My house is scheduled to be unlawfully seized and auctioned at noon on May 12 on the steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.
With that as a backdrop, we are going to spend quite a bit of time in the next few days, showing you exactly how corrupt this action is. And we will be naming names, showing you the public officials--all Republicans--who are behind it.
The process of threatening my house--and the house of my wife, who is co-owner, and the home of our kitty kats, Baxter and Chloe--is corrupt on multiple levels. So we will address the corruption in two segments, showing that:
* The actual process of seizing my house--the writ of execution, the notice of levy, the sheriff's sale--is unlawful and corrupt from start to finish.
* The underlying judgment upon which the house seizure is based is also unlawful. In fact, the corruption leading up to the judgment is so pervasive that we will deal with it now in fairly general terms, saving many of the details for later.
At the risk of tooting my own horn, I think we are embarking on a journey that is perhaps a first in American journalism--of either the mainstream or nontraditional variety.
I can't think of another instance where a reporter (a citizen journalist or mainstreamer) has outlined exactly how corrupt judges and associated officials go about their dirty business. If anyone can think of another such case, please let me know.
To borrow an important phrase from Don Siegelman, "This is not about me." This is about our broken justice system at the state-court level, which affects far more Americans than our federal courts do. But like the Siegelman case, my situation also illustrates corruption in our federal justice system. Corrupt state-court judges are criminals, and the crimes they commit--because they usually involve the mail or wires--tend to be federal crimes. But is the Bush Justice Department interested in pursuing these state judges who happen to be Republicans? Not in the least.
In fact, my story will show you the two sides to Alice Martin, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. Ms. Martin went after Don Siegelman (a Democrat) like a rabid wolverine, firing off a case that was so weak that a federal judge bounced it out of court before it barely got started. But when presented with clear wrongdoing by Republican judges in Alabama, Martin turns into a shih tzu.
That's called political prosecution, the subject of an ongoing Congressional inquiry. We will show you that Alice Martin is Exhibit A when it comes to the ugly practice of political prosecution.
We will get to details on Alice Martin in a few weeks. But first, we will deal with the corrupt Republicans who are threatening my home. Thanks to the technology of blogging, I can give Legal Schnauzer readers an inside look at "corruption in real time." This isn't stuff that happened last year or last month or even last week. It's happening right now.
So please come along for a ride that should be educational--for you and for me.
To provide the foundation we need to understand this corruption in real time, we will work backwards--showing first exactly how the home-seizure process is unlawful and then showing how the underlying judgment is unlawful, as well.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Dubya's Economy is in the Dumps
As voters go to the polls today in Indiana and North Carolina, many of them surely are troubled about the state of the American economy.
Justice-related stories are the primary focus of our humble blog. But the dismal American economy figures to be a major story for the rest of 2008 and well into 2009. And if John McCain is elected president, there is reason to believe we are headed for a 1930s-style Depression. In fact, George W. Bush has taken the vibrant economy he inherited and screwed it up so severely that even Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama might not be able to fix it--at least for awhile.
How bad is it? Consider this paragraph from the review:
By 2007 total indebtedness was three times the size of the gross domestic product, a ratio that surpassed the record set in the years of the Great Depression. From 2001 to 2007 alone, domestic financial debt grew to $14.5 trillion from $8.5 trillion, and home mortgage debt ballooned to almost $10 trillion from $4.9 trillion, an increase of 102 percent. A crisis in the mortgage market in August 2007 brought the party to an end. Since then we have been living in a twilight zone of what a security analyst quoted in the book calls "one of the slowest-moving train wrecks we've seen."
Phillips is not the only one who saw this coming. The Alabama blog writechic had an excellent post recently, providing historical context to our current economic woes. Title of the post? "The Republican Erosion of America." Here's a highlight:
Did you know that ALL recessions since the 1930’s, save one, have taken place under Republican presidents? True fact. The single exception occurred at the conclusion of World War II during the administration of Harry S. Truman and it was one predictable consequence of ending a war. It was also the shortest, as well as the shallowest. Contrast that with the fact that we are now enduring our SECOND recession due to the gross mismanagement of that congenital idiot and the band of thugs in his administration.The irrepressible BartCop, whom I quite enjoy, is fond of saying “It’s the Republicans’ job to crash the economy so the super-rich can swoop in and buy companies and assets for pennies on the dollar.” (Vol. 2139, in “Quotes” near the top of his page) Now, this is a bit on the simplistic side, but in essence, it’s EXACTLY what they do! And another for good measure: “Never trust a Republican. It’s their job to crash the economy so their billionaire friends can buy once-healthy companies for pennies on the dollar, fire the employees and sell the assets for profit.”
How many Americans go to the polls thinking Republicans are stronger than Democrats on the economy? How many Americans are ignorant when it comes to history?
Need I remind you here about the Great Depression? That worldwide catastrophe was brought to your predecessors courtesy of the Republican Party. After Warren Gamaliel Harding was elected president in 1920…and died two years later, vice president Calvin Coolidge took over the Oval Office. He served out the remainder of Harding’s term and was reelected in 1924, serving until he was replaced by yet another hardline GOoPer, Herbert Hoover, in January of 1929. One of the worst of the outrages perpetrated by “Silent Cal” was the transformation of the Federal Trade Commission, through his appointees, from an agency intended to regulate corporations into one dominated BY Big Business, FOR Big Business. Sound familiar?
Looking back on the so-called “Roaring Twenties,” hindsight quickly reveals the abjectly corrosive nature of Republican ideology. Andrew W. Mellon–at that time one of the three wealthiest men in America!–was Harding’s Secretary of the Treasury and Coolidge kept him on, a voracious fox charged with guarding the henhouse. Mellon’s maniacal dedication to such hair-brained schemes as income tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts and an aggressively pro-business agenda coupled with utter disdain for fiscal caution, resulted in skyrocketing debt…and made the decade appear to “roar.” It also served as camouflage for underlying economic weakness. Farmers were already in an economic depression at the time and it was a widening income disparity which ultimately caused the bottom to drop out of the Stock Market on “Black Tuesday,” October 29, 1929. Bank deposits were withdrawn in a frenzy after that and something on the order of NINE THOUSAND banks failed between 1930 and 1932.
Your GOP at work!
And if you think they’re not trying for a rerun, you just haven’t been paying close enough attention. Did somebody mention Bear Stearns?? The vast gulf between the “have mores” and all the rest of us is at its greatest point since then, excepting only the tech-bubble years of 1999 and 2000. It’s no secret that wages have stagnated…but creative book-cooking has hidden the extent of it. Just over a year ago, it was revealed that in the midst of unparalleled corporate profits, we also have record poverty.
How is this affecting everyday Americans? Associated Press reports that lots of folks are selling prized possessions to help make ends meet. Wonder how many of the folks featured in this article plan to vote Republican.
