The case of Anne, the beagle who had to be euthanized after some "human" skinned her alive, continues to attract major attention.
Officials in Cullman County, Alabama, say reward money now tops $35,000 in the case. An individual donor from Birmingham sent a check for $20,000.
The couple who owned Anne said they have received numerous cards from well wishers. And Huntsville family that raises beagles gave them two puppies. They have been named Hannah and Lucy.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Siegelman Case on National Agenda?
Here's a story that leaves a good news/bad news taste in your mouth.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that a pardon for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman could be on the presidential agenda if Democrats take back the White House in 2008. That word comes from Pam Miles, a member of the Alabama Democratic Party executive committee who was in Washington, D.C., last weekend for the Democratic National Committee's fall meeting.
Miles spoke with a number of presidential candidates, party chair Howard Dean, and members of Congress. "The investigation and the possibility of a pardon would be on the agenda," Miles says. "It came up in every conversation."
Kudos to Miles for her efforts on behalf of justice in the case. But the story raises this question: Are we going to have to wait until a Democrat is in the White House before major steps toward justice can be taken? Seems we would be looking at spring of 2009, at the earliest, before positive steps are taken.
That's an awfully long time for Siegelman to remain in federal prison for a crime that he almost certainly did not commit. Haven't heard much lately from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the issue of selective prosecution. Let's hope that group can move forward quickly and start dispensing justice long before spring 2009.
A few points I hope Democratic leaders keep in mind:
* While a pardon for Siegelman is an admirable goal, it doesn't address punishment for those who have poisoned our justice department. We need Siegelman heading out of federal prison and a significant number of Republicans heading into federal prison.
* Siegelman is not the only Democrat being held political prisoner. Attorney Paul Minor of Mississippi, a major Democratic donor, is in federal prison in Florida, the victim of a corrupt federal prosecutor (Dunn Lampton) and a corrupt federal judge (Henry Wingate). Former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield will join Minor in federal prison later this month. Their crimes? They ruled as they were required to rule according to the facts and the law in cases involving clients of Paul Minor. That's at least three other political prisoners that Dems need to keep in mind.
* Democrats also need to remember that wrongdoing does not stop with our federal justice system. We are showing here at Legal Schnauzer that Alabama's state courts are awash with corruption. It happened in my personal case. It happened in the recent ExxonMobil ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court. And I suspect it happened in an even more recent ruling that ousted a Democratic judge in Talladega County.
There is a federal/national component to all of this. When a state judge uses the U.S. mails or wires in furtherance of a fraudulent act, it's a federal crime. Democratic leaders need to push this point early and often in the next campaign season--and before.
And remember this: The trail that led to rampant corruption of our justice department started with Karl Rove and Bill Canary and the state courts of Alabama. They hijacked Alabama's state courts in the 1990s, and they have been using similar sleazy tactics to corrupt justice on a national scale. Their playbook was written in Alabama, in state courts. That's where it all began. And our state courts still bear an unmistakable stench.
Our goal here at Legal Schnauzer is to shine an everlasting light on that stench, in hopes that someday some serious air freshener will be applied.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that a pardon for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman could be on the presidential agenda if Democrats take back the White House in 2008. That word comes from Pam Miles, a member of the Alabama Democratic Party executive committee who was in Washington, D.C., last weekend for the Democratic National Committee's fall meeting.
Miles spoke with a number of presidential candidates, party chair Howard Dean, and members of Congress. "The investigation and the possibility of a pardon would be on the agenda," Miles says. "It came up in every conversation."
Kudos to Miles for her efforts on behalf of justice in the case. But the story raises this question: Are we going to have to wait until a Democrat is in the White House before major steps toward justice can be taken? Seems we would be looking at spring of 2009, at the earliest, before positive steps are taken.
That's an awfully long time for Siegelman to remain in federal prison for a crime that he almost certainly did not commit. Haven't heard much lately from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on the issue of selective prosecution. Let's hope that group can move forward quickly and start dispensing justice long before spring 2009.
A few points I hope Democratic leaders keep in mind:
* While a pardon for Siegelman is an admirable goal, it doesn't address punishment for those who have poisoned our justice department. We need Siegelman heading out of federal prison and a significant number of Republicans heading into federal prison.
* Siegelman is not the only Democrat being held political prisoner. Attorney Paul Minor of Mississippi, a major Democratic donor, is in federal prison in Florida, the victim of a corrupt federal prosecutor (Dunn Lampton) and a corrupt federal judge (Henry Wingate). Former Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield will join Minor in federal prison later this month. Their crimes? They ruled as they were required to rule according to the facts and the law in cases involving clients of Paul Minor. That's at least three other political prisoners that Dems need to keep in mind.
* Democrats also need to remember that wrongdoing does not stop with our federal justice system. We are showing here at Legal Schnauzer that Alabama's state courts are awash with corruption. It happened in my personal case. It happened in the recent ExxonMobil ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court. And I suspect it happened in an even more recent ruling that ousted a Democratic judge in Talladega County.
There is a federal/national component to all of this. When a state judge uses the U.S. mails or wires in furtherance of a fraudulent act, it's a federal crime. Democratic leaders need to push this point early and often in the next campaign season--and before.
