Bob Riley and Professional Misconduct

Bob Riley's chief legal advisor might have a problem with the Alabama State Bar--at least if the bar takes its own rules seriously (and that's a big "if).

In our previous post, I noted that I had sent an e-mail to Governor Riley after he had appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox television show in November 2005 and encouraged anyone to let him know of problems they had encountered in Alabama's justice system. This came after Riley had called for a boycott of Aruba over concerns about the handling of the investigation into the disappearance of Natalee Holloway, an Alabama resident.

I took Riley up on his offer, and through an e-mail form on the governor's official Web site, I let him know about repeated instances of unlawful rulings I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama, starting in Shelby County trial courts and going up to the Alabama Supreme Court. Riley sent me a letter, saying he had referred my message to Ken Wallis, his chief legal advisor. I said in my post that I had never heard anything from Wallis.

In another recent post, I noted that a lawyer in Alabama is required to report wrongdoing by other lawyers or judges.

Rule 8.3 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states that when a lawyer possesses knowledge of professional misconduct, he must report it to an appropriate authority or tribunal. The rule states that self-regulation of the legal profession requires an attorney to initiate investigation when he knows of a violation, and a lawyer is obliged to report every violation of the rules. The failure to report a violation, the rule states, is itself a professional offense.

I filed my complaint on the governor's Web site form and was not able to keep a copy. But my memory is that I provided considerable detail about the wrongs I had witnessed. Governor Riley stated in his response that he had forwarded my information to Mr. Wallis. And yet, almost two years after the filing of my complaint, I have no indication that Mr. Wallis took any action.

Does Governor Riley expect his chief legal advisor to live up to the ethical rules of the legal profession? Would the Alabama State Bar hold the governor's aide accountable for failing to report professional misconduct?

Bob Riley and Judicial Corruption

Does Bob Riley take judicial corruption seriously, particularly when Alabama's state courts (at the time in question) were administered by one of his appointees?

I have a personal experience with Riley's situational ethics, as they pertain to judicial corruption. In November 2005, when the Natalee Holloway disappearance story was at its peak, Riley called for a travel boycott of Aruba, citing that country's poor handling of the Holloway case. Riley went on Bill O'Reilly's television show to promote the boycott. (Never mind that, statistically speaking, Holloway was far safer in Aruba than she ever was in her native Alabama.)

As Riley attacked the Aruban justice system, O'Reilly raised the issue of Alabama's justice system. (Even O'Reilly saw hypocrisy looming on the horizon.) I don't have a transcript of the show, so I'm paraphrasing here, but Riley said, in so many words: "If anyone has a problem with Alabama's justice system, please contact me. I want to know about it." The implication clearly was that if someone had information about wrongdoing by officials in Alabama's justice system, Riley would try to do something about it--politics be damned.

Well, I took Riley up on his offer. I went to the governor's Web site and sent a rather lengthy missive about my experience with the corrupt practices of Republican judges in Alabama courts, which at the time were headed by Chief Justice Drayton Nabers, a Riley appointee.

My letter was on one of those Web forms that, to my knowledge, don't allow you to keep a copy. But I'm pretty sure I helpfully pointed out to the governor that the source of the corruption I had experienced was one Bill Swatek, an Alabama attorney who is the father of Dax Swatek, who has served as a campaign consultant and advisor for Riley himself.

I believe I also pointed out (helpfully, I'm sure) that it appeared that a corrupt attorney such as Bill Swatek could get away with figurative murder in Alabama courtrooms if he has family ties to the Riley administration.

Finally, I believe I pointed out that said Republican judges had repeatedly made unlawful rulings and used the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, constituting a federal crime, honest services mail fraud, under 18 U.S. Code 1346.

A few weeks went by before a letter (dated December 7, 2005) arrived from Riley's office. It assured me that the governor was concerned about the issues raised in my e-mail, and it had been forwarded to his chief legal advisor, Ken Wallis.

Have I ever heard anything from Mr. Wallis? Well, let's just say it's a good thing I didn't decide to hold my breath while waiting for him to take action.

So let's review: Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, a Democrat, now sits in a federal prison largely because a jury found that he had improperly granted favors to people who had special ties to him. (Twenty of the 32 charges against Siegelman? Honest services mail fraud.)

Meanwhile, Dax Swatek's daddy (who has a lengthy history of ethical violations with the Alabama State Bar) gets away with all sorts of shenanigans (including mail fraud) in Alabama courts, and Riley doesn't seem to bat an eye.

