Governor Bob Riley has appointed state finance director Jim Main to an open seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. That means Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, lost out on a position she reportedly wanted in the worst way.
So where will Martin land once the Obama crowd gets around to ousting her from her Bush-appointed role? That should be an intriguing story.
Several theories are floating around.
One has her going after Attorney General Troy King so that she can step into that role when, and if, King is indicted.
Another has her asking the Obama team for a one-year extension so she can lead the prosecution of Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, a black Democrat.
Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, calls Martin perhaps the most corrupt public official in the country and notes that she is not the only Bush "true believer" who wants to stay on under Obama.
We have posited the notion that Martin is going after King only as a threat to Riley, sending the message that "you had better appoint me to the judgeship I want or I will come after you, too."
Martin and Riley have been long-time allies, so Martin undoubtedly knows all kinds of dirt on the governor and his son, Homewood attorney and general wheeler-dealer Rob Riley Jr.
With Martin being investigated by multiple federal agencies, our guess is that Riley considered her too "hot" for the judicial appointment. More importantly, Riley probably figured that such a controversial choice would send unwanted scrutiny his way.
So is Alice Martin seriously miffed at the governor and his son? Our guess is yes. Would she actually open an investigation of the Rileys as her days dwindle down in the Department of Justice?
Now that's an interesting scenario. If Martin pledged to do that, and vowed to come clean on political prosecutions she has brought against Democrats, a fair number of Alabama progressives might push Obama to keep her on for awhile.
And I might be first in line.
In fact, we've already reported about one case where Alice Martin has access to copious loads of dirt about Riley Jr. A physical therapy company owned by Riley, Performance Group LLC, has been hit with allegations that it practices health-care fraud.
Martin refused to intervene in the case not long after it was filed last summer, leaving the complainant hung out to dry. Of course, Martin was all palsy-walsy with the Rileys then, and it seems clear she refused to intervene in an effort to protect Junior.
Partially as a result of Martin's willingness to look the other way, Junior Riley has been able to move forward with his lead role in federal litigation against former leaders of HealthSouth Corp. That case already has generated more than $500 million in settlements, with more to come.
Junior Riley and a horde of some 150 plaintiffs' lawyers figure to bring home serious bacon from their fees in the HealthSouth case. But that little plan could be short-circuited if someone were to look into allegations that Riley himself is engaged in health-care fraud.
Alice Martin knows all about the case against Rob Riley, his partners, and Performance Group LLC. So does a certain Legal Schnauzer.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Is Eric Holder Compromised on Torture and Justice Issues?
A central figure in the Don Siegelman case is calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate possible torture cases, following Attorney General Eric Holder's troubling appearance yesterday before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee.
Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower in the Siegelman case, said questioning by senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) indicates Holder is compromised on torture--and perhaps other justice issues.
"It clearly became apparent why we don't currently have a torture investigation going on in this country, even though everyone pretty much now admits we tortured folks and even killed at least 8 people while torturing them," Simpson said.
Shelby and Alexander asked Holder about the CIA's "rendition" program, which moved terrorism suspects from one country to another. The senators asked Holder how many renditions he authorized during the time he was a deputy to Clinton attorney general Janet Reno.
"Clearly from the line of questioning they are warning him if he goes down the torture path, they will show he was involved with renditioning during the Clinton Era when he worked at the DOJ," Simpson said. "It appears Eric Holder may have conflicts that cause him to consider his self interest, as opposed to the American people and their interest in seeing we follow the rule of law."
Larisa Alexandrovna, at her at-Largely blog, said the questioning from Shelby and Alexander amounted to thinly veiled blackmail:
Simpson says Shelby and Alexander exposed a weakness in Holder and the Obama regime. "The reality is this they have (Holder) over a barrel, and we need an independent prosecutor that will look at everyone involved in the torture mess."
Could Holder be compromised on other issues? Simpson, a former GOP insider who knows how the party operates, suggests the answer is yes.
Here in Alabama, the Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department are front and center. Evidence suggests that former White House strategist Karl Rove was in the middle of that activity. But the Obama White House has pushed for Rove to testify before Congress unsworn, in a non-public setting.
Rove, Simpson says, could have been behind the questioning from Shelby and Alexander. "The Republicans questions suggest they know Mr. Holder was involved with renditioning folks back to his Clinton days. They have clearly researched Mr Holder and probably have used Karl Rove's best opposition researchers on this matter. Therefore we need to get someone who has never participated in renditioning and torture to be the prosecutor.
"Based on the questions yesterday, it is apparent that Mr Holder is not the guy to do that kind of investigation--nor is he the guy who should decide who does the investigation, as Shelby and Alexander have suggested roads may lead even to him.
"Obama should appoint an independent prosecutor, as it is apparent the Republicans believe his attorney general was involved in renditions of a questionable nature."
If Karl Rove & Co. have Holder over a barrel on torture, will that also be the case on political prosecution and other issues? Is Obama's attorney general in a position of weakness?
The answers appear to be yes.
Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower in the Siegelman case, said questioning by senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) indicates Holder is compromised on torture--and perhaps other justice issues.
"It clearly became apparent why we don't currently have a torture investigation going on in this country, even though everyone pretty much now admits we tortured folks and even killed at least 8 people while torturing them," Simpson said.
Shelby and Alexander asked Holder about the CIA's "rendition" program, which moved terrorism suspects from one country to another. The senators asked Holder how many renditions he authorized during the time he was a deputy to Clinton attorney general Janet Reno.