Justice-related stories are the primary focus of our humble blog. But the dismal American economy figures to be a major story for the rest of 2008 and well into 2009. And if John McCain is elected president, there is reason to believe we are headed for a 1930s-style Depression. In fact, George W. Bush has taken the vibrant economy he inherited and screwed it up so severely that even Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama might not be able to fix it--at least for awhile.
So while the Hoosiers and Tar heels try to clarify the Democratic race (maybe) today, let's consider the economic mess that our next president will inherit.
Dubya would have us believe that our current quagmire is just part of the economic cycle--or that Democrats in Congress are to blame. But the truth is this: Anyone who has read the works of Kevin Phillips, perhaps our foremost economic historian, could have seen this coming as far back as 2000.
Phillips latest book, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism, is just out--and the picture isn't pretty. In fact, the headline on The New York Times review--"What Ails the American Economy? Everything, and There's Worse to Come"--pretty much sums it up.How bad is it? Consider this paragraph from the review:
By 2007 total indebtedness was three times the size of the gross domestic product, a ratio that surpassed the record set in the years of the Great Depression. From 2001 to 2007 alone, domestic financial debt grew to $14.5 trillion from $8.5 trillion, and home mortgage debt ballooned to almost $10 trillion from $4.9 trillion, an increase of 102 percent. A crisis in the mortgage market in August 2007 brought the party to an end. Since then we have been living in a twilight zone of what a security analyst quoted in the book calls "one of the slowest-moving train wrecks we've seen."
Phillips is not the only one who saw this coming. The Alabama blog writechic had an excellent post recently, providing historical context to our current economic woes. Title of the post? "The Republican Erosion of America." Here's a highlight:
Did you know that ALL recessions since the 1930’s, save one, have taken place under Republican presidents? True fact. The single exception occurred at the conclusion of World War II during the administration of Harry S. Truman and it was one predictable consequence of ending a war. It was also the shortest, as well as the shallowest. Contrast that with the fact that we are now enduring our SECOND recession due to the gross mismanagement of that congenital idiot and the band of thugs in his administration.The irrepressible BartCop, whom I quite enjoy, is fond of saying “It’s the Republicans’ job to crash the economy so the super-rich can swoop in and buy companies and assets for pennies on the dollar.” (Vol. 2139, in “Quotes” near the top of his page) Now, this is a bit on the simplistic side, but in essence, it’s EXACTLY what they do! And another for good measure: “Never trust a Republican. It’s their job to crash the economy so their billionaire friends can buy once-healthy companies for pennies on the dollar, fire the employees and sell the assets for profit.”
How many Americans go to the polls thinking Republicans are stronger than Democrats on the economy? How many Americans are ignorant when it comes to history?
Need I remind you here about the Great Depression? That worldwide catastrophe was brought to your predecessors courtesy of the Republican Party. After Warren Gamaliel Harding was elected president in 1920…and died two years later, vice president Calvin Coolidge took over the Oval Office. He served out the remainder of Harding’s term and was reelected in 1924, serving until he was replaced by yet another hardline GOoPer, Herbert Hoover, in January of 1929. One of the worst of the outrages perpetrated by “Silent Cal” was the transformation of the Federal Trade Commission, through his appointees, from an agency intended to regulate corporations into one dominated BY Big Business, FOR Big Business. Sound familiar?
Looking back on the so-called “Roaring Twenties,” hindsight quickly reveals the abjectly corrosive nature of Republican ideology. Andrew W. Mellon–at that time one of the three wealthiest men in America!–was Harding’s Secretary of the Treasury and Coolidge kept him on, a voracious fox charged with guarding the henhouse. Mellon’s maniacal dedication to such hair-brained schemes as income tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts and an aggressively pro-business agenda coupled with utter disdain for fiscal caution, resulted in skyrocketing debt…and made the decade appear to “roar.” It also served as camouflage for underlying economic weakness. Farmers were already in an economic depression at the time and it was a widening income disparity which ultimately caused the bottom to drop out of the Stock Market on “Black Tuesday,” October 29, 1929. Bank deposits were withdrawn in a frenzy after that and something on the order of NINE THOUSAND banks failed between 1930 and 1932.
Your GOP at work!
And if you think they’re not trying for a rerun, you just haven’t been paying close enough attention. Did somebody mention Bear Stearns?? The vast gulf between the “have mores” and all the rest of us is at its greatest point since then, excepting only the tech-bubble years of 1999 and 2000. It’s no secret that wages have stagnated…but creative book-cooking has hidden the extent of it. Just over a year ago, it was revealed that in the midst of unparalleled corporate profits, we also have record poverty.
How is this affecting everyday Americans? Associated Press reports that lots of folks are selling prized possessions to help make ends meet. Wonder how many of the folks featured in this article plan to vote Republican.
Monday, May 5, 2008
A Nation of Men, Not Laws
One of the most famous quotes about American justice is attributed to John Adams. The subject was the principle of separation of powers, and the occasion was the drafting of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
". . . to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
That phrase has been quoted with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the United States. But does it still hold true? Is America, in the postmodern Age of Rove, still a "government of laws and not of men?"
The answer, sadly and resoundingly, is no.
In fact, if I were told that I had only one sentence to get across the core message of this blog, it would be this: "Our nation in 2008 is ruled by corrupt men (and women) and not the rule of law, and Legal Schnauzer is designed to present irrefutable proof of that sorry state of affairs--in hopes that people of good faith will rise up and do something about it."
How do I know that our nation currently is controlled by corrupt "men" and not the rule of law? Well, any objective and serious student of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi would have to strongly suspect that something is horribly amiss with our justice system.
But I have an advantage over most folks. I don't have to rely on third-person accounts of injustice, of legal wrongs that have befallen "other people."
I've seen it firsthand. I've been a victim of it. And for some reason--I give credit to my background in journalism and to a wife who is more fearless than I ever imagined--I had the ability, support, and determination I needed to go to a law library and figure out exactly how I was being cheated. And that knowledge, discovered with the help of some wonderful law librarians, forms the foundation for the story that unfolds on this blog.
My hope is that the public at large will take my efforts--and the efforts of folks like Scott Horton, Larisa Alexandrovna, Glynn Wilson, and more--and become alarmed enough to say, "Enough!" As Don Siegelman has correctly pointed out, this is not about my case, his case, or any particular case. It's about our country--and what it stands for.
By the way, what does America stand for? If you did a nationwide survey, I bet the number one answer would be "freedom." I bet the number two answer would be "justice." But here's the key: If number two is tarnished and warped, number one is no longer a possible. Freedom cannot thrive without justice. Just ask Don Siegelman, who lost his freedom for nine months because of a corrupt and dysfunctional justice system. Just ask the three defendants in the Paul Minor case, who are currently imprisoned for crimes the case record shows they did not commit.