Is that because Dax Swatek raises money and otherwise assists Riley? By ignoring Bill Swatek's criminal behavior, is Bob Riley improperly granting a favor to someone with special ties to the governor?

And we're supposed to believe that Riley has raised the levels of ethical government in Alabama? We're supposed to believe that Alabama's justice system is better than the one in Aruba? We're supposed to buy the letter from Alabama Republican Party chair Mike Hubbard about the crystal-clean nature of the Riley administration? (Has Hubbard ever heard of Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon, and Dan Gans, and their roles in Riley's election in 2002? Maybe Hubbard needs to catch up on his reading.)

So how does Alabama's justice system compare to the one in Aruba? Based on my experience, I'd say Alabama has a ways to go to catch up to Afghanistan.

Does that concern Bob Riley? If it does, I've certainly seen no sign of it.

Bob Riley and Situational Ethics

In our previous post, we asked: Is Bob Riley interested in ethics across the board or only in certain situations?

Riley likes to tout the high ethical standards of his administration in Alabama. The "fair and balanced" editorial page of The Wall Street Journal has fallen for Teflon Bob's act.

Not surprisingly, Alabama Republican Party Chairman Mike Hubbard touts the Riley record on ethics.

Heck, even U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, a Democrat, seems to have fallen under TB's spell. (After reading this, I have little confidence that Davis will do much of anything to help Congress get to the bottom of the U.S. Attorneys scandal; hope I'm wrong about that.)

Does Teflon Bob's record on ethics stand up to the slightest hint of scrutiny? Let's take a look.

First, he recently killed an ethics bill that received unanimous, bipartisan support in the Alabama Legislature. The bill would have broadened the definition of a lobbyist under Alabama law and included those who seek to influence action on state contracts that are not competitively bid. Charges flew that Riley killed the bill in order to protect his children, who are rumored to lobby him on behalf of entities seeking no-bid contracts.

Does that call Teflon Bob's ethics into question? If that doesn't, consider this: Where does Riley stand on the issue of judicial corruption, an issue near and dear to my heart? And what kind of action does Riley take when said judicial corruption has connections to a member of his inner circle?

We will answer those questions next.

Potpourri for $40 please, Alex

Tidbits from the world of politics and law in Alabama:

* Looks like playing along with the government in the Don Siegelman prosecution will pay off handsomely for Nick Bailey. Siegelman's conviction on corruption charges was based almost entirely on the testimony of Bailey, a former Siegelman aide who entered into a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors after pleading guilty to two charges. Now federal prosecutors are asking that Bailey not serve any prison time, asking a judge to reduce his sentence from 18 months in prison to 12 months of home confinement. And you've got to love this quote from Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Feaga: "Bailey was a foot soldier, and we want foot soldiers to know we won't shoot them if they shell it down on the big dogs." Couldn't Feaga try just a little harder to sound more like a redneck? And comparing a confessed federal criminal to a foot soldier? Shows a lot of respect for our foot soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

* Speaking of Bailey, his testimony evidently didn't impress the jury in the corruption trial of Dr. Phillip Bobo. Prosecutors tied Bobo to Siegelman's administration, but jurors acquitted Bobo on all charges this week. The Decatur Daily opines that the Bobo acquittal should provide Congress with more ammunition to look into the Siegelman case for possible selective prosecution.

* Special prosecutors in Birmingham have charged Mississippi attorney Richard Scruggs with contempt of court in a case involving State Farm insurance coverage and post-Hurricane Katrina claims. Scruggs was charged by special prosecutors because Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, declined to prosecute him. Scruggs is the brother-in-law of U.S. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS), and Martin's refusal to prosecute appeared to be a case of selective prosecution, based on Scruggs' ties to GOP royalty.

* Finally, Alabama Governor Bob Riley says he expects the state school board to approve proposals removing lawmakers (mostly Democrats) from two-year college jobs. Alabama's two-year college system has been the subject of an ongoing corruption investigation, and Riley appointee Bradley Byrne has proposed that lawmakers be prohibited from using paid leave to attend legislative sessions. Critics charge that Byrne's proposals are designed to hurt Democrats and others who support the Alabama Education Association. Riley said he wants to end favoritism and preferential treatment given to lawmakers. Is Riley opposed to favoritism and preferential treatment across the board, or only when it seems to involve mostly Democrats? We will examine that subject next.

Protecting Families and Children

You've got to appreciate the irony of Alabama Governor Bob Riley being connected to the U.S. Family Network.