"Clearly from the line of questioning they are warning him if he goes down the torture path, they will show he was involved with renditioning during the Clinton Era when he worked at the DOJ," Simpson said. "It appears Eric Holder may have conflicts that cause him to consider his self interest, as opposed to the American people and their interest in seeing we follow the rule of law."
Larisa Alexandrovna, at her at-Largely blog, said the questioning from Shelby and Alexander amounted to thinly veiled blackmail:
Are Alexander/Shelby saying that if you investigate our (Republican's) current crimes, then we will investigate alleged crimes from nearly a decade ago when you (Democrats') had the presidency? Yes, that is exactly what they are saying.
Simpson says Shelby and Alexander exposed a weakness in Holder and the Obama regime. "The reality is this they have (Holder) over a barrel, and we need an independent prosecutor that will look at everyone involved in the torture mess."
Could Holder be compromised on other issues? Simpson, a former GOP insider who knows how the party operates, suggests the answer is yes.
Here in Alabama, the Siegelman case and other apparent political prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department are front and center. Evidence suggests that former White House strategist Karl Rove was in the middle of that activity. But the Obama White House has pushed for Rove to testify before Congress unsworn, in a non-public setting.
Rove, Simpson says, could have been behind the questioning from Shelby and Alexander. "The Republicans questions suggest they know Mr. Holder was involved with renditioning folks back to his Clinton days. They have clearly researched Mr Holder and probably have used Karl Rove's best opposition researchers on this matter. Therefore we need to get someone who has never participated in renditioning and torture to be the prosecutor.
"Based on the questions yesterday, it is apparent that Mr Holder is not the guy to do that kind of investigation--nor is he the guy who should decide who does the investigation, as Shelby and Alexander have suggested roads may lead even to him.
"Obama should appoint an independent prosecutor, as it is apparent the Republicans believe his attorney general was involved in renditions of a questionable nature."
If Karl Rove & Co. have Holder over a barrel on torture, will that also be the case on political prosecution and other issues? Is Obama's attorney general in a position of weakness?
The answers appear to be yes.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
UAB's Anonymous Donor Should Rethink Gift
MEMO
To: UAB's anonymous $5-million donor
From: Legal Schnauzer
You are to be commended for your support of higher education, particularly here in Alabama. And your desire to help provide scholarships for women and minorities is to be applauded.
But as someone who worked at the University of Alabama at Birmingham for 19 years before being cheated out of my job for political reasons, I can tell you that UAB--in its current state--is not deserving of your support. That's why I would encourage you to rethink your gift to an institution that clearly does not support your ideals.
Let me be clear: UAB itself is most deserving of your support. The institution has many outstanding students, faculty, staff, and programs. But the current administration, under President Carol Garrison, is weak and corrupt. The university's human-resources function, which reports to Vice President Richard Margison, is a trainwreck.
Your gift, in its current form, will only go to further the goals of an administration that has proven to be wasteful, deceitful, discriminatory, and perhaps criminal.
Based on the terms of your donation, I gather that you are a progressive. But UAB's current leadership is anything but progressive. Consider my experience: I got fired because I write a blog, on my own time and with my own resources, that espouses progressive ideals. What controversial notion have I promoted on my blog? The need for honest government, particularly in our courts. That's the kind of idea that UAB's current administration apparently wants quieted. And my experience shows that UAB caves to pressure from Alabama's corrupt Republican Party. Do you really want to support that?
It appears you picked UAB because it has a female president. But you might want to take a second look at that. Just because a university has a female president doesn't mean it furthers the cause of women and minorities. Carol Garrison has proven to be little more than a toady for the "good old boys" who run the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.
Why does UAB have a female president? It's not because of any noble intentions. The university's first female president, W. Ann Reynolds, proved to be a disaster--firing and running off female administrators left and right. Upon her exit, it was clear that Reynolds would sue the UA board, so they went after Garrison as a replacement in order to reduce their exposure in court. So much for high mindedness.
Have Carol Garrison, Richard Margison & Co. done anything to further the cause of women and minorities? Just check public documents. The university has been sued for discrimination by several veteran faculty members, including Susan Key, Rosalia Scripa, and Horace Huntley--all women or minorities, and all lawsuits that could have easily been avoided.
Consider other examples of the wasteful and deceitful ways UAB currently conducts business:
* Multiple medical trainees from India, women and minorities, have alleged discriminatory practices at UAB's program in Huntsville. Court documents indicate some immigrant trainees were not properly paid, a case that currently is before a judge in Ohio and has attracted press attention in India.
* At least two employees have sent racist or homophobic messages from university computers, but UAB apparently has taken little or no disciplinary action.
* Court documents indicate that UAB administrators intentionally fudged the numbers on a salary study of female professors, trying to show the university's statistics in a misleading light.
The situation at UAB apparently is so bad that its former human-resources director, a woman, bailed out to take a lesser job at another university.
Even UAB's announcement about your gift was peculiar, maybe deceitful. Your anonymous donations first came to light back in February, and The New York Times wrote about them in April. But UAB is just now getting around to announcing its gift?
Garrison explains: "We had not announced it because we were trying to respect the wishes of the donor."
What? I've seen nothing in news reports that indicate you wanted the gifts themselves to be hushed up. You just wanted your identity to remain secret.
So what were UAB officials really thinking? Who is running this train in Birmingham that can't seem to stay on the tracks?
I assume you would like your money to be well managed. But what kind of record does UAB's recent administrations have in that regard? Consider this item from one of our recent posts:
Let that sink in for a moment. Court records indicate that UAB defrauded the federal government out of at least $300 million, and pretty much got away with it. Do you really want these folks managing your money?
It's certainly not my place to tell you what to do with your resources. But I hate to see people's good intentions go to waste.