And remember this: The trail that led to rampant corruption of our justice department started with Karl Rove and Bill Canary and the state courts of Alabama. They hijacked Alabama's state courts in the 1990s, and they have been using similar sleazy tactics to corrupt justice on a national scale. Their playbook was written in Alabama, in state courts. That's where it all began. And our state courts still bear an unmistakable stench.
Our goal here at Legal Schnauzer is to shine an everlasting light on that stench, in hopes that someday some serious air freshener will be applied.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The ExxonMobil Charade
Anyone interested in an "inside baseball" account of the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ExxonMobil decision should check out Novationeering, by Alabama blogger Robby Scott Hill.
Hill is uniquely positioned to provide insight on the ExxonMobil case, where the Alabama Supreme Court threw out $3.6 billion in punitive damages against the oil giant. Hill has a law degree and he is a former state employee. In fact, he worked for the State Lands Division, where one of his duties was to administer the natural-gas leases at the heart of the ExxonMobil case.
Hill's analysis confirms what our research has been indicating--that the Alabama Supreme Court administered a colossal screw job to the people of the state.
Here is the key point in Hill's analysis: The Supreme Court violated one of the most basic foundations of appellate law, which is know as the "ore tenus presumption." Ore tenus refers to a trial based on oral testimony. "As every Alabama law student knows, a judgement based on ore tenus evidence is presumed correct and not to be disturbed on appeal 'unless a consideration of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom reveals that the judgment is plainly and palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust," Hill writes.
The ore tenus rule is based on the notion that the jury or trial judge was present at the trial and could evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Appellate judges are not in that position, and therefore are to defer to the trial-court findings unless they were palpably wrong.
There was nothing palpably erroneous about the trial court's ruling, and we will show that in our analysis here at Legal Schnauzer. But the Supreme Court overturned a valid jury verdict anyway.
Hill cuts to the chase: "The Alabama Supreme Court did what Republicans have been complaining about for years. It engaged in judicial activism by finding its own set of facts and legislating from the bench, but nobody on the Republican side of the aisle is crying foul this time." That, of course, is because the GOP depends on funding from corporate giants like ExxonMobil, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other front groups leading the way.
And then Hill offers this classic assessment, which applies not only to ExxonMobil, but also my Legal Schnauzer case, plus the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor prosecutions: "Once again, the GOP crowd has proven that it will not live by its own rules when the interests of themselves and their benefactors are being threatened."
Hill predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court, if it grants certiorari, will overturn the ExxonMobil ruling. And he has this extremely important word of advice for Democrats: "Whatever the outcome of the State of Alabama's litigation, Democratic hopefuls for the Alabama Supreme Court should smell the blood in the water and start campaigning early for the 2008 and 2010 races because we are probably going to see quite a few new faces on our highest court."
In fact, there is evidence that GOPers already are trying to back away from the ExxonMobil ruling, which indicates the public is putting up a serious stink about it.
In a recent ruling regarding a Talladega County judgeship, there were two dissents in a ruling that favored GOP interests. Not surprisingly, one dissent was from the court's lone Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb (the lone dissenting voice on ExxonMobil). And who joined Cobb in dissent? Tom Parker, the author of the ExxonMobil decision, who offered no written explanation for his dissent.
My guess? Parker is feeling serious heat over the ExxonMobil ruling, and he's probably surprised that the public even noticed--or cared. Now, I suspect, he's looking for political cover by casting a dissent in the Talladega County case.
We will examine that Talladega County ruling here at Legal Schnauzer. I suspect it will be another example of just how corrupt our state's highest court truly is.
Hill is uniquely positioned to provide insight on the ExxonMobil case, where the Alabama Supreme Court threw out $3.6 billion in punitive damages against the oil giant. Hill has a law degree and he is a former state employee. In fact, he worked for the State Lands Division, where one of his duties was to administer the natural-gas leases at the heart of the ExxonMobil case.
Hill's analysis confirms what our research has been indicating--that the Alabama Supreme Court administered a colossal screw job to the people of the state.
Here is the key point in Hill's analysis: The Supreme Court violated one of the most basic foundations of appellate law, which is know as the "ore tenus presumption." Ore tenus refers to a trial based on oral testimony. "As every Alabama law student knows, a judgement based on ore tenus evidence is presumed correct and not to be disturbed on appeal 'unless a consideration of the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom reveals that the judgment is plainly and palpably erroneous or manifestly unjust," Hill writes.
The ore tenus rule is based on the notion that the jury or trial judge was present at the trial and could evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Appellate judges are not in that position, and therefore are to defer to the trial-court findings unless they were palpably wrong.
There was nothing palpably erroneous about the trial court's ruling, and we will show that in our analysis here at Legal Schnauzer. But the Supreme Court overturned a valid jury verdict anyway.
Hill cuts to the chase: "The Alabama Supreme Court did what Republicans have been complaining about for years. It engaged in judicial activism by finding its own set of facts and legislating from the bench, but nobody on the Republican side of the aisle is crying foul this time." That, of course, is because the GOP depends on funding from corporate giants like ExxonMobil, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other front groups leading the way.