People who care about justice have a tough road ahead. Many Americans have forgotten, or never bothered to learn, what the words of John Adams really mean.
Consider my case, where Republican authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, are threatening to unlawfully seize and auction my house--all to settle a "judgment" in the amount of $1,525. I've had more than one person, people who are smart enough to know better, say something like: "Well, you've got a judgment against you, and there's nothing you can do about it. You have to pay the judgment or you're going to lose your house."
John Adams isn't around to say it, so I will say it for him: "Rubbish!"
The "judgment" against me was signed by a "man," Shelby County Circuit Judge G. Dan Reeves. His signature is the only thing that gives the judgment even a hint of authority. But that authority is not grounded in the law. The record in my case is filled with proof that Dan Reeves is corrupt, a corrupt "man." He and his predecessor on my case, Presiding Judge J. Michael Joiner, are glorified rapists. They raped the law repeatedly and viciously.
Corrupt "men" like Reeves and Joiner, thank God, have limited authority in our system of government. They are constrained by the law.
And what does the law say in my case? It says, more than anything, that the lawsuit against me had to be dismissed (summary judgment) multiple times--that the case could not go to trial. And if you take summary judgment out of the equation and consider just the trial itself, the law says no finding could be made against me there, either.
We will be providing many details later to drive home these points. But for now, our key point is this: Under the rule of law, there is no judgment against me that could threaten my house; under the rule of men, there is a judgment against me that is being used to threaten my house.
Which one prevails? John Adams would have a ready answer. So would Thomas Paine, who wrote the following in Common Sense:
". . . the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
". . . to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
That phrase has been quoted with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the United States. But does it still hold true? Is America, in the postmodern Age of Rove, still a "government of laws and not of men?"
The answer, sadly and resoundingly, is no.
In fact, if I were told that I had only one sentence to get across the core message of this blog, it would be this: "Our nation in 2008 is ruled by corrupt men (and women) and not the rule of law, and Legal Schnauzer is designed to present irrefutable proof of that sorry state of affairs--in hopes that people of good faith will rise up and do something about it."
How do I know that our nation currently is controlled by corrupt "men" and not the rule of law? Well, any objective and serious student of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi would have to strongly suspect that something is horribly amiss with our justice system.
But I have an advantage over most folks. I don't have to rely on third-person accounts of injustice, of legal wrongs that have befallen "other people."
I've seen it firsthand. I've been a victim of it. And for some reason--I give credit to my background in journalism and to a wife who is more fearless than I ever imagined--I had the ability, support, and determination I needed to go to a law library and figure out exactly how I was being cheated. And that knowledge, discovered with the help of some wonderful law librarians, forms the foundation for the story that unfolds on this blog.
My hope is that the public at large will take my efforts--and the efforts of folks like Scott Horton, Larisa Alexandrovna, Glynn Wilson, and more--and become alarmed enough to say, "Enough!" As Don Siegelman has correctly pointed out, this is not about my case, his case, or any particular case. It's about our country--and what it stands for.
By the way, what does America stand for? If you did a nationwide survey, I bet the number one answer would be "freedom." I bet the number two answer would be "justice." But here's the key: If number two is tarnished and warped, number one is no longer a possible. Freedom cannot thrive without justice. Just ask Don Siegelman, who lost his freedom for nine months because of a corrupt and dysfunctional justice system. Just ask the three defendants in the Paul Minor case, who are currently imprisoned for crimes the case record shows they did not commit.
People who care about justice have a tough road ahead. Many Americans have forgotten, or never bothered to learn, what the words of John Adams really mean.
Consider my case, where Republican authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, are threatening to unlawfully seize and auction my house--all to settle a "judgment" in the amount of $1,525. I've had more than one person, people who are smart enough to know better, say something like: "Well, you've got a judgment against you, and there's nothing you can do about it. You have to pay the judgment or you're going to lose your house."
John Adams isn't around to say it, so I will say it for him: "Rubbish!"
The "judgment" against me was signed by a "man," Shelby County Circuit Judge G. Dan Reeves. His signature is the only thing that gives the judgment even a hint of authority. But that authority is not grounded in the law. The record in my case is filled with proof that Dan Reeves is corrupt, a corrupt "man." He and his predecessor on my case, Presiding Judge J. Michael Joiner, are glorified rapists. They raped the law repeatedly and viciously.
Corrupt "men" like Reeves and Joiner, thank God, have limited authority in our system of government. They are constrained by the law.
And what does the law say in my case? It says, more than anything, that the lawsuit against me had to be dismissed (summary judgment) multiple times--that the case could not go to trial. And if you take summary judgment out of the equation and consider just the trial itself, the law says no finding could be made against me there, either.
We will be providing many details later to drive home these points. But for now, our key point is this: Under the rule of law, there is no judgment against me that could threaten my house; under the rule of men, there is a judgment against me that is being used to threaten my house.
Which one prevails? John Adams would have a ready answer. So would Thomas Paine, who wrote the following in Common Sense:
". . . the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
National Magazine Focusing on Justice
I spoke at length about three weeks ago with a contributing editor for a major national magazine. He was interested in background material on the Don Siegelman prosecution, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own situation with Alabama Republican authorities threatening to unlawfully seize my house.
My contact, we'll call him "CE" (short for contributing editor), said the magazine almost certainly is going to do a major piece on the Siegelman case. Looks like the writer will be a prominent journalist, who recently released an acclaimed book--a critical one--on the Bush presidency.
The magazine's plans regarding the Minor case and my case are less clear. Sounds like CE is interested in doing a piece on the Minor case, perhaps with a sidebar on my situation. But nothing is firm about that.
I told him that I think the Minor case is every bit as egregious as the Siegelman case, maybe worse, and has not received nearly the attention it deserves. And of course, I couldn't resist pointing out that my case shows that the Republican hierarchy does not just go after the powerful (Siegelman) or the wealthy (Minor). They also go after regular folks like me, particularly when we have the gall to start a blog that unveils their corrupt practices for all the world to see.
CE, by the way, is a major figure in journalism. He has written four books and had two magazine articles turned into motion pictures. His latest book focuses on regular citizens who stand up against corporate and governmental wrongdoing that led to environmental degradation in their state. If you've read Jonathan Harr's A Civil Action, or seen the movie starring John Travolta, you would definitely want to check out CE's latest book.
Hope to hear more soon about the magazine's plans, and I'll try to keep Schnauzer readers posted.
My contact, we'll call him "CE" (short for contributing editor), said the magazine almost certainly is going to do a major piece on the Siegelman case. Looks like the writer will be a prominent journalist, who recently released an acclaimed book--a critical one--on the Bush presidency.
The magazine's plans regarding the Minor case and my case are less clear. Sounds like CE is interested in doing a piece on the Minor case, perhaps with a sidebar on my situation. But nothing is firm about that.