Would you really like to help UAB and the people who study and work there? Here is a suggestion:
Add a few conditions to the terms of your gift. Make it contingent upon the following actions from UAB and the UA Board of Trustees:
* A thorough review will be conducted of the university's human-resources practices, focusing on events that have led to a number of recent discrimination lawsuits. Corrective action will be taken;
* A legitimate study, one with real numbers, will be conducted regarding salaries for female professors at UAB;
* An investigation will be conducted of the improper, and probably unlawful, influence certain conservative political groups have over the UA Board and UAB administration;
* An investigation will be conducted regarding the use of university equipment for sending hateful messages, with appropriate discipline handed down;
* UAB and the UA Board will turn over all relevant documents regarding research fraud to the U.S. Department of Justice and will make true restitution to federal health-care programs;
* If the above actions show that various UAB administrators and UA Board members should be dismissed--and they almost certainly will show that--a thorough housecleaning will commence. If an investigation shows that criminal acts have been committed, that information will be turned over to the proper authorities.
UAB has a proud history and a bright future. But the university is floundering under its current leadership. You could do UAB, Birmingham, and Alabama a great favor by leading an effort to expose wrongdoing and restore UAB's reputation as a place of forward thinking and high ideals.
To: UAB's anonymous $5-million donor
From: Legal Schnauzer
You are to be commended for your support of higher education, particularly here in Alabama. And your desire to help provide scholarships for women and minorities is to be applauded.
But as someone who worked at the University of Alabama at Birmingham for 19 years before being cheated out of my job for political reasons, I can tell you that UAB--in its current state--is not deserving of your support. That's why I would encourage you to rethink your gift to an institution that clearly does not support your ideals.
Let me be clear: UAB itself is most deserving of your support. The institution has many outstanding students, faculty, staff, and programs. But the current administration, under President Carol Garrison, is weak and corrupt. The university's human-resources function, which reports to Vice President Richard Margison, is a trainwreck.
Your gift, in its current form, will only go to further the goals of an administration that has proven to be wasteful, deceitful, discriminatory, and perhaps criminal.
Based on the terms of your donation, I gather that you are a progressive. But UAB's current leadership is anything but progressive. Consider my experience: I got fired because I write a blog, on my own time and with my own resources, that espouses progressive ideals. What controversial notion have I promoted on my blog? The need for honest government, particularly in our courts. That's the kind of idea that UAB's current administration apparently wants quieted. And my experience shows that UAB caves to pressure from Alabama's corrupt Republican Party. Do you really want to support that?
It appears you picked UAB because it has a female president. But you might want to take a second look at that. Just because a university has a female president doesn't mean it furthers the cause of women and minorities. Carol Garrison has proven to be little more than a toady for the "good old boys" who run the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.
Why does UAB have a female president? It's not because of any noble intentions. The university's first female president, W. Ann Reynolds, proved to be a disaster--firing and running off female administrators left and right. Upon her exit, it was clear that Reynolds would sue the UA board, so they went after Garrison as a replacement in order to reduce their exposure in court. So much for high mindedness.
Have Carol Garrison, Richard Margison & Co. done anything to further the cause of women and minorities? Just check public documents. The university has been sued for discrimination by several veteran faculty members, including Susan Key, Rosalia Scripa, and Horace Huntley--all women or minorities, and all lawsuits that could have easily been avoided.
Consider other examples of the wasteful and deceitful ways UAB currently conducts business:
* Multiple medical trainees from India, women and minorities, have alleged discriminatory practices at UAB's program in Huntsville. Court documents indicate some immigrant trainees were not properly paid, a case that currently is before a judge in Ohio and has attracted press attention in India.
* At least two employees have sent racist or homophobic messages from university computers, but UAB apparently has taken little or no disciplinary action.
* Court documents indicate that UAB administrators intentionally fudged the numbers on a salary study of female professors, trying to show the university's statistics in a misleading light.
The situation at UAB apparently is so bad that its former human-resources director, a woman, bailed out to take a lesser job at another university.
Even UAB's announcement about your gift was peculiar, maybe deceitful. Your anonymous donations first came to light back in February, and The New York Times wrote about them in April. But UAB is just now getting around to announcing its gift?
Garrison explains: "We had not announced it because we were trying to respect the wishes of the donor."
What? I've seen nothing in news reports that indicate you wanted the gifts themselves to be hushed up. You just wanted your identity to remain secret.
So what were UAB officials really thinking? Who is running this train in Birmingham that can't seem to stay on the tracks?
I assume you would like your money to be well managed. But what kind of record does UAB's recent administrations have in that regard? Consider this item from one of our recent posts:
A case involving two whistleblowers outlines massive research fraud at UAB. The case was "settled" with the university paying roughly $3 million, but court documents indicate the actual fraud was at least 100 times that amount.
Let that sink in for a moment. Court records indicate that UAB defrauded the federal government out of at least $300 million, and pretty much got away with it. Do you really want these folks managing your money?
It's certainly not my place to tell you what to do with your resources. But I hate to see people's good intentions go to waste.
Would you really like to help UAB and the people who study and work there? Here is a suggestion:
Add a few conditions to the terms of your gift. Make it contingent upon the following actions from UAB and the UA Board of Trustees:
* A thorough review will be conducted of the university's human-resources practices, focusing on events that have led to a number of recent discrimination lawsuits. Corrective action will be taken;
* A legitimate study, one with real numbers, will be conducted regarding salaries for female professors at UAB;
* An investigation will be conducted of the improper, and probably unlawful, influence certain conservative political groups have over the UA Board and UAB administration;
* An investigation will be conducted regarding the use of university equipment for sending hateful messages, with appropriate discipline handed down;
* UAB and the UA Board will turn over all relevant documents regarding research fraud to the U.S. Department of Justice and will make true restitution to federal health-care programs;
* If the above actions show that various UAB administrators and UA Board members should be dismissed--and they almost certainly will show that--a thorough housecleaning will commence. If an investigation shows that criminal acts have been committed, that information will be turned over to the proper authorities.