And then Hill offers this classic assessment, which applies not only to ExxonMobil, but also my Legal Schnauzer case, plus the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor prosecutions: "Once again, the GOP crowd has proven that it will not live by its own rules when the interests of themselves and their benefactors are being threatened."
Hill predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court, if it grants certiorari, will overturn the ExxonMobil ruling. And he has this extremely important word of advice for Democrats: "Whatever the outcome of the State of Alabama's litigation, Democratic hopefuls for the Alabama Supreme Court should smell the blood in the water and start campaigning early for the 2008 and 2010 races because we are probably going to see quite a few new faces on our highest court."
In fact, there is evidence that GOPers already are trying to back away from the ExxonMobil ruling, which indicates the public is putting up a serious stink about it.
In a recent ruling regarding a Talladega County judgeship, there were two dissents in a ruling that favored GOP interests. Not surprisingly, one dissent was from the court's lone Democrat, Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb (the lone dissenting voice on ExxonMobil). And who joined Cobb in dissent? Tom Parker, the author of the ExxonMobil decision, who offered no written explanation for his dissent.
My guess? Parker is feeling serious heat over the ExxonMobil ruling, and he's probably surprised that the public even noticed--or cared. Now, I suspect, he's looking for political cover by casting a dissent in the Talladega County case.
We will examine that Talladega County ruling here at Legal Schnauzer. I suspect it will be another example of just how corrupt our state's highest court truly is.
GOP's Gay Problems Mount
U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) might be wishing he had gone ahead with plans to resign following his arrest in a Minnesota men's room.
Now at least five other men have come forward to say they had encounters with Craig, that they had sex with Craig, that he made a sexual advance, or that he paid them unusual attention. The story comes from the Idaho Statesman in Boise.
The Statesman notes that its report offers no definitive evidence--no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. The paper calls them "he-said, he-said" allegations. But the paper's investigation included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, and it found nothing to disprove the five new accounts.
Four of the men came forward by name, and one asked to remain anonymous from fear of retaliation. One of the men is Mike Jones, a former prostitute who told the world last year he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard.
Meanwhile, Huffington Post reports that the gay male escort linked to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) is denying reports of a relationship. But the blogosphere, and even some mainstream media outlets, are abuzz with stories about the senator who surprisingly announced his plans to resign last week.
Now at least five other men have come forward to say they had encounters with Craig, that they had sex with Craig, that he made a sexual advance, or that he paid them unusual attention. The story comes from the Idaho Statesman in Boise.
The Statesman notes that its report offers no definitive evidence--no videos, no love letters, no voice messages. The paper calls them "he-said, he-said" allegations. But the paper's investigation included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, and it found nothing to disprove the five new accounts.
Four of the men came forward by name, and one asked to remain anonymous from fear of retaliation. One of the men is Mike Jones, a former prostitute who told the world last year he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard.
Meanwhile, Huffington Post reports that the gay male escort linked to Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) is denying reports of a relationship. But the blogosphere, and even some mainstream media outlets, are abuzz with stories about the senator who surprisingly announced his plans to resign last week.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Judicial Ethics vs. Sports Ethics
Who is held to higher ethical standards, judges or people connected to sports?
Based on a recent issue of The Birmingham News, the answer clearly appears to be people connected to sports.
Sports reporter Jon Solomon did an excellent piece on football officials in the Southeastern Conference, following a crew throughout a game and providing a behind-the-scenes look at a part of football most fans never see.
As part of the report, Solomon gave an idea of the ethical standards that apply to SEC officials. He noted that an official cannot work a game involving his alma mater or a school where he has a close relationship with the coach. For example, official Mike Washington cannot work games involving the University of Alabama (his alma mater) or Mississippi State (where Coach Sylvester Croom is a good friend).
Based on a recent issue of The Birmingham News, the answer clearly appears to be people connected to sports.
Sports reporter Jon Solomon did an excellent piece on football officials in the Southeastern Conference, following a crew throughout a game and providing a behind-the-scenes look at a part of football most fans never see.
As part of the report, Solomon gave an idea of the ethical standards that apply to SEC officials. He noted that an official cannot work a game involving his alma mater or a school where he has a close relationship with the coach. For example, official Mike Washington cannot work games involving the University of Alabama (his alma mater) or Mississippi State (where Coach Sylvester Croom is a good friend).
Judges are held to no such standards. In the lawsuit filed against me, I've noted that Judge J. Michael Joiner was a regular golf bud of opposing counsel William E. Swatek, and the two had been longtime neighbors. Joiner clearly should have been disqualified from hearing the case. But the decision was left up to him, and he decided to stay on the case and cheat me blind, committing federal crimes in the process.
Joiner only recused himself after I became aware of his cozy relationship with Swatek and filed a motion asking for recusal. And even then, the decision was left to him. No one held him to any ethical standards at all.
And the new judge, G. Dan Reeves, proved just as corrupt as Joiner was. After all, they work under the same roof. That's like having Louis Franklin take over when Leura Canary "recused" herself in the Don Siegelman case.
In the same Birmingham News sports section, reporter Doug Segrest wrote about a lawsuit involving the NCAA and University of Alabama booster Ray Keller. Testimony during the trial revealed that Keller had co-signed a loan or loans in 2000 for longtime Tuscaloosa News sports editor Cecil Hurt. The NCAA attempted to show that Keller had served as a source for Hurt.