I told him that I think the Minor case is every bit as egregious as the Siegelman case, maybe worse, and has not received nearly the attention it deserves. And of course, I couldn't resist pointing out that my case shows that the Republican hierarchy does not just go after the powerful (Siegelman) or the wealthy (Minor). They also go after regular folks like me, particularly when we have the gall to start a blog that unveils their corrupt practices for all the world to see.
CE, by the way, is a major figure in journalism. He has written four books and had two magazine articles turned into motion pictures. His latest book focuses on regular citizens who stand up against corporate and governmental wrongdoing that led to environmental degradation in their state. If you've read Jonathan Harr's A Civil Action, or seen the movie starring John Travolta, you would definitely want to check out CE's latest book.
Hope to hear more soon about the magazine's plans, and I'll try to keep Schnauzer readers posted.
Some Humans Ain't Human
A few weeks back, I proposed Gunslinger by John Fogerty as our official theme song here at Legal Schnauzer.
Gunslinger is a meditation on the need for justice in our broken, postmodern America. And Fogerty makes the point that justice won't come easily, and those who seek justice are going to have to be tough enough to fight for it.
Gunslinger will always resonate with us. But I think we have room for more than one theme song. And I recently discovered another, thanks to a coworker who is a John Prine fan. Prine's song is called Some Humans Ain't Human, and it gets right to the heart of the issues we raise here at Legal Schnauzer.
Experience has taught me that whenever you see injustice, or evil, or both, you can rest assured that at least one really crappy human being--and probably more than one--is behind it.
Prine, like Fogerty, has been around a long time and written a lot of great stuff. But this one really hits home for me. You can check out the lyrics here.
Let's enjoy Prine performing Some Humans Ain't Human live:
Gunslinger is a meditation on the need for justice in our broken, postmodern America. And Fogerty makes the point that justice won't come easily, and those who seek justice are going to have to be tough enough to fight for it.
Gunslinger will always resonate with us. But I think we have room for more than one theme song. And I recently discovered another, thanks to a coworker who is a John Prine fan. Prine's song is called Some Humans Ain't Human, and it gets right to the heart of the issues we raise here at Legal Schnauzer.
Experience has taught me that whenever you see injustice, or evil, or both, you can rest assured that at least one really crappy human being--and probably more than one--is behind it.
Prine, like Fogerty, has been around a long time and written a lot of great stuff. But this one really hits home for me. You can check out the lyrics here.
Let's enjoy Prine performing Some Humans Ain't Human live:
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Date Looms With the Jack Booted Thugs
So many state and national justice-related stories have been breaking lately that we have pretty much ignored my own story of legal travail.
But much is happening on that front, and we will keep Legal Schnauzer readers up to date. After all, my story is a "regular guy in civil court" version of what has happened to well known people like Don Siegelman and Paul Minor in criminal court. And as we have shown, many of the Republican operatives who have been connected to the Siegelman case also have connections to my case.
So what is going on with efforts by GOP authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, to unlawfully seize and auction my house? Well, they are still at it. They had a slight error in their first notice of levy and resulting the ad that they are required by law to run in a general circulation newspaper--they had someone else's house listed for auction.
I'm not making this up, folks. In their haste to threaten my house, which is a thinly veiled effort to get me to quit writing this blog, the mental giants who run Shelby County incorrectly gave a wrong mapbook description of my property. I conducted a little research and discovered that the property incorrectly described actually exists. In fact, it belongs to some folks who reside one street over from by wife and me--in the same spot on their street as we occupy on our street.
Wonder if those folks got calls about their house being up for "auction." Wonder how those folks reacted to that news. Did someone get reamed out pretty good for this clerical error? (Hah!)
Anyway, a new ad is running, stating that my house is to be auctioned on the courthouse steps at noon on May 12. You can check it out here.
For good measure, here is the text of the ad. Guess they got the description right this time. But as we will show in upcoming posts, that's the only thing they've gotten right:
LEGAL NOTICE
SHERIFF'S SALE
********
By virtue of Writ of Execution issued out of District Court of Shelby County, Alabama, and to me directed whereby I am commanded to make the amount of a certain judgment recently obtained against Roger Shuler in favor of Mike McGarity out of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Roger Shuler, I have levied on the following property, to wit:Lot 4 block 16 Broken Bow South book 11 page 82.
Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, all the right, title and interest of the above named Roger Shuler to the above described property, on the 12th day of May, 2008, at 12:00 noon, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.
Dated at Columbiana this 9th day of April, 2008./s/ Chris Curry, Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama
Shelby County Reporter April 23, 30 and May 7, 2008
SALE/SHULER
Apr 29, 2008
By the way, if you want to get an idea of how well the Bush economy is going, check out the legal notices in the Shelby County Reporter, the weekly newspaper in my neck of the woods. The legal notices, which can be viewed here, include the bogus sheriff's sale notice above. But they also include row after row of foreclosure sales. And keep in mind, Shelby is the wealthiest and most Republican county in Alabama. Can only imagine how well the economy is clicking in less prosperous Alabama counties.
Wonder how many of these folks in foreclosure voted for Bush--twice. Wonder how many of them plan to vote for McCain. Wonder if any of them have taken the time to consider the connections between their financial distress and the policies of the GOP president they helped to "elect."
Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it, that McCain leads by 19 percent over either Democratic Party presidential candidate in the most recent survey of Alabama voters?
We reap what we sow.
But much is happening on that front, and we will keep Legal Schnauzer readers up to date. After all, my story is a "regular guy in civil court" version of what has happened to well known people like Don Siegelman and Paul Minor in criminal court. And as we have shown, many of the Republican operatives who have been connected to the Siegelman case also have connections to my case.
So what is going on with efforts by GOP authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, to unlawfully seize and auction my house? Well, they are still at it. They had a slight error in their first notice of levy and resulting the ad that they are required by law to run in a general circulation newspaper--they had someone else's house listed for auction.
I'm not making this up, folks. In their haste to threaten my house, which is a thinly veiled effort to get me to quit writing this blog, the mental giants who run Shelby County incorrectly gave a wrong mapbook description of my property. I conducted a little research and discovered that the property incorrectly described actually exists. In fact, it belongs to some folks who reside one street over from by wife and me--in the same spot on their street as we occupy on our street.
Wonder if those folks got calls about their house being up for "auction." Wonder how those folks reacted to that news. Did someone get reamed out pretty good for this clerical error? (Hah!)
Anyway, a new ad is running, stating that my house is to be auctioned on the courthouse steps at noon on May 12. You can check it out here.