UAB has a proud history and a bright future. But the university is floundering under its current leadership. You could do UAB, Birmingham, and Alabama a great favor by leading an effort to expose wrongdoing and restore UAB's reputation as a place of forward thinking and high ideals.
Alabama Jury Awards Almost $6 million in Employment Case
Employment lawsuits tend to be David v. Goliath situations.
On one side, you usually have an individual employee, who claims to be the victim of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or some other unsavory action in the workplace. On the other side, you usually have a business or institution that probably has a distinct advantage over the individual in terms of resources. If the business or institution is large, the resources difference can be vast.
But sometimes, the little guy (or gal) wins and sends shockwaves through the employment world. We've seen several recent examples of that, and the latest comes close to home here in Alabama.
A federal jury in Montgomery returned a $5.79-million verdict against Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama and a mid-level manager for sexual harassment, negligence, and retaliation.
The jury awarded Tammy Edwards $795,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages against Hyundai. The jury also returned a $10,000 punitive verdict against manager Mike Swindle.
Court documents showed that Swindle harassed Edwards for five months, routinely directing lewd comments toward her. On at least one occasion, he pressed his body against hers and propositioned her.
Birmingham attorneys Alicia and Kenny Haynes represented Edwards. "The jury awarded double what we were asking for," Alicia Haynes said. "They were upset at the negligence."
When Edwards complained about the harassment to upper management, she was retaliated against, Haynes said. The company placed Edwards in a job she physically could not perform, then forced her to take medical leave. She eventually left the company.
We have seen other recent cases where workplace victims prevailed in court. Another Alabama jury awarded $500,000 in a discrimination case against a Birmingham aviation company. A jury in Boston awarded $1.6 million in a case where a female neurosurgeon was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Many of the issues in the Edwards case hit home here at Legal Schnauzer. My supervisor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Pam Powell, harassed me because of my age for the last five months I was there.
And I know all about retaliation. When I complained to Powell's superior (Dale Turnbough) about the age-based discrimination and harassment I was experiencing--and also filed a formal grievance in UAB Employee Relations--I was placed on administrative leave and then fired.
There are a number of differences between the Edwards case and my experience.
I worked at UAB for 19 years, the last 12 of those under the same supervisor, who I'd had a good relationship with until the final five months I was there. Edwards started at Hyundai in January 2006, and Swindle began harassing her almost immediately. Based on the length of time it takes lawsuits to work through to a jury trial, it appears Edwards worked at Hyundai for about a year.
While sexual harassment was at the heart of the Edwards case, violations of the First Amendment probably will be front and center in my case against UAB. Evidence strongly indicates I was fired because I dared to write a blog that is critical of the Bush Justice Department--even though UAB's own grievance hearing showed I wrote the blog on my own time, with my own resources.
Perhaps the biggest difference in the two cases is that I was fired, and Edwards was not. For good measure, I was fired in direct violation of UAB's own policies.
Does that mean my case against UAB is worth almost $6 million or more? Nope. Does it mean I will win my case and receive any award at all? Nope.
I think it's safe to say that no two employment lawsuits, no two juries, and no two judges are the same. Experience tells me the biggest hurdle I face will be the judge. I've been told by more than one attorney that some federal judges simply do not give plaintiffs a fair shake in employment cases.
In fact, that's just one of several hurdles employment plaintiffs have to get over. We will take a look at those hurdles in a bit.
On one side, you usually have an individual employee, who claims to be the victim of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or some other unsavory action in the workplace. On the other side, you usually have a business or institution that probably has a distinct advantage over the individual in terms of resources. If the business or institution is large, the resources difference can be vast.
But sometimes, the little guy (or gal) wins and sends shockwaves through the employment world. We've seen several recent examples of that, and the latest comes close to home here in Alabama.
A federal jury in Montgomery returned a $5.79-million verdict against Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama and a mid-level manager for sexual harassment, negligence, and retaliation.
The jury awarded Tammy Edwards $795,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages against Hyundai. The jury also returned a $10,000 punitive verdict against manager Mike Swindle.
Court documents showed that Swindle harassed Edwards for five months, routinely directing lewd comments toward her. On at least one occasion, he pressed his body against hers and propositioned her.
Birmingham attorneys Alicia and Kenny Haynes represented Edwards. "The jury awarded double what we were asking for," Alicia Haynes said. "They were upset at the negligence."
When Edwards complained about the harassment to upper management, she was retaliated against, Haynes said. The company placed Edwards in a job she physically could not perform, then forced her to take medical leave. She eventually left the company.
We have seen other recent cases where workplace victims prevailed in court. Another Alabama jury awarded $500,000 in a discrimination case against a Birmingham aviation company. A jury in Boston awarded $1.6 million in a case where a female neurosurgeon was subjected to a hostile work environment.
Many of the issues in the Edwards case hit home here at Legal Schnauzer. My supervisor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Pam Powell, harassed me because of my age for the last five months I was there.
And I know all about retaliation. When I complained to Powell's superior (Dale Turnbough) about the age-based discrimination and harassment I was experiencing--and also filed a formal grievance in UAB Employee Relations--I was placed on administrative leave and then fired.
