the federal courtroom where Siegelman was convicted and sentenced. He also lives in Alabama's state courts, starting at the lowest level (district court) and rising to the top (Alabama Supreme Court).
Legal Schnauzer was struck by the similarities between Horton's description of Javert and the unctuous, self-righteous--and criminal behavior--the Schnauzer has witnessed from Alabama state judges.
How will fallout from the Siegelman case manifest itself? Horton hints that a story is developing concerning dealings between the Bush White House and the former head of the Public Integrity Division (PID) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
The former PID head in question probably is Noel Hillman, and Horton says the story will have direct ramifications for the Siegelman case. Bush nominated Hillman for a federal judgeship while Hillman was in the midst of investigating the Jack Abramoff scandal. You will recall that several Alabama Republicans, including sitting Governor Bob Riley and fund-raiser Dax Swatek, have ties to Abramoff.
And it was Swatek's father, Bill Swatek, who instigated the baseless lawsuit that will be examined in detail here on Legal Schnauzer.
Will attention eventually be focused on corrupt Republican judges in Alabama state courts? Time will tell. But the DOJ evidently takes honest services mail fraud seriously. After all, that was at the heart of the case against Siegelman.
Legal Schnauzer will be laying out a case of clear honest services mail fraud against Republican judges and at least one attorney in Alabama state courts. We'll see if the DOJ and its U.S. Attorneys in Alabama have the same hunger to prosecute these members of the GOP as they showed in the Siegelman case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)