For good measure, here is the text of the ad. Guess they got the description right this time. But as we will show in upcoming posts, that's the only thing they've gotten right:
LEGAL NOTICE
SHERIFF'S SALE
********
By virtue of Writ of Execution issued out of District Court of Shelby County, Alabama, and to me directed whereby I am commanded to make the amount of a certain judgment recently obtained against Roger Shuler in favor of Mike McGarity out of the goods, chattels, lands and tenements of the said Roger Shuler, I have levied on the following property, to wit:Lot 4 block 16 Broken Bow South book 11 page 82.
Therefore, according to said command, I shall expose for sale at public auction, all the right, title and interest of the above named Roger Shuler to the above described property, on the 12th day of May, 2008, at 12:00 noon, on the front steps of the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana, Alabama.
Dated at Columbiana this 9th day of April, 2008./s/ Chris Curry, Sheriff of Shelby County, Alabama
Shelby County Reporter April 23, 30 and May 7, 2008
SALE/SHULER
Apr 29, 2008
By the way, if you want to get an idea of how well the Bush economy is going, check out the legal notices in the Shelby County Reporter, the weekly newspaper in my neck of the woods. The legal notices, which can be viewed here, include the bogus sheriff's sale notice above. But they also include row after row of foreclosure sales. And keep in mind, Shelby is the wealthiest and most Republican county in Alabama. Can only imagine how well the economy is clicking in less prosperous Alabama counties.
Wonder how many of these folks in foreclosure voted for Bush--twice. Wonder how many of them plan to vote for McCain. Wonder if any of them have taken the time to consider the connections between their financial distress and the policies of the GOP president they helped to "elect."
Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it, that McCain leads by 19 percent over either Democratic Party presidential candidate in the most recent survey of Alabama voters?
We reap what we sow.
Love Connection? Abramoff and the D.C. Madam
Recent days have brought two major justice-related stories. Could they be connected? Let's take a look.
First came a guilty plea from former Justice Department official Robert Coughlin on conflict-of-interest charges connected to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Then came word that Deborah Jeane Palfrey, better known as the D.C. Madam, had apparently committed suicide at her mother's home in Tarpon Springs, Florida.
In Legal Times splendid account of the Coughlin plea, an e-mail exchange between two Abramoff lobbyists is cited. The lobbyists are Kevin Ring and Padgett Wilson, and Ring is telling Wilson about a celebration to honor Justice Department officials who helped bring home $16 million for an Abramoff client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. "Come to the show, baby," Couglin says. Here is how Wilson responds:
"Are there any tickets left?" asked Wilson, now director of governmental affairs for Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue. He then submitted: "And as for those DOJ staffers, those guys should get anything they want for the rest of the time they are in office -- opening day tickets, Skins v. Giants, oriental massages, hookers, whatever."
So there you have it: One Abramoff associate indicating to another that prostitutes are to be part of the pay off for Justice Department officials who further the sleazy Team Abramoff cause.
Then a few days later, we learn that Ms. Palfrey, who ran one of the most well known high-end prostitution services in the D.C. area, is found hanging in a shed behind her mother's mobile home.
Does this prove that Palfrey's death was something other than a suicide, which is the official version from Tampa-area law enforcement? No. But could a reasonable mind take these two events and ask, "Is this one heck of a coincidence--the public learns that Abramoff lackies evidently were plying Justice Department officials with hookers and then a few days later one of the D.C. areas most renowned practitioners of the prostitution trade is found dead?"
Time magazine was first out with a story saying Palfrey had discussed the possibility of suicide with a writer named Dan Moldea. "She wasn't going to jail, she told me that very clearly," Moldea said. "She told me she would commit suicide."
But Moldea's account does not square with Palfrey's own words. One Web site presents audio of Palfrey saying she would not commit suicide and that she probably would be a victim of a murder made to look like a suicide.
The Coughlin case also brings to mind the case of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who resigned after getting nabbed in a prostitution-related investigation. Is anyone investigating the possibility that Team Abramoff, and their "friendlies" in the Justice Department, violated federal law regarding the transport of prostitutes over state lines? That's apparently what got Spitzer into doo-doo. What about folks in the Justice Department, the very organization that led the Spitzer organization?
A major theme of the Bush Justice Department scandal has to do with double standards. Actions that become federal crimes when "committed" by a Democrat are ignored when committed by Republicans, or people associated with GOP supporters.
Could a serious investigation into the Coughlin case and the D.C. madam suicide unearth evidence of a particularly noxious double standard?
First came a guilty plea from former Justice Department official Robert Coughlin on conflict-of-interest charges connected to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Then came word that Deborah Jeane Palfrey, better known as the D.C. Madam, had apparently committed suicide at her mother's home in Tarpon Springs, Florida.
In Legal Times splendid account of the Coughlin plea, an e-mail exchange between two Abramoff lobbyists is cited. The lobbyists are Kevin Ring and Padgett Wilson, and Ring is telling Wilson about a celebration to honor Justice Department officials who helped bring home $16 million for an Abramoff client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. "Come to the show, baby," Couglin says. Here is how Wilson responds:
"Are there any tickets left?" asked Wilson, now director of governmental affairs for Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue. He then submitted: "And as for those DOJ staffers, those guys should get anything they want for the rest of the time they are in office -- opening day tickets, Skins v. Giants, oriental massages, hookers, whatever."
So there you have it: One Abramoff associate indicating to another that prostitutes are to be part of the pay off for Justice Department officials who further the sleazy Team Abramoff cause.
Then a few days later, we learn that Ms. Palfrey, who ran one of the most well known high-end prostitution services in the D.C. area, is found hanging in a shed behind her mother's mobile home.
Does this prove that Palfrey's death was something other than a suicide, which is the official version from Tampa-area law enforcement? No. But could a reasonable mind take these two events and ask, "Is this one heck of a coincidence--the public learns that Abramoff lackies evidently were plying Justice Department officials with hookers and then a few days later one of the D.C. areas most renowned practitioners of the prostitution trade is found dead?"
Time magazine was first out with a story saying Palfrey had discussed the possibility of suicide with a writer named Dan Moldea. "She wasn't going to jail, she told me that very clearly," Moldea said. "She told me she would commit suicide."
But Moldea's account does not square with Palfrey's own words. One Web site presents audio of Palfrey saying she would not commit suicide and that she probably would be a victim of a murder made to look like a suicide.
The Coughlin case also brings to mind the case of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who resigned after getting nabbed in a prostitution-related investigation. Is anyone investigating the possibility that Team Abramoff, and their "friendlies" in the Justice Department, violated federal law regarding the transport of prostitutes over state lines? That's apparently what got Spitzer into doo-doo. What about folks in the Justice Department, the very organization that led the Spitzer organization?
A major theme of the Bush Justice Department scandal has to do with double standards. Actions that become federal crimes when "committed" by a Democrat are ignored when committed by Republicans, or people associated with GOP supporters.
Could a serious investigation into the Coughlin case and the D.C. madam suicide unearth evidence of a particularly noxious double standard?