There are a number of differences between the Edwards case and my experience.
I worked at UAB for 19 years, the last 12 of those under the same supervisor, who I'd had a good relationship with until the final five months I was there. Edwards started at Hyundai in January 2006, and Swindle began harassing her almost immediately. Based on the length of time it takes lawsuits to work through to a jury trial, it appears Edwards worked at Hyundai for about a year.
While sexual harassment was at the heart of the Edwards case, violations of the First Amendment probably will be front and center in my case against UAB. Evidence strongly indicates I was fired because I dared to write a blog that is critical of the Bush Justice Department--even though UAB's own grievance hearing showed I wrote the blog on my own time, with my own resources.
Perhaps the biggest difference in the two cases is that I was fired, and Edwards was not. For good measure, I was fired in direct violation of UAB's own policies.
Does that mean my case against UAB is worth almost $6 million or more? Nope. Does it mean I will win my case and receive any award at all? Nope.
I think it's safe to say that no two employment lawsuits, no two juries, and no two judges are the same. Experience tells me the biggest hurdle I face will be the judge. I've been told by more than one attorney that some federal judges simply do not give plaintiffs a fair shake in employment cases.
In fact, that's just one of several hurdles employment plaintiffs have to get over. We will take a look at those hurdles in a bit.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Legal Schnauzer Is In the Spotlight at OpEd News
As a journalist with 30-plus years of professional experience, I am used to asking questions.
Having questions put to me is a little different experience. But it's one I enjoyed as part of a recent article by OpEd News' Joan Brunwasser, spotlighting Legal Schnauzer.
I have cross posted much of my work at OpEd News, and it is a pleasure to be part of a grassroots news organization with broad national reach. And I know firsthand that OEN has a highly educated audience. I can tell from checking my blog statistics that many readers who find Legal Schnauzer through OEN come from colleges and universities.
Part I of Brunwasser's interview focuses on the events that led me to start a blog about justice-related issues. And it shows how my difficulties with a troublesome neighbor connected me to a larger justice story that led to the doorstep of the Bush White House:
We also discussed the possible pitfalls that can await any crime victim in state courts. That's because of a "disfavored tort" called malicious prosecution, which allows a defendant who is found not guilty to turn around and sue his victim:
I decided to fight back by starting a blog to expose the wrongdoing. But as Brunwasser shows, being a whistleblower comes with risk. The content of my blog made me a target in my job as an editor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where I had worked for 19 years:
Part II of the interview focuses on my reporting about the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases and my thoughts about how the Obama administration can restore a badly broken justice system:
Having questions put to me is a little different experience. But it's one I enjoyed as part of a recent article by OpEd News' Joan Brunwasser, spotlighting Legal Schnauzer.
I have cross posted much of my work at OpEd News, and it is a pleasure to be part of a grassroots news organization with broad national reach. And I know firsthand that OEN has a highly educated audience. I can tell from checking my blog statistics that many readers who find Legal Schnauzer through OEN come from colleges and universities.
Part I of Brunwasser's interview focuses on the events that led me to start a blog about justice-related issues. And it shows how my difficulties with a troublesome neighbor connected me to a larger justice story that led to the doorstep of the Bush White House:
RS: The neighbor hired a lawyer with strong family ties to Alabama's Republican Party. And the judge in the civil case was a Republican. So the case was not dismissed, and it wound up costing us more than $40,000.
I came to see that my experience had connections to a much bigger story.
I started the blog in June 2007, just a few months after the U.S. attorney firings became a national story. The [former Democratic Governor] Don Siegelman case in Alabama became the best known example of an apparent political prosecution. And my little experience, believe or not, had connections to the Siegelman case.
JB: In what way?
RS: My neighbor's lawyer was a man named William E. Swatek. Swatek's son, Dax Swatek, is a GOP "consultant" in Alabama, and one of his primary mentors has been a man named Bill Canary. According to the sworn testimony of Alabama lawyer Jill Simpson, Bill Canary was at the heart of a conspiracy to initiate a bogus prosecution to "take care of" Don Siegelman. And Canary, according to Simpson, worked this out with a longtime associate, Bush White House strategist Karl Rove.
We also discussed the possible pitfalls that can await any crime victim in state courts. That's because of a "disfavored tort" called malicious prosecution, which allows a defendant who is found not guilty to turn around and sue his victim:
JB: Did you go into the criminal complaint against the neighbor assuming it would be a piece of cake?
RS: No. No one wants to file a criminal complaint, particularly against someone who lives nearby. But we had exhausted all other remedies. We had multiple eye witnesses to his trespassing, so we had not only probable cause but "actual cause," so a malicious prosecution lawsuit should not have been a concern.
But that's in theory. The reality is that our justice system is populated with a fair number of corrupt lawyers and judges, and we encountered those. Bill Swatek has a bar card, and he filed a malicious prosecution claim even though he was in court and heard his client confess to the crime. Because of his son's ties to the Alabama Republican Party, Swatek gets all kinds of favorable treatment from GOP judges in Shelby County, where we live. I've always been respectful of authority figures. Like many Americans, I assumed that people who wear robes and are called "your honor" are, in fact, honorable people. It's sobering when you realize that is not the case.
Perhaps my biggest surprise was how blatant the corruption was. In my case, neither the corrupt judges nor lawyers did anything to hide what they were doing. Our courts are so packed with cases that the bad guys apparently have little fear of being caught. I strongly encourage anyone involved in a legal case to educate themselves at a nearby law library. Don't rely on what a lawyer (yours or the other person's) says. And certainly don't assume that the judge is ruling correctly.