After all, his trusted aide Dax Swatek (whose father Bill Swatek filed the fraudulent lawsuit that is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer story) has been connected to an outfit called the Coalition to Protect Our Children.

Isn't it comforting to know that Teflon Bob and the Daxter are on the front line, protecting our women, chillun, and families? Makes you wonder how our country ever survived 200-plus years before our heroes came along.

So it's interesting to note that both the U.S. Family Network and the Coalition to Protect Our Children have ties to Jack Abramoff, perhaps the most disgraced lobbyist in Washington history. (And that's saying something!)

Teflon Bob wrote a letter on U.S. Family Network stationery, urging God-fearing Alabamians to oppose an effort by the Poarch Creek Indians to bring casino gambling to the state. Of course, Teflon Bob didn't tell his Alabama readers that the U.S. Family Network was essentially a front group for Jack Abramoff, who wanted Alabama gambling dollars to keep going to his clients, the Choctaw Indians in neighboring Mississippi.

And Scott Horton of Harper's reported that the Daxter's Coalition to Protect Our Children was a phony outfit designed to promote Channel One in Alabama school's. And Channel One was a client of whom? Why, Jack Abramoff, of course.

Are Teflon Bob and the Daxter really interested in protecting women, chillun, and families? Or are they interested mainly in money and power and doing pretty much whatever it takes to obtain both?

And here's a better question: Will the Alabama press ever awake from its slumber long enough to notice the connections Bob Riley and Dax Swatek have to one of the most scandalous figures in U.S. political history?

Teflon Bob and the Incurious Press

A reader poses the following question: Is it possible someone in the Alabama press has investigated the Riley biotech deal in Huntsville, found there was nothing improper about it, and let it go without reporting anything?

A reasonable question. Here is my reasonable answer:

Most anything is possible in the world of journalism, but the scenario noted above is unlikely. I have almost 30 years of experience in journalism, so I have some knowledge of how news outfits work. Most reporters I'm aware of are not in the business of conducting serious investigations and then writing nothing about them, particularly on a story of this nature.

Remember, two political opponents--Roy Moore and Lucy Baxley--made public charges that Bob Riley's Huntsville deal was improper. Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, used legal terminology--quid pro quo--to describe it.

If a reporter investigated the biotech deal and found nothing wrong, that in itself is a significant story. It would say that Roy Moore and Lucy Baxley were making unfounded charges against Bob Riley. At the height of an election season, I can't imagine any news organization not running that story.

One other thing to keep in mind: On a story of this nature, which involves fairly complex and somewhat vague areas of law, a reporter's opinion should not be the final word on whether a transaction was lawful. Even the best of investigative reporters might not be experts on federal bribery law. To fully understand that area of law would require not only studying the statute, but also delving into voluminous case law and law-review articles.

Reporters, by their nature, usually are folks who make "history in a hurry." They work on tight deadlines and often find it difficult to do the kind of background work that probably would be necessary to fully understand federal bribery law. And besides, it's not a reporter's job to determine whether a transaction is lawful or not. That's up to law enforcement professionals.

(Note: I think the apparent "mystery" of the law is one reason the mainstream press has shown little or no interest in my case. Trying to understand the law surrounding certain events can seem a daunting task, one many reporters and editors would just as soon avoid. And when it involves judicial corruption, as it does in my case, the reporters/editors definitely would rather avoid that. After all, judges have the power to ruin people and organizations. Actually, a lot of law--such as that in my case--is not nearly as mysterious as it may seem. But reporters, and the public, still find the law in general to be an intimidating realm, and that's just the way judges and lawyers like it, especially the corrupt ones. They are like cockroaches; they enjoy the dark and shun the light.)

As for law enforcement, that brings us right back to the issue of selective prosecution. Historically, Americans (rightly or wrongly) have had the notion that the U.S. Justice Department makes an honest effort to prosecute the law in an impartial manner. We now have a growing body of evidence that indicates the Bush administration has violated this public trust--prosecuting cases, or not prosecuting cases, based on politics.

If I seem to take this subject personally, that's because it is personal for me. I've seen Republican state judges, and at least one lawyer, repeatedly commit federal crimes (mail fraud). I've reported it to the Bush justice department, and nothing has been done. Even worse, Alice Martin, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, has taken affirmative steps to sweep the matter under the rug.