Here is something else to keep in mind regarding the D.C. madam death: Hanging is a fairly unusual form of suicide for a woman. According to statistics at suicide.org, the two most common methods of suicide for women, by far, are poisons (overdosing, etc.) at 37.8 percent and firearms at 32.4 percent. Hanging, strangulation, and suffocation are grouped together and come in third at 19.7 percent. But if we can assume that true hanging makes up only one-third of that group, it seems that only a little more than 6 percent of female suicides use the method found in the D.C. Madam case.
Note: In our first post on the Coughlin matter, we noted that one news source had identified Coughlin as a member of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and that he had been involved in the Paul Minor prosecution in Mississippi. A source close to the Minor case tell us that the quote that led to that report was misunderstood. Our source says Coughlin apparently was not part of the Public Integrity Section and had no role in the Minor prosecution.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Good Day For Siegelman, Good Day for Justice
Don Siegelman recently spent nine months in federal prison, so it is safe to say the former Alabama governor has had a few crummy days in the past year or so.
But yesterday was not one of them. In fact, Siegelman--now released from prison pending appeal of his conviction on corruption-related charges--had a banner day. And in the Age of Rove, a good day for Don Siegelman almost certainly means a step forward for America's beleaguered justice system.
First came word that federal officials admitted they screwed up in restricting travel for Siegelman. And how did they screw up? Probation officials in Alabama and Louisiana mistakenly applied rules governing offenders who are on probation. But Siegelman is not on probation; he is free on bond pending appeal. "Oops, our bad," justice officials said. More specifically, a spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts said: "They made an honest mistake."
Right, and no one higher up the line--say, a certain judge or prosecutor--had anything to do with it. This illustrates a point I've seen time and again in my battle with corrupt Republicans in Alabama's state courts. Corruption from the top of a justice system inevitably filters down to lower levels. If you find a corrupt judge at a state-court level, you are almost sure to find a corrupt district attorney, a corrupt county clerk, a corrupt sheriff, and so on.
When a justice system becomes infested with corruption, folks at the lower levels no longer serve the public--they serve the corrupt honchos above them. And since the small fry enjoy their nice government salaries and benefits, they aren't about to buck a system that is treating them pretty darn good--even if it means some people are screwed criminally, ruined financially, cheated civilly, etc.
Experience tells me this was not an "honest mistake" by probation officials in Siegelman's case. If Siegelman had not squawked loudly--with it amplified by his supporters and a semi-alert press--these unlawful travel restrictions would have stayed in place. In other words, the bad guys would have gotten away with it.
In my case, I don't have vocal supporters, and the press easily ignores my situation--even though my case is hardly isolated; the number of people who get cheated in Alabama state courts probably is staggering. So state court officials are likely to get away with just about anything when it comes to low-profile folks like me--up to and including, in my case, unlawfully seizing and auctioning my house.
But back to Siegelman. The former governor got more good news, in the form of an excellent column titled "What Karl Rove Fears Most" (love that headline!) by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post. There is so much good stuff in Froomkin's column, it's hard to know where to begin. Basically, it's a splendid overview of recent events regarding Rove and his slithering efforts to avoid testifying about his role in the Siegelman case and other Justice Department shenanigans. It's a must read, and it shows that Siegelman's statements about the political nature of his prosecution are resonating with the national press. The Alabama press remains brain dead, but I'm not sure that matters anymore. Siegelman is expertly going over their heads and proving just how irrelevant corrupt Alabama news outfits really are.
Finally, Siegelman received a standing ovation, and supportive words from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, at last night's annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Birmingham. Pelosi heaped a heavy dose of criticism on President Bush:
"He has brought a war without end, a budget awash in red ink, a looming recession, assault after assault after assault on our Constitution, politicizing the Justice Department, and I'm so glad that Congress is looking into that--and I'm so proud we are joined by Gov. Siegelman."
With that, Siegelman stood and received a long and loud standing ovation from the crowd.
While Pelosi had harsh words for Bush last night, more than a few Democrats say she has not been aggressive enough in countering the White House, especially on matters of justice.
Glynn Wilson gave voice to those concerns in a strongly worded piece at Locust Fork News.
But yesterday was not one of them. In fact, Siegelman--now released from prison pending appeal of his conviction on corruption-related charges--had a banner day. And in the Age of Rove, a good day for Don Siegelman almost certainly means a step forward for America's beleaguered justice system.
First came word that federal officials admitted they screwed up in restricting travel for Siegelman. And how did they screw up? Probation officials in Alabama and Louisiana mistakenly applied rules governing offenders who are on probation. But Siegelman is not on probation; he is free on bond pending appeal. "Oops, our bad," justice officials said. More specifically, a spokeswoman for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts said: "They made an honest mistake."
Right, and no one higher up the line--say, a certain judge or prosecutor--had anything to do with it. This illustrates a point I've seen time and again in my battle with corrupt Republicans in Alabama's state courts. Corruption from the top of a justice system inevitably filters down to lower levels. If you find a corrupt judge at a state-court level, you are almost sure to find a corrupt district attorney, a corrupt county clerk, a corrupt sheriff, and so on.
When a justice system becomes infested with corruption, folks at the lower levels no longer serve the public--they serve the corrupt honchos above them. And since the small fry enjoy their nice government salaries and benefits, they aren't about to buck a system that is treating them pretty darn good--even if it means some people are screwed criminally, ruined financially, cheated civilly, etc.
Experience tells me this was not an "honest mistake" by probation officials in Siegelman's case. If Siegelman had not squawked loudly--with it amplified by his supporters and a semi-alert press--these unlawful travel restrictions would have stayed in place. In other words, the bad guys would have gotten away with it.
In my case, I don't have vocal supporters, and the press easily ignores my situation--even though my case is hardly isolated; the number of people who get cheated in Alabama state courts probably is staggering. So state court officials are likely to get away with just about anything when it comes to low-profile folks like me--up to and including, in my case, unlawfully seizing and auctioning my house.
But back to Siegelman. The former governor got more good news, in the form of an excellent column titled "What Karl Rove Fears Most" (love that headline!) by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post. There is so much good stuff in Froomkin's column, it's hard to know where to begin. Basically, it's a splendid overview of recent events regarding Rove and his slithering efforts to avoid testifying about his role in the Siegelman case and other Justice Department shenanigans. It's a must read, and it shows that Siegelman's statements about the political nature of his prosecution are resonating with the national press. The Alabama press remains brain dead, but I'm not sure that matters anymore. Siegelman is expertly going over their heads and proving just how irrelevant corrupt Alabama news outfits really are.