I decided to fight back by starting a blog to expose the wrongdoing. But as Brunwasser shows, being a whistleblower comes with risk. The content of my blog made me a target in my job as an editor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where I had worked for 19 years:
RS: In the fall of 2007, Harper's Scott Horton referenced my reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, which has many similarities to the Siegelman case. Also that fall, my reporting was referenced in documents submitted at the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's hearing on selective prosecution.
Apparently, that made me a target at work. Strange events started happening on the job in December 2007 and got so bad that I filed a formal grievance against my supervisor. Roughly three weeks after filing that grievance, I was fired.
I have tape recorded evidence that indicates I was targeted because of my blog and its content about the Siegelman case.
It has been almost a year since my unlawful termination. I have filed a complaint with the EEOC regarding age discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination.
Part II of the interview focuses on my reporting about the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases and my thoughts about how the Obama administration can restore a badly broken justice system:
JB: Tell us about your involvement in the Siegelman case, Roger. Are you at all hopeful about the Obama administration taking up the case and doing right by Siegelman?
RS: My interest in the Siegelman case was a matter of location, timing, and connections.
I live in Siegelman's home state and was following the case closely for several years before I ever started a blog. The political angle of the Siegelman prosecution was becoming a national story just as I started Legal Schnauzer.
A lot of my work on the Siegelman case, so far, has been interpretive. The national leader on the story has been Scott Horton, of Harper's, an Alabama native. Without him, I doubt that the story ever would have gained legs. Glynn Wilson, at Locust Fork News, has done critical original reporting, particularly on the role of whistleblower Jill Simpson. And Larisa Alexandrovna, at Raw Story, has done splendid investigative work, providing critical detail and context to the overall story.
My role has been to take their work and bring it home to a local level. I've shown how the Siegelman case connects to my case in Alabama state courts and what it means when a state has fundamentally corrupt state courts. I've tried to show how national justice issues can filter down to affect regular folks.
JB: What do you think of the new administration?
RS: I've been disappointed so far. Obama's statement about "looking forward, not backward" is poorly thought out and could come back to haunt his presidency. Turning a blind eye to corruption is not the kind of "change" many people voted for.
It's not Obama's place to sweep Bush wrongdoing under the carpet.
I think Obama certainly can clean up the Justice Department, to a great degree. But we also must determine exactly what happened under Bush and hold people accountable for wrongdoing.
It's critical that people understand: We have political prisoners in the United States in 2009. I know of at least three--Paul Minor [one of the biggest donors to Mississippi Democrats] and his two codefendants. And Don Siegelman might be headed back to prison. This is the kind of stuff that happened in Stalin's Soviet Union.
If Obama tries to move forward while obstructing the truth of the past eight years, I think it will cost him large chunks of his progressive base, the people who put him in office.
Were Siegelman and Minor Prosecutions True "Inside Jobs"?
Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, and their codefendants hardly stand alone as targets of a rampaging Bush Justice Department. But why have those two Deep South prosecutions stood out as examples of "justice" run amok?
Perhaps it's because the judges who presided over the cases clearly were in on the fixes.
After studying the behavior of U.S. District judges Mark Fuller (Siegelman case) and Henry Wingate (Minor case), we've known for some time that they were part of the "inside jobs" that resulted in bogus convictions.
But it appears that view is becoming more well understood around the nation.
The National Law Journal (NLJ) reports that more than a dozen federal district judges have taken the extraordinary step of contacting the Justice Department since January to express concern about serious misconduct by federal prosecutors.
Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor at Harper's magazine and a law professor at Columbia University, notes:
That's right, and it's because they are part of the misconduct.
In an article titled "Holder Promises Speedy and Transparent Reviews of Attorney Misconduct," NLJ's Andrew Longstreth reports that Attorney General Eric Holder appears to be taking the concerns of federal judges seriously.
The Longstreth piece currently is available online only to premium subscribers. But here is the full piece, which could have implications for the Siegelman and Minor cases:
Perhaps it's because the judges who presided over the cases clearly were in on the fixes.
After studying the behavior of U.S. District judges Mark Fuller (Siegelman case) and Henry Wingate (Minor case), we've known for some time that they were part of the "inside jobs" that resulted in bogus convictions.
But it appears that view is becoming more well understood around the nation.
The National Law Journal (NLJ) reports that more than a dozen federal district judges have taken the extraordinary step of contacting the Justice Department since January to express concern about serious misconduct by federal prosecutors.
Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor at Harper's magazine and a law professor at Columbia University, notes:
These cases come out of New England, New York, Pennsylvania, California, Michigan and Georgia. Strangely, no judges in Alabama or Mississippi have raised questions, even though senior figures in the Justice Department are now persuaded this is the seat of the most serious and most deeply entrenched abuse. Seems like the Alabama and Mississippi federal judges get along just fine with a little prosecutorial misconduct, no?
That's right, and it's because they are part of the misconduct.
In an article titled "Holder Promises Speedy and Transparent Reviews of Attorney Misconduct," NLJ's Andrew Longstreth reports that Attorney General Eric Holder appears to be taking the concerns of federal judges seriously.
The Longstreth piece currently is available online only to premium subscribers. But here is the full piece, which could have implications for the Siegelman and Minor cases:
When Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., took office earlier this year, rebuilding morale at the Justice Department was one of his top priorities. But The National Law Journal's Joe Palazzolo reports that after the botched case against former Alaska senator Ted Stevens--in which the judge found that prosecutors had withheld evidence--he's also having to reassure federal judges of Justice's commitment to reviewing complaints against his own attorneys. We'll have to see what that does to morale.