Doug Ray, executive editor of the News, said co-signing the note with Keller was "a mistake from the outset" because a reporter should not have such dealings with a source or potential source.
And judges? Accepting financial favors from lawyers who come before them is perfectly legal. In fact, such favors are a critical source of funding for most judicial campaigns. And the co-signing of loans for judges was at the heart of the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, a major subject here at Legal Schnauzer.
I have shown that, based on the law, attorney Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were wrongly convicted of corruption-related charges in the case. But it's interesting that we freely allow close financial and personal relationships between judges and those who come before them, but such relationships are forbidden or strongly discouraged in other professions.
Does that mean that we care more about justice on the football field or in the newsroom than we do in the courtroom? It looks that way.
Message From a Political Prisoner
How would you feel if you knew you were going to federal prison in less than a month for a crime you did not commit? What if you were about to become a political prison in a country that is supposed to be the "greatest democracy on earth?"
If you are like me, you cannot imagine it. But that's a reality for former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel. He was convicted on corruption-related charges, along with attorney Paul Minor and fellow judge John Whitfield. Minor already is in federal prison, and the two former judges are to report at the end of this month.
Over the course of 20-plus posts here at Legal Schnauzer, we have shown that all three of these men are innocent. In fact, both Teel and Whitfield acted as they were required to act under the facts and the law before them in two lawsuits involving Paul Minor's clients. The irony? Had Teel and Whitfield intentionally not ruled in favor of Minor's clients, they would have, technically, committed a federal crime. But that would have been fine with the Bush Justice Department, and Teel and Whitfield would be looking forward to spending the holidays at home.
As for Minor, I suspect the feds were determined to get him one way or another. How dare he give money to Democratic candidates? Teel and Whitfield just got caught in the crossfire.
Teel's Gulf Coast Realist blog is a must read for anyone who cares about the human toll taken by our corrupt justice system. His most recent post is particularly compelling. It's hard not to read it and weep.
If you are like me, you cannot imagine it. But that's a reality for former Mississippi chancery judge Wes Teel. He was convicted on corruption-related charges, along with attorney Paul Minor and fellow judge John Whitfield. Minor already is in federal prison, and the two former judges are to report at the end of this month.
Over the course of 20-plus posts here at Legal Schnauzer, we have shown that all three of these men are innocent. In fact, both Teel and Whitfield acted as they were required to act under the facts and the law before them in two lawsuits involving Paul Minor's clients. The irony? Had Teel and Whitfield intentionally not ruled in favor of Minor's clients, they would have, technically, committed a federal crime. But that would have been fine with the Bush Justice Department, and Teel and Whitfield would be looking forward to spending the holidays at home.
As for Minor, I suspect the feds were determined to get him one way or another. How dare he give money to Democratic candidates? Teel and Whitfield just got caught in the crossfire.
Teel's Gulf Coast Realist blog is a must read for anyone who cares about the human toll taken by our corrupt justice system. His most recent post is particularly compelling. It's hard not to read it and weep.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Natalee Holloway and the Grandstander
The Natalee Holloway case is back in the news, which calls to mind Alabama Governor Bob Riley's shameless grandstanding in a tragic matter. It also calls to mind Riley's hypocritical, two-faced stand on justice-related issues.
Three suspects were arrested November 21 on suspicion of involvement in Holloway's disappearance. The recent arrests appeared to be based on new evidence uncovered by investigators, but two of the suspects were released on Friday.
As for Riley, we've posted before about his willingness to use a tragedy in order to score political points. Alabama's governor was among the first to call for a travel boycott of Aruba because of that nation's handling of the Holloway matter.
Just how absurd was Riley's call for a boycott? Consider this case about residents of New York and Texas being brutally murdered at Birmingham's Airport Inn in 2005. That crime was solved, thanks largely to a hotel security camera. But should the governors of New York and Texas call for boycotts of Alabama because two of their constituents lost their lives in our state?
In fact, given Alabama's overall ghastly crime rate, should Bob Riley be pointing a finger at anybody on crime-related issues?
As we noted earlier, Riley went on Fox's O'Reilly Factor to tout his boycott idea. Even Bill O'Reilly sensed the possible hypocrisy at work and asked Riley about Alabama's justice system. The governor replied that anyone who had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system should contact him.
I, the victim of grotesque judicial corruption in Alabama courts (led at the time by a Riley appointee) contacted the governor and received a form letter as a reply. Riley said he had forwarded the matter to his chief legal advisor, who was bound by law to report the wrongdoing to an appropriate tribunal. I never head anything more about it.
Well, I recently went to the governor's official Web site and sent him another missive about my case. This time, I kept a copy of my message. Here is the message, which has received zero reply from the governor's office since it was sent September 26. And the lack of a response raises this question: Is Bob Riley really interested in justice or did he just take advantage of the Holloway case to do some grandstanding on national TV?
Governor Riley:
I sent you an e-mail in November 2005, telling you about my concerns over judicial corruption I have experienced in Alabama courts. This came after your appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, encouraging a boycott of Aruba over that nation's handling of the Natalee Holloway disappearance. You also stated that, if anyone had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system, you wanted to know about it.