Finally, Siegelman received a standing ovation, and supportive words from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, at last night's annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Birmingham. Pelosi heaped a heavy dose of criticism on President Bush:
"He has brought a war without end, a budget awash in red ink, a looming recession, assault after assault after assault on our Constitution, politicizing the Justice Department, and I'm so glad that Congress is looking into that--and I'm so proud we are joined by Gov. Siegelman."
With that, Siegelman stood and received a long and loud standing ovation from the crowd.
While Pelosi had harsh words for Bush last night, more than a few Democrats say she has not been aggressive enough in countering the White House, especially on matters of justice.
Glynn Wilson gave voice to those concerns in a strongly worded piece at Locust Fork News.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Siegelman and the GOP's "Umbrella of Protection"
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman has been featured on recent radio interviews with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Thom Hartmann, and both conversations produced a number of quotes worth remembering.
The Kennedy interview is about 30 minutes long and can be viewed here. The Hartmann interview can be heard, and a transcript read, through links posted here. I encourage readers to catch both interviews.
In the Kennedy interview, two segments--one near the start and one near the end--stood out for me.
First, Siegelman talks about what he calls the "umbrella of protection" that seemingly allows Republican prosecutors, judges, and political operatives to violate the law without fear of being held accountable.
This is a critical point. It's this umbrella of protection that allows Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, to lie under oath in an employment-related case and get away with it. With the Bush Justice Department providing an umbrella of protection, Martin knew she could get away with it.
This umbrella also allows U.S. Judge Henry Wingate to make blatantly unlawful rulings regarding jury instructions and evidence in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Wingate knew no one at Bush Justice would hold him accountable. In fact, chances are, the Bushies were encouraging him to act unlawfully.
During the seven-plus years that I've fought corrupt GOP judges and lawyers in Alabama state courts, my wife and I have frequently shaken our heads in disbelief at some of the blatantly corrupt behavior we've witnessed. "These people aren't even good crooks," we've said. "Their corruption is so obvious, and they make no attempt to conceal it. They have no fear of getting caught."
Why is that? Siegelman hits the nail on the head with his statement about an umbrella of protection. And who holds this umbrella for GOP evildoers? Well, the Bushies at Justice are one obvious answer. But large segments of America's corporate-owned press also are umbrella carriers.
In Southern states like Alabama and Mississippi, many newspapers lean to the right philosophically, and they aren't about to uncover wrongdoing by conservatives. And the rare paper that is center or left of center seems to be too cowed to do anything but occasionally tsk, tsk on the editorial page about GOP corruption. I've yet to see even a moderate newspaper unleash an investigative reporter to get to the bottom of the GOP sewer that covers most of the South.
Siegelman's other key comment comes near the end, when he says the threat of GOP corruption is not limited to powerful folks like himself. "If they can do this to me, what can they do to people who don't have the resources I've had to fight back?" Siegelman says.
That quote goes right to the heart of our story here at Legal Schnauzer. I'm not powerful like Don Siegelman or wealthy like Paul Minor. But Republican authorities in Alabama are threatening to unlawfully seize and sell my house because I'm writing on this blog about their corrupt practices.
Siegelman tells RFK Jr. about being almost broke from the expense of fighting a corrupt justice system. My wife and I can identify with that. Our once solid financial picture is pretty much in ruins, thanks to corrupt Alabama judges and lawyers, and now they are trying to take our house, too.
I've never met Don Siegelman, but I admire the fact that he is not focusing only on his own experience with "justice" in the Age of Rove. Given the hell Siegelman has been through over the past five or six years, who could blame Siegelman--now that he has the public's attention--if he spoke only about his own case. But he's painted a bigger picture, and I for one, certainly appreciate it.
In fact, it reminds me why I'm a Democrat. For all of their flaws, Democrats at least tend to think about something besides themselves. They don't just say, "Well, I'm a rugged individualist, and the hell with everybody else."
It's that expansive mindset that makes Democrats so much better than Republicans when it comes to governance. It's the opposite mindset--a tendency to appeal to voters' selfishness--that makes Republicans so good at elections.
The Hartmann interview also is packed with interesting stuff. Here's Siegelman about why the mainstream press, and many citizens, have ignored the story:
The Kennedy interview is about 30 minutes long and can be viewed here. The Hartmann interview can be heard, and a transcript read, through links posted here. I encourage readers to catch both interviews.
In the Kennedy interview, two segments--one near the start and one near the end--stood out for me.
First, Siegelman talks about what he calls the "umbrella of protection" that seemingly allows Republican prosecutors, judges, and political operatives to violate the law without fear of being held accountable.
This is a critical point. It's this umbrella of protection that allows Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, to lie under oath in an employment-related case and get away with it. With the Bush Justice Department providing an umbrella of protection, Martin knew she could get away with it.
This umbrella also allows U.S. Judge Henry Wingate to make blatantly unlawful rulings regarding jury instructions and evidence in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi. Wingate knew no one at Bush Justice would hold him accountable. In fact, chances are, the Bushies were encouraging him to act unlawfully.
During the seven-plus years that I've fought corrupt GOP judges and lawyers in Alabama state courts, my wife and I have frequently shaken our heads in disbelief at some of the blatantly corrupt behavior we've witnessed. "These people aren't even good crooks," we've said. "Their corruption is so obvious, and they make no attempt to conceal it. They have no fear of getting caught."
Why is that? Siegelman hits the nail on the head with his statement about an umbrella of protection. And who holds this umbrella for GOP evildoers? Well, the Bushies at Justice are one obvious answer. But large segments of America's corporate-owned press also are umbrella carriers.
In Southern states like Alabama and Mississippi, many newspapers lean to the right philosophically, and they aren't about to uncover wrongdoing by conservatives. And the rare paper that is center or left of center seems to be too cowed to do anything but occasionally tsk, tsk on the editorial page about GOP corruption. I've yet to see even a moderate newspaper unleash an investigative reporter to get to the bottom of the GOP sewer that covers most of the South.
Siegelman's other key comment comes near the end, when he says the threat of GOP corruption is not limited to powerful folks like himself. "If they can do this to me, what can they do to people who don't have the resources I've had to fight back?" Siegelman says.
That quote goes right to the heart of our story here at Legal Schnauzer. I'm not powerful like Don Siegelman or wealthy like Paul Minor. But Republican authorities in Alabama are threatening to unlawfully seize and sell my house because I'm writing on this blog about their corrupt practices.
Siegelman tells RFK Jr. about being almost broke from the expense of fighting a corrupt justice system. My wife and I can identify with that. Our once solid financial picture is pretty much in ruins, thanks to corrupt Alabama judges and lawyers, and now they are trying to take our house, too.
I've never met Don Siegelman, but I admire the fact that he is not focusing only on his own experience with "justice" in the Age of Rove. Given the hell Siegelman has been through over the past five or six years, who could blame Siegelman--now that he has the public's attention--if he spoke only about his own case. But he's painted a bigger picture, and I for one, certainly appreciate it.