I will be writing about all of this in detail over the next month or so. My blog might seem like a partisan endeavor, but that's only because my particular case involves wrongdoing by Republican judges. I have little doubt that judicial corruption is a bipartisan problem. Anyone who cares about matters of right and wrong, should be outraged by judges who betray their oath to uphold the law. And they also should be outraged by prosecutors who picked and choose cases based on political factors.

Finally, it's impossible to overstate the importance of this general issue. As the French novelist Honore de Balzac said, "To distrust the judiciary marks the beginning of the end of society."

Rove in the Crosshairs?

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman compares his prosecution to Watergate and says White House strategist Karl Rove was behind the effort that now has Siegelman in federal prison. Siegelman made the statements in a handwritten letter to the Associated Press and said he is confident his conviction will be overturned on appeal.

While Siegelman is pointing one finger at Rove, John Caylor of Insider Magazine is pointing a different kind of finger in Rove's direction. Caylor writes that he believes Rove now is the target of a criminal investigation, and that was behind Rove's recent announcement that he was stepping down from the Bush White House at the end of August.

Gee, and we all thought Rove wanted to spend more time with his family.

Curiosity and Teflon Bob

Scott Horton, of Harper's, has described the Alabama press as "incurious" when it comes to matters regarding the issue of selective prosecution and the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). After all, the issue has focused largely on Alabama in recent months, thanks to the sentencing of former Governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges. But Alabama newspapers don't seem particularly interested in the subject.

Incurious would be a good term to describe coverage of Bob Riley, Siegelman's Republican successor, from the outset.

Let's consider some quesitons that could be asked about the Huntsville biotech deal that Riley engineered. Riley announced a state incentive package of $50 million (twice the state support UAB received for its Shelby Biomedical Research Building) and later received a generous campaign contribution from backers of the Huntsville project.

We must keep in mind 18 U.S. Code 666, which holds that bribery occurs when an agent of a State "corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more."

So let's ponder some questions that could be asked about the Riley deal:

* When did Riley and the Huntsville people first meet?

* Are there visitor logs to Riley's office, or offices of the Huntsville people, that would show when meetings took place and who was present?

* Were there letters between the parties regarding the deal?

* Were there telephone calls between the parties regarding the deal?

* Were there e-mails between the parties regarding the deal?

* What was the substance of any and all communications between the parties regarding the deal?

Has anyone in the press, or law enforcement, asked these kinds of questions? Eddie Curran, of the Mobile Press-Register, evidently went through volumes of documents while investigating Siegelman. (And that's fine, that's what reporters are supposed to do.) But has any reporter asked to look at any documents related to Riley's deal in Huntsville?

I'm raising issues related to bribery here because that's really what the Siegelman trial came down to. The government threw 33 counts at Siegelman, involving a number of transactions, but the jury convicted him on only seven counts. And six of those seven were connected to the $500,000 contribution from Richard Scrushy to Siegelman's lottery campaign. Twenty of the counts against Siegelman were for honest services mail fraud, and the jury rejected all but one of those charges. Siegelman was convicted on one count related to Lanny Young, the only one that did not involve the Scrushy contribution.

As for the Alabama press, consider the type of reporting it can do when it sets its mind to it. A good example came in Sunday's Birmingham News in the latest piece by Pulitzer-Prize winning report Brett Blackledge on the two-year colleges scandal in Alabama. The story clearly shows that Blackledge dug into records and asked hard questions.

So why has neither Blackledge, nor any other reporter in Alabama that we are aware of, done this kind of reporting on the Riley biotech deal in Huntsville?

Very incurious indeed

A Scathing Take on Karl Rove

Of all the postmortems that have been written about Karl Rove's plans to leave the Bush White House, perhaps none has been more powerful than one written by Joseph Galloway, former senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and currently with McClatchy Newspapers.

"A time is coming, and coming soon, when we as a nation must begin thinking and talking about and planning to repair all that the Bush administration has broken or bent or twisted," Galloway writes. "A time when we must begin shoveling out a stable full to the roof with what Harry Truman called horse manure, or at least that's what he called it when Miss Bess was in earshot.

"No need to search that pile for a diamond ring or a little red sports car. There's nothing there but horse manure."

Galloway is the author of We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young, and his take on Rove is well worth reading.

I hope that Galloway is right, that our country will soon come to grips with the mess left behind on the national stage by Rove and Co. But I'm not too sure that will happen. Rove shaped Alabama's state courts into a Republican playground, one covered with horse manure, and so far neither the press, law enforcement, or the public seems the least bit concerned about it.