Assuming you were serious about this, I sent you an e-mail that provided details about wrongdoing by state judges, and attorneys, in Alabama. In a letter dated Dec. 7, 2005, you stated that you had referred the matter to Ken Wallis, your chief legal advisor. I've heard nothing from Mr. Wallis, and to my knowledge, no one in your administration has done anything to address the corruption I witnessed.
I'm writing now to ask this question: Are you serious about ethics or not?
A few details about my experience you should know:
* The corruption involved repeated unlawful rulings, starting in district court and going up to the Alabama Supreme Court. Every unlawful ruling was made by a judge who is a Republican. At the time, our court system was overseen by one of your appointees, Drayton Nabers.
* The opposing counsel, the attorney who filed the bogus lawsuit against me (on behalf of a client with at least eight criminal convictions in his background), is William E. Swatek, of Pelham.
* You might know Mr. Swatek better as the father of Dax Swatek, your campaign manager.
* To say that William E. Swatek has a sleazy history in the legal field would be putting it mildly. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar (one of those involved five complaints rolled into one). He has had his license suspended for acts that involved dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, etc. He even has been tried for perjury in criminal court.
* Despite Mr. Swatek's unsavory background, he has repeatedly been the beneficiary of unlawful rulings by Alabama judges. Why is that? From where I sit, it looks like Mr. Swatek is being protected because his son works for you.
* You have repeatedly been quoted as saying you strongly support ethical government, and you condemn cronyism, such as that in Alabama's two-year college system. Well, are you serious about that or not? Does that apply when the wrongdoing is committed by a family member of someone who has worked for you?
* I thought Republicans are against frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuit Bill Swatek filed against me would have to improve a whole lot to reach the level of frivolous; fraudulent would be a better term.
* I thought Republicans supported the rule of law. The judges I've seen firsthand treat the law like a plaything.
One final thought: When members of the Alabama State Bar possess knowledge of wrongdoing by another lawyer or a judge, they are required to report said wrongdoing to an appropriate body or tribunal. According to your letter of Dec. 7, 2005, Mr. Wallis has possessed wrongdoing by lawyers and judges for almost two years, and he has done nothing about it. Will you see to it that Mr. Wallis does as he is required to do under the law?
Governor, if you and Mr. Wallis did not understand the seriousness of this matter the first time around, let me make it clear now: This matter is about as serious as it can get for my wife and me, and we expect our leaders to take it seriously too. We have suffered almost overwhelming financial, emotional, and physical hardship because of the corruption in this case.
My life even may be in danger; I was the victim of a felony assault by Mr. Swatek's client. Interestingly, Shelby County DA Robby Owens (another Republican) insists it was a misdemeanor, no matter how much statutory and case law clearly say it was a felony. While we're at it, would you care to do something about that assault case? Do Republicans really believe in being tough on crime or is that just a cute campaign slogan? Do I have to wind up dead from a gunshot wound before someone in authority takes this problem seriously?
Would you please explain to me, in writing, what you intend to do about my situation? Would you please explain to me how two law-abiding people can be made financially whole from the harm done by "officers" of Alabama courts? Would you give me some assurance that my personal safety matters at least a little bit?
Finally, would you hold up your end of the bargain you made on national television two years ago--to take problems in our justice system seriously and do something to help those who have suffered from them?
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
Three suspects were arrested November 21 on suspicion of involvement in Holloway's disappearance. The recent arrests appeared to be based on new evidence uncovered by investigators, but two of the suspects were released on Friday.
As for Riley, we've posted before about his willingness to use a tragedy in order to score political points. Alabama's governor was among the first to call for a travel boycott of Aruba because of that nation's handling of the Holloway matter.
Just how absurd was Riley's call for a boycott? Consider this case about residents of New York and Texas being brutally murdered at Birmingham's Airport Inn in 2005. That crime was solved, thanks largely to a hotel security camera. But should the governors of New York and Texas call for boycotts of Alabama because two of their constituents lost their lives in our state?
In fact, given Alabama's overall ghastly crime rate, should Bob Riley be pointing a finger at anybody on crime-related issues?
As we noted earlier, Riley went on Fox's O'Reilly Factor to tout his boycott idea. Even Bill O'Reilly sensed the possible hypocrisy at work and asked Riley about Alabama's justice system. The governor replied that anyone who had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system should contact him.
I, the victim of grotesque judicial corruption in Alabama courts (led at the time by a Riley appointee) contacted the governor and received a form letter as a reply. Riley said he had forwarded the matter to his chief legal advisor, who was bound by law to report the wrongdoing to an appropriate tribunal. I never head anything more about it.
Well, I recently went to the governor's official Web site and sent him another missive about my case. This time, I kept a copy of my message. Here is the message, which has received zero reply from the governor's office since it was sent September 26. And the lack of a response raises this question: Is Bob Riley really interested in justice or did he just take advantage of the Holloway case to do some grandstanding on national TV?
Governor Riley:
I sent you an e-mail in November 2005, telling you about my concerns over judicial corruption I have experienced in Alabama courts. This came after your appearance on the O'Reilly Factor, encouraging a boycott of Aruba over that nation's handling of the Natalee Holloway disappearance. You also stated that, if anyone had experienced problems with Alabama's justice system, you wanted to know about it.