In fact, it reminds me why I'm a Democrat. For all of their flaws, Democrats at least tend to think about something besides themselves. They don't just say, "Well, I'm a rugged individualist, and the hell with everybody else."
It's that expansive mindset that makes Democrats so much better than Republicans when it comes to governance. It's the opposite mindset--a tendency to appeal to voters' selfishness--that makes Republicans so good at elections.
The Hartmann interview also is packed with interesting stuff. Here's Siegelman about why the mainstream press, and many citizens, have ignored the story:
"Well, I really believe that people just don't want to believe bad things do happen in America. You know, we want to believe that decisions to go to war are made on what . . . is our best national interest, or we want to believe that our justice system works fairly and evenhandedly, that innocent people don't get indicted. We want to believe that our elections, as opposed to the elections of other countries, are conducted fairly and honestly. But, you know, when we take a close look at what is going on, we find that maybe things are awry."
Siegelman's statements about the broad nature of the Bush DOJ scandal are spoken in the finest Democratic tradition. And for that, he deserves our nation's gratitude.
Terror in the Deep South
Has someone been conducting a terror campaign in Alabama and Mississippi against victims of the Bush Justice Department?
Raw Story presents a compelling article today that strongly suggests the answer to that question is yes.
Reporters Larisa Alexandrovna, Muriel Kane, and Lindsay Beyerstein report that people connected to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi have experienced a total of 10 suspicious incidents. The incidents range from burglaries to arson to unexplained fires to vandalism to traffic mishaps.
Some of the incidents have been reported before, but others are new to these schnauzer ears. For example, Montgomery businessman John Goff reported that a $400 sliding-glass window at his office had been smashed. At the time of the vandalism, Goff was the subject of an investigation by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. The investigation came after Goff had filed a lawsuit against Republican Governor Bob Riley, claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin Goff's businesses.
In summer 2003, Paul Minor's office in Biloxi, Mississippi, was broken into. A brick was used to shatter a window, and the intruder took a computer belonging to Minor's secretary and rummaged through files.
Perhaps most fascinating are the details Raw Story provides about the experiences of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson. We have known that Simpson experienced a house fire and a mysterious auto incident in the days before she came forward with information about the political motivations behind the Siegelman case. But Raw Story tells us that:
* At the time of the fire, Simpson was talking with Siegelman's attorneys about what she had heard on a conference phone call involving GOP operative Bill Canary. On February 15, 2007, she sent a letter to Art Leach, an attorney for Siegelman codefendant Richard Scrushy. Six days later, on February 21, a house belonging to Simpson in Rainsville caught fire. About 30 percent of the structure was damaged, and Simpson was not home at the time. No formal investigation of the fire has taken place.
* Less than two weeks after the fire, Simpson's car was apparently forced off the road. The incident was caused by a motorist making an improper lane change into her lane. A police report identifies the driver of the other vehicle as Mark Roden of Rainbow City, Alabama. Roden told an officer on the scene that he was an officer with the Attalla Police Department; Roden then was allowed to leave without a citation. A city clerk in Attalla confirmed that a Mark Roden had worked as a police officer, but she could provide no additional information. Calls left for the police chief were not returned. Repeated attempts to reach Roden at the residence listed on the accident report have been unsuccessful.
As usual, it takes a news organization that is national in scope to break new ground on the Siegelman and Minor cases. Any chance a reporter from a mainstream news outfit will follow up?
Consider just a few of the possible questions:
* Why has no investigation been done on the fire at Jill Simpson's home? Who should be responsible for conducting an investigation?
* Who in the heck is Mark Roden and why does he supposedly no longer work for the Attalla Police Department? Why does the police chief not return phone calls from the media? Why was Roden not cited for the traffic incident? Where does Mark Roden work now and where did he work before?
* Why has no serious investigation been conducted on a fire that was clearly arson at the office of former Mississippi judge John Whitfield. Why did local authorities confiscate documents that survived the blaze, particularly those that pertained to Whitfield's defense in the Minor case?
Raw Story presents a compelling article today that strongly suggests the answer to that question is yes.
Reporters Larisa Alexandrovna, Muriel Kane, and Lindsay Beyerstein report that people connected to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi have experienced a total of 10 suspicious incidents. The incidents range from burglaries to arson to unexplained fires to vandalism to traffic mishaps.
Some of the incidents have been reported before, but others are new to these schnauzer ears. For example, Montgomery businessman John Goff reported that a $400 sliding-glass window at his office had been smashed. At the time of the vandalism, Goff was the subject of an investigation by U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. The investigation came after Goff had filed a lawsuit against Republican Governor Bob Riley, claiming that Riley and others had conspired to ruin Goff's businesses.
In summer 2003, Paul Minor's office in Biloxi, Mississippi, was broken into. A brick was used to shatter a window, and the intruder took a computer belonging to Minor's secretary and rummaged through files.
Perhaps most fascinating are the details Raw Story provides about the experiences of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson. We have known that Simpson experienced a house fire and a mysterious auto incident in the days before she came forward with information about the political motivations behind the Siegelman case. But Raw Story tells us that:
* At the time of the fire, Simpson was talking with Siegelman's attorneys about what she had heard on a conference phone call involving GOP operative Bill Canary. On February 15, 2007, she sent a letter to Art Leach, an attorney for Siegelman codefendant Richard Scrushy. Six days later, on February 21, a house belonging to Simpson in Rainsville caught fire. About 30 percent of the structure was damaged, and Simpson was not home at the time. No formal investigation of the fire has taken place.
* Less than two weeks after the fire, Simpson's car was apparently forced off the road. The incident was caused by a motorist making an improper lane change into her lane. A police report identifies the driver of the other vehicle as Mark Roden of Rainbow City, Alabama. Roden told an officer on the scene that he was an officer with the Attalla Police Department; Roden then was allowed to leave without a citation. A city clerk in Attalla confirmed that a Mark Roden had worked as a police officer, but she could provide no additional information. Calls left for the police chief were not returned. Repeated attempts to reach Roden at the residence listed on the accident report have been unsuccessful.
As usual, it takes a news organization that is national in scope to break new ground on the Siegelman and Minor cases. Any chance a reporter from a mainstream news outfit will follow up?
Consider just a few of the possible questions:
* Why has no investigation been done on the fire at Jill Simpson's home? Who should be responsible for conducting an investigation?
* Who in the heck is Mark Roden and why does he supposedly no longer work for the Attalla Police Department? Why does the police chief not return phone calls from the media? Why was Roden not cited for the traffic incident? Where does Mark Roden work now and where did he work before?
* Why has no serious investigation been conducted on a fire that was clearly arson at the office of former Mississippi judge John Whitfield. Why did local authorities confiscate documents that survived the blaze, particularly those that pertained to Whitfield's defense in the Minor case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)