We will shine a light on it here at Legal Schnauzer. After all, we know exactly what it's like to be left holding a bag of horse manure produced by Karl Rove and his cronies.

Teflon Bob and a Double Standard?

Let's return to the topic of Teflon Bob Riley, Alabama's Republican governor who seems to draw scant scrutiny from the press or law enforcement. This is in stark contrast to Riley's predecessor, Democrat Don Siegelman, who had some 100 hard-hitting articles written about his administration by one newspaper alone (the Mobile Press-Register) and now sits in federal prison, convicted on a variety of corruption charges.

Given that recent press reports indicate the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) practices a form of selective prosecution regarding public corruption cases, and Congress has pledged to investigate the matter this fall, it seems reasonable to ask: Is Riley getting a free ride that certainly was not offered to Siegelman?

A couple of posts on this general topic here at Legal Schnauzer attracted some interesting comments. Let's examine some of the points raised by these readers:

* The contribution to Riley's biotech venture was reported properly while Siegelman's lottery contribution was not--I believe the reader is referring to state regulations regarding the reporting of campaign contributions. But this was not an issue in Siegelman's criminal trial. That involved federal law. Almost two-thirds of the charges against Siegelman involved honest services mail fraud 18 U.S. Code 1346. The single biggest charge on which he was convicted involved bribery, 18 U.S. Code 666. News reports involving Riley's support for the biotech venture and a subsequent contribution to his re-election campaign raise issues of federal law. Whether he properly reported the contributions under state law is not relevant.

* Siegelman's behavior while in office raised many questions that warranted an investigation--Maybe so. But the issue is selective prosecution. And with that in mind, one must ask: What about Riley's behavior, both before and after he was elected? On the subject of reporting campaign contributions, for example, the Washington Post reports that Riley's record has not been pristine. He received several hundred thousand dollars from the Republican Governors Association that were not properly reported. Also, the Post reported Riley's ties to the U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy groups with ties to Russian energy executives. Riley wrote a letter on U.S. Family Network stationery, encouraging Alabamians to oppose plans by the Poarch Creek Indians to build casinos in Alabama. A defeat of casino gambling in Alabama, of course, would benefit the casinos of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a major client of disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The Alabama press has barely skimmed the surface of these issues.

* Siegelman took great pains to hide contributions he received from Richard Scrushy/HealthSouth--In Siegelman's criminal trial, this charge came under the heading of racketeering and money laundering. The jury acquitted Siegelman on all of these counts.

* Siegelman was involved in a number of questionable deals related to the sale of his home, a motorcycle, etc.--These events were not included in the indictment against Siegelman. Even the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Middle District of Alabama did not put much stock in them.

* Riley's biotech incentives package was approved by the Alabama Legislature--This is true, but in terms of federal law, it is irrelevant. As 18 U.S. Code 666 makes clear, the key factor is the communications between Riley and the biotech backers in Huntsville. News reports have made it clear that the Huntsville folks initiated the campaign through Riley ("Riley voices support for Huntsville biotech, Huntsville Times, Dec. 9, 2004; "Tug of war for biotech: Riley asked to fund Huntsville center, raising concerns for UAB, Birmingham News, Dec. 7, 2004.) Here is the lead paragraph to the Birmingham News story noted above: "A group of business leaders is asking Gov. Bob Riley to steer state money to the development of a biotech research center in Huntsville, a project some in Birmingham believe would be in direct competition with UAB's research program." Clearly, there was communication between Riley and biotech backers in Huntsville from the outset. The fact the Alabama Legislature approved the incentives package does not mean there could not have been an illegal quid pro quo involving Riley and the Huntsville group. For what's it worth, Siegelman's lottery package was approved by the legislature. That didn't seem to stop an investigation into his activities.

* Readers did not raise this point, but as a Birmingham resident, I will. Riley pledged $50 million in incentives and tax breaks for the Huntsville project. That's twice the $25 million UAB received in state funds for the Shelby Biomedical Research Building on the Birmingham campus. ("State helps biotech research center set up in Huntsville," Birmingham News, August 9, 2005") The News article notes how hard UAB, with its long history of excellence in biomedical research, had to lobby for its state funding. Meanwhile, the state showered Huntsville with twice the money it gave UAB, for a community with very little history in biomedical research. Could it be that Huntsville had it so easy because of the nice campaign contribution Riley knew was coming? Is this not worthy of scrutiny from the press and law enforcement?