Assuming you were serious about this, I sent you an e-mail that provided details about wrongdoing by state judges, and attorneys, in Alabama. In a letter dated Dec. 7, 2005, you stated that you had referred the matter to Ken Wallis, your chief legal advisor. I've heard nothing from Mr. Wallis, and to my knowledge, no one in your administration has done anything to address the corruption I witnessed.
I'm writing now to ask this question: Are you serious about ethics or not?
A few details about my experience you should know:
* The corruption involved repeated unlawful rulings, starting in district court and going up to the Alabama Supreme Court. Every unlawful ruling was made by a judge who is a Republican. At the time, our court system was overseen by one of your appointees, Drayton Nabers.
* The opposing counsel, the attorney who filed the bogus lawsuit against me (on behalf of a client with at least eight criminal convictions in his background), is William E. Swatek, of Pelham.
* You might know Mr. Swatek better as the father of Dax Swatek, your campaign manager.
* To say that William E. Swatek has a sleazy history in the legal field would be putting it mildly. He has been disciplined three times by the Alabama State Bar (one of those involved five complaints rolled into one). He has had his license suspended for acts that involved dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, etc. He even has been tried for perjury in criminal court.
* Despite Mr. Swatek's unsavory background, he has repeatedly been the beneficiary of unlawful rulings by Alabama judges. Why is that? From where I sit, it looks like Mr. Swatek is being protected because his son works for you.
* You have repeatedly been quoted as saying you strongly support ethical government, and you condemn cronyism, such as that in Alabama's two-year college system. Well, are you serious about that or not? Does that apply when the wrongdoing is committed by a family member of someone who has worked for you?
* I thought Republicans are against frivolous lawsuits. The lawsuit Bill Swatek filed against me would have to improve a whole lot to reach the level of frivolous; fraudulent would be a better term.
* I thought Republicans supported the rule of law. The judges I've seen firsthand treat the law like a plaything.
One final thought: When members of the Alabama State Bar possess knowledge of wrongdoing by another lawyer or a judge, they are required to report said wrongdoing to an appropriate body or tribunal. According to your letter of Dec. 7, 2005, Mr. Wallis has possessed wrongdoing by lawyers and judges for almost two years, and he has done nothing about it. Will you see to it that Mr. Wallis does as he is required to do under the law?
Governor, if you and Mr. Wallis did not understand the seriousness of this matter the first time around, let me make it clear now: This matter is about as serious as it can get for my wife and me, and we expect our leaders to take it seriously too. We have suffered almost overwhelming financial, emotional, and physical hardship because of the corruption in this case.
My life even may be in danger; I was the victim of a felony assault by Mr. Swatek's client. Interestingly, Shelby County DA Robby Owens (another Republican) insists it was a misdemeanor, no matter how much statutory and case law clearly say it was a felony. While we're at it, would you care to do something about that assault case? Do Republicans really believe in being tough on crime or is that just a cute campaign slogan? Do I have to wind up dead from a gunshot wound before someone in authority takes this problem seriously?
Would you please explain to me, in writing, what you intend to do about my situation? Would you please explain to me how two law-abiding people can be made financially whole from the harm done by "officers" of Alabama courts? Would you give me some assurance that my personal safety matters at least a little bit?
Finally, would you hold up your end of the bargain you made on national television two years ago--to take problems in our justice system seriously and do something to help those who have suffered from them?
Sincerely,
Roger Shuler
Secrecy and Abramoff
The charade to hide documents related to the Department of Justice scandal continues unabated.
Pete Yost of Associated Press reports that the Bush Administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about White-House visits by now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This comes after the administration had agreed last year to produce all records on the visits without redactions of claims of exemptions.
Guess the Bushies have changed their minds. And Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides insight into what might be behind their thinking. The administration seeks to use the "state secret" privilege as a "get out of jail free" card, Horton writes.
The critical documents would be communications between Abramoff and former White House strategist Karl Rove. And that e-mail trail, Horton writes, would almost certainly lead to Alabama and the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Abramoff sidekick Michael Scanlon was a former Washington aide to current Governor Bob Riley. Abramoff and Scanlon funneled money from their gambling interests to support Riley's campaign against Siegelman, who wanted to start an education lottery in Alabama.
I wouldn't be surprised if this e-mail trail included references to another Riley crony, former campaign manager Dax Swatek. Horton already has reported about Swatek's ties to Abramoff. And Swatek once worked for Bill Canary, who was at the heart of Jill Simpson's affidavit about the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution.
The name Swatek is an important one here at Legal Schnauzer. William E. Swatek, who is Dax Swatek's father, is the ethically-challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against your humble blogger. That legal document set off a trail of judicial chicanery that led to the blog you are now reading.
I have overwhelming evidence that William E. Swatek and numerous Republican judges in Alabama--J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves in Shelby County, GOP members of appellate courts--were involved in a conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This was the charge that made up two-thirds of the case against Siegelman.
These charges, of course, led to a prosecution and conviction of Siegelman, a Democrat. And the evidence is overwhelming that the charges never should have been brought against him.
But Bill Swatek, Mike Joiner, Dan Reeves, and company? There is no question that they used the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, depriving Alabama citizens of the judges' honest services. That's textbook mail fraud. But these folks are Republicans, and Bill Swatek's son (our guy, Dax) is close buds with Bob Riley and Bill Canary. So Birmingham-based U.S. Attorney Alice Martin ignores that wrongdoing.
We've recently discovered new information about Dax Swatek that shines light on why Alice Martin is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the Legal Schnauzer case. That will be coming your way soon.
Pete Yost of Associated Press reports that the Bush Administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about White-House visits by now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This comes after the administration had agreed last year to produce all records on the visits without redactions of claims of exemptions.
Guess the Bushies have changed their minds. And Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides insight into what might be behind their thinking. The administration seeks to use the "state secret" privilege as a "get out of jail free" card, Horton writes.
The critical documents would be communications between Abramoff and former White House strategist Karl Rove. And that e-mail trail, Horton writes, would almost certainly lead to Alabama and the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Abramoff sidekick Michael Scanlon was a former Washington aide to current Governor Bob Riley. Abramoff and Scanlon funneled money from their gambling interests to support Riley's campaign against Siegelman, who wanted to start an education lottery in Alabama.
I wouldn't be surprised if this e-mail trail included references to another Riley crony, former campaign manager Dax Swatek. Horton already has reported about Swatek's ties to Abramoff. And Swatek once worked for Bill Canary, who was at the heart of Jill Simpson's affidavit about the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution.
The name Swatek is an important one here at Legal Schnauzer. William E. Swatek, who is Dax Swatek's father, is the ethically-challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against your humble blogger. That legal document set off a trail of judicial chicanery that led to the blog you are now reading.
I have overwhelming evidence that William E. Swatek and numerous Republican judges in Alabama--J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves in Shelby County, GOP members of appellate courts--were involved in a conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S. Code 1346. This was the charge that made up two-thirds of the case against Siegelman.
These charges, of course, led to a prosecution and conviction of Siegelman, a Democrat. And the evidence is overwhelming that the charges never should have been brought against him.
But Bill Swatek, Mike Joiner, Dan Reeves, and company? There is no question that they used the U.S. mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, depriving Alabama citizens of the judges' honest services. That's textbook mail fraud. But these folks are Republicans, and Bill Swatek's son (our guy, Dax) is close buds with Bob Riley and Bill Canary. So Birmingham-based U.S. Attorney Alice Martin ignores that wrongdoing.
We've recently discovered new information about Dax Swatek that shines light on why Alice Martin is trying to cover up wrongdoing in the Legal Schnauzer case. That will be coming your way soon.
Wesley Clark Pulls No Punches
General Wesley Clark pulled no punches in a speech Friday evening at the annual Jefferson-Jackson fund-raising dinner in Birmingham.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that Clark said former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was the victim of a political prosecution. Clark called Siegelman "a great American" and an "honest man" who was "unjustly confined" by a rogue Justice Department.
"It's the wholesale politicization of the Department of Justice," Clark said. "It's a stench of corruption that has run from the White House, through Jack Abramoff . . . "
Clark lamented lost opportunities over the past seven years in numerous areas, including health care, education, civil rights, energy, and the environment. "We didn't have to fight that war in Iraq," Clark said.
The general added that George W. Bush is "the worst" president in the nation's history.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork News, reports that Clark said former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was the victim of a political prosecution. Clark called Siegelman "a great American" and an "honest man" who was "unjustly confined" by a rogue Justice Department.
"It's the wholesale politicization of the Department of Justice," Clark said. "It's a stench of corruption that has run from the White House, through Jack Abramoff . . . "
Clark lamented lost opportunities over the past seven years in numerous areas, including health care, education, civil rights, energy, and the environment. "We didn't have to fight that war in Iraq," Clark said.
The general added that George W. Bush is "the worst" president in the nation's history.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Bits and Pieces for $50, Alex
Mark Fuller is Back!
Judge Mark Fuller--yes that Mark Fuller, the one who ramrodded the Don Siegelman case--is back in the news.
Fuller is part of a three-judge panel appointed to hear the federal lawsuit of a Fairfield, Alabama, man who is challenging Governor Bob Riley's appointment to the Jefferson County Commission. Riley filled the seat vacated by Larry Langford, who was elected mayor of Birmingham. Fred Plump contends that Riley does not have the authority to fill the seat and interfere with a February 5 election that has been set to choose Langford's successor.
Joining Fuller on the panel are W. Harold Allbritton III, also from Montgomery's U.S. District Court, and Rosemary Barkett, from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A previous federal-court decision, when Riley attempted to fill a similar seat in Mobile, found the governor was in the wrong and an election must be held. But Riley seems to be ignoring that precedent, and with Fuller involved, I wouldn't be surprised if this panel ignores precedent, too. Don't know much about Allbritton and Barkett, but I suspect it will be up to them to make sure the law is followed and voters are allowed to pick Langford's successor.
What kind of judge is Fuller? For a reminder, check out the affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
The Partisan Supremes
More evidence that Alabama's Supreme Court is a blatantly partisan body. In a 7-2 decision, the court voided the election of a Democratic circuit judge in Talladega County.
The majority said Talladega County should not have had an election in 2006. The election was won by Democrat Chad Woodruff, who took office in February. Troy King, Alabama's Republican attorney general, had asked the state's highest court to review the court. And surprise, surprise, the court's GOP majority sided with King.
Here's another surprise. One of the dissenting votes came from Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's lone Democrat. Cobb wrote that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the attorney general did not file a timely appeal of a judge's order placing Woodruff on the 2006 ballot. The other dissent came from Republican Tom Parker. I haven't had a chance to review the opinion, so not sure what Parker's dissent was based on.
I'm looking forward to studying this case. Cobb's dissent, based on a lack of timeliness standard, should be clearly shown by the record. If it is, then we have another example of the GOP supremes blatantly ignoring settled law to benefit their political interests. Other examples? The recent ExxonMobil ruling and the Legal Schnauzer case, which is at the heart of this blog. We will cover both rulings in detail in the days ahead.
Justice for a Beagle?
Investigators in Cullman County investigators have received a number of tips in the case of Anne, a three-year-old pet beagle who had to be euthanized after being skinned alive.
The case has received national media attention, and more than $14,000 in reward money has been collected. About 30 people have called with possible information about the case, and veterinarians at Auburn University are conducting an examination of Anne's body, partly to determine if she was restrained during the Nov. 18 attack.
The Social Gospel
Birmingham historian Marvin Whiting has completed a book on the Reverend Henry Edmonds, a local minister who tackled social-justice issues at a time, and in a place, where it was not popular to do so.
The book is called An Enduring Ministry. Edmonds founded Independent Presbyterian Church, on Birmingham's Southside, in 1915 and remained pastor there until 1942. He died in 1960.
Edmonds led an outreach to prostitutes and the homeless, led integrated revivals during segregation, and in the early 1930s campaigned to ensure adequate legal counsel for the Scottsboro Boys, a case that involved several black youths accused of raping a white woman.
Judge Mark Fuller--yes that Mark Fuller, the one who ramrodded the Don Siegelman case--is back in the news.
Fuller is part of a three-judge panel appointed to hear the federal lawsuit of a Fairfield, Alabama, man who is challenging Governor Bob Riley's appointment to the Jefferson County Commission. Riley filled the seat vacated by Larry Langford, who was elected mayor of Birmingham. Fred Plump contends that Riley does not have the authority to fill the seat and interfere with a February 5 election that has been set to choose Langford's successor.
Joining Fuller on the panel are W. Harold Allbritton III, also from Montgomery's U.S. District Court, and Rosemary Barkett, from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A previous federal-court decision, when Riley attempted to fill a similar seat in Mobile, found the governor was in the wrong and an election must be held. But Riley seems to be ignoring that precedent, and with Fuller involved, I wouldn't be surprised if this panel ignores precedent, too. Don't know much about Allbritton and Barkett, but I suspect it will be up to them to make sure the law is followed and voters are allowed to pick Langford's successor.
What kind of judge is Fuller? For a reminder, check out the affidavit from Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks.
The Partisan Supremes
More evidence that Alabama's Supreme Court is a blatantly partisan body. In a 7-2 decision, the court voided the election of a Democratic circuit judge in Talladega County.
The majority said Talladega County should not have had an election in 2006. The election was won by Democrat Chad Woodruff, who took office in February. Troy King, Alabama's Republican attorney general, had asked the state's highest court to review the court. And surprise, surprise, the court's GOP majority sided with King.
Here's another surprise. One of the dissenting votes came from Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's lone Democrat. Cobb wrote that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the attorney general did not file a timely appeal of a judge's order placing Woodruff on the 2006 ballot. The other dissent came from Republican Tom Parker. I haven't had a chance to review the opinion, so not sure what Parker's dissent was based on.
I'm looking forward to studying this case. Cobb's dissent, based on a lack of timeliness standard, should be clearly shown by the record. If it is, then we have another example of the GOP supremes blatantly ignoring settled law to benefit their political interests. Other examples? The recent ExxonMobil ruling and the Legal Schnauzer case, which is at the heart of this blog. We will cover both rulings in detail in the days ahead.
Justice for a Beagle?
Investigators in Cullman County investigators have received a number of tips in the case of Anne, a three-year-old pet beagle who had to be euthanized after being skinned alive.
The case has received national media attention, and more than $14,000 in reward money has been collected. About 30 people have called with possible information about the case, and veterinarians at Auburn University are conducting an examination of Anne's body, partly to determine if she was restrained during the Nov. 18 attack.
The Social Gospel
Birmingham historian Marvin Whiting has completed a book on the Reverend Henry Edmonds, a local minister who tackled social-justice issues at a time, and in a place, where it was not popular to do so.
The book is called An Enduring Ministry. Edmonds founded Independent Presbyterian Church, on Birmingham's Southside, in 1915 and remained pastor there until 1942. He died in 1960.
Edmonds led an outreach to prostitutes and the homeless, led integrated revivals during segregation, and in the early 1930s campaigned to ensure adequate legal counsel for the Scottsboro Boys, a case that involved several black youths accused of raping a white woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)