According to Palazzolo, Holder met with the nation's chief federal district judges on April 21 in Washington, D.C. At the meeting, which was closed to the public, Holder promised improvements to the Office of Professional Responsibility and asked the judges to contact him personally about questionable prosecutor conduct. Palozzolo reports that Holder even gave his cell phone number to the judges. How's that for service?
Chief Judge Mark Wolf of the District of Massachusetts took Holder up on the offer, reports Palazzolo. In a letter to Holder last week, Judge Wolf encouraged Holder to look into allegations of prosecutorial misconduct stemming from a high-profile mafia case and the prosecution of an FBI agent.
Assessing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct will be the job of Mary Patrice Brown, whom Holder appointed to the Office of Professional Responsibility after Washington federal district court judge Emmett Sullivan dismissed the government's case against Stevens. At the meeting Holder praised Brown. "She sounds like she's really a ball of fire," one judge at the meeting told Palazzolo.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Minor Convictions Appear to Be on Shaky Ground
The convictions in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi might have been missing a fundamental element in the primary alleged crime.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, currently reviewing the Minor case, has asked the federal government for materials that show it had grounds for getting involved in the case.
According to a report by Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, the government based its case on the notion that state judges are "agents" of the Mississippi Administrative Office of Courts, which receives federal funds. But the appellate court now seems to be questioning whether the government had jurisdiction to bring the primary charge in the case--federal funds bribery under 18 U.S. Code 666.
The federal funds bribery statute applies only when:
Dunn Lampton, the Bush-appointed prosecutor who brought the case, argued that state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were agents of the Administrative Office of Courts, which receives federal funds. But Alexandrovna reports:
Federal funds bribery also was at the heart of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. But as governor of a state that receives federal funds, Siegelman clearly fell under the statute--even though evidence strongly indicates neither he nor codefendant Richard Scrushy violated the law.
In the Minor case, because it involved state judges who did not administer federal funds, the government might never have had jurisdiction to bring a 666 case. And yet, three men remain in federal prison as we write this because of a prosecution that now appears to be largely ungrounded in law.
The Minor convictions also included counts of honest-services fraud and conspiracy. But those long have looked shaky at best.
A fundamental element of honest-services fraud is that the public must actually be deprived of honest services. But the underlying lawsuits in the Minor case were correctly decided based on the facts and the law, so honest-services fraud could not be present.
And conspiracy is essentially a "piggyback" charge that must ride on the tails of some other count. Without a bribery or honest-services fraud conviction, the conspiracy conviction cannot stand.
Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine and a professor at Columbia University Law School, tells Alexandrovna the Fifth Circuit's questions do not appear to bode well for the government:
The Siegelman and Minor cases long have been seen as "companion pieces," two Deep South prosecutions that spotlight corruption in the Bush Justice Department. But they now seem to be on very different appellate tracks.
While the Fifth Circuit (based in New Orleans) seems to be raising serious questions about the Minor case, the 11th Circuit (based in Atlanta) already has upheld most of the convictions in the Siegelman case. During oral argument, as Horton notes, the Minor prosecutors ran into a "buzzsaw." But the appellate panel in Atlanta asked almost no substantive questions of prosecutors in the Siegelman case.
Siegelman has filed a petition seeking an en banc review of the entire 11th Circuit. But one must wonder why an appellate court seems to be on the right track in the Minor case, while another appellate court is upholding unlawful trial-court findings in the Siegelman case.
We have been studying the 11th Circuit's finding in the Siegelman case, and we soon will be showing in detail how the three-judge panel butchered the appeal.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, currently reviewing the Minor case, has asked the federal government for materials that show it had grounds for getting involved in the case.
According to a report by Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story, the government based its case on the notion that state judges are "agents" of the Mississippi Administrative Office of Courts, which receives federal funds. But the appellate court now seems to be questioning whether the government had jurisdiction to bring the primary charge in the case--federal funds bribery under 18 U.S. Code 666.
The federal funds bribery statute applies only when:
. . . the organization, government, or agency receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program involving a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance.
Dunn Lampton, the Bush-appointed prosecutor who brought the case, argued that state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield were agents of the Administrative Office of Courts, which receives federal funds. But Alexandrovna reports:
The reality, however, is that judges are not in charge of buying staplers and office furniture, or training clerks in using a computer system. These functions are all administrative and do not involve the judges themselves, who in the state of Mississippi are elected to the bench. The use of the 666 statute has therefore raised many eyebrows, including those of the three-judge panel of the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal funds bribery also was at the heart of the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. But as governor of a state that receives federal funds, Siegelman clearly fell under the statute--even though evidence strongly indicates neither he nor codefendant Richard Scrushy violated the law.
In the Minor case, because it involved state judges who did not administer federal funds, the government might never have had jurisdiction to bring a 666 case. And yet, three men remain in federal prison as we write this because of a prosecution that now appears to be largely ungrounded in law.
The Minor convictions also included counts of honest-services fraud and conspiracy. But those long have looked shaky at best.
A fundamental element of honest-services fraud is that the public must actually be deprived of honest services. But the underlying lawsuits in the Minor case were correctly decided based on the facts and the law, so honest-services fraud could not be present.
And conspiracy is essentially a "piggyback" charge that must ride on the tails of some other count. Without a bribery or honest-services fraud conviction, the conspiracy conviction cannot stand.
Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine and a professor at Columbia University Law School, tells Alexandrovna the Fifth Circuit's questions do not appear to bode well for the government:
“It's always problematic speculating about what thoughts are behind a question. But in this case, the questions are certainly bad news for the prosecution. They suggest that the panel is having problems understanding how the conduct alleged by the prosecutors is actually a crime. . . . The questions also suggest that there is some sensitivity on this panel to the issue of selective prosecution--they are a head-on attack on the good faith of the prosecution itself. That's very rare in an appellate case like this, but in this case, the prosecutors ran into a buzzsaw during oral argument, so perhaps it's not so surprising."
The Siegelman and Minor cases long have been seen as "companion pieces," two Deep South prosecutions that spotlight corruption in the Bush Justice Department. But they now seem to be on very different appellate tracks.
While the Fifth Circuit (based in New Orleans) seems to be raising serious questions about the Minor case, the 11th Circuit (based in Atlanta) already has upheld most of the convictions in the Siegelman case. During oral argument, as Horton notes, the Minor prosecutors ran into a "buzzsaw." But the appellate panel in Atlanta asked almost no substantive questions of prosecutors in the Siegelman case.
Siegelman has filed a petition seeking an en banc review of the entire 11th Circuit. But one must wonder why an appellate court seems to be on the right track in the Minor case, while another appellate court is upholding unlawful trial-court findings in the Siegelman case.
We have been studying the 11th Circuit's finding in the Siegelman case, and we soon will be showing in detail how the three-judge panel butchered the appeal.
Will Obama Build a Justice Department on Rock or Sand?
The 100th day of Barack Obama's presidency passed the other day, and much has been written on the subject, most of it laudatory.
A passage that resonates here at Legal Schnauzer came from Joe Klein's article, "The Rock Builder," at Time magazine. Klein praised Obama for his determination to get America's financial house in order by building on a firm foundation.
That raised this question: Will Obama use the same concept to get America's justice house in order?
Klein noted Obama's effective use of a parable from the New Testament to explain his approach to lifting America out of a financial crisis. The parable, from Luke 6:48, sends an important message at the outset of the Obama presidency. The president drew on the parable in an April 14 speech at Georgetown University, and Klein writes:
Obama is correct to say that America must move its financial house off shaky ground and rebuild on solid principles. But has the president taken a look at our justice system in the first 100 days?
Justice in America, during the eight years of George W. Bush's rule, featured unscrupulous prosecutors, crooked federal judges, corrupt state courts, inept oversight agencies, and a betrayed citizenry. Some of those citizens (see Siegelman, Don and Minor, Paul, among others) actually were imprisoned for political reasons, as if they lived in Josef Stalin's Russia. Others were cheated out of their jobs and faced other forms of economic terrorism (see Schnauzer, Legal).
Obama clearly has stated that America's financial house was built on sand. But if he takes a close look, he will find that America's justice house was built on sewage--heaping mounds of nasty, disgusting, stomach churning, foul smelling sewage.
What is Obama's plan for fixing the problem. He hasn't made that clear, but it seems to be to "look forward, not backward." That apparently means that Obama will attempt to rebuild our justice house on the same shaky, stinking foundation where it already is rotting.
Obama has hired Eric Holder as the architect for our new justice house. And together, they apparently plan to throw a few layers of dirt over the sewage and put the house on top of that.
What is likely to happen? In a few years--five, 15, 25--sewage will start seeping up through the flooring, and America again will have a nasty mess on its hands.
It's encouraging to hear Obama borrowing from high-minded sources as he tries to explain the path out of America's current predicament. The Sermon on the Mount contains some of the most profound words ever written, and that's a good place to start. But perhaps Obama needs to reread Luke 6:48 and ponder how it might apply to a strong and renewed American justice system.
How do you build a justice house on rock and not sand (or sewage)? You start by conducting a thorough investigation of wrongdoing in the Bush Justice Department. You pursue vigorous prosecutions against any officials who appear to have committed crimes in the pursuit of "justice." You lay out for the American people exactly how their justice system has been compromised. You show how the corruption goes beyond the federal level to the state and local level. And you present a plan for effective oversight--of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, the works--so that the mass of sewage will not gradually build again.
Obama also might want to read a splendid new piece by Robert Parry at Consortium News. Our dysfunctional government, in recent years, has featured what Parry calls the Democrats' "Battered Wife Syndrome":
It's time Democrats quit letting themselves, and America's ideals, be bullied. Bill Clinton is the most recent Democratic president who tried to paper over Republican wrongdoing by throwing a few layers of dirt on it. It didn't work for Clinton, and it won't work for Obama.
So what will it be, Mr. President? Rock or sand?
Do Americans deserve a justice system that is build on a firm foundation?
A passage that resonates here at Legal Schnauzer came from Joe Klein's article, "The Rock Builder," at Time magazine. Klein praised Obama for his determination to get America's financial house in order by building on a firm foundation.
That raised this question: Will Obama use the same concept to get America's justice house in order?
Klein noted Obama's effective use of a parable from the New Testament to explain his approach to lifting America out of a financial crisis. The parable, from Luke 6:48, sends an important message at the outset of the Obama presidency. The president drew on the parable in an April 14 speech at Georgetown University, and Klein writes:
In prose that was spare and clear and compelling, the President proceeded to describe how his Administration had responded to the financial crisis, the overriding challenge of his first 100 days in office. He had covered this ground before, nearly as well, in his budget message to Congress. But now Obama went further, using a parable from the Sermon on the Mount — the need for a house built on rock rather than on sand — to describe a future that was nothing less than an overhaul of the nature of American capitalism. "It is simply not sustainable," he said, "to have an economy where, in one year, 40% of our corporate profits came from a financial sector that was based on inflated home prices, maxed-out credit cards, overleveraged banks and overvalued assets."
Obama is correct to say that America must move its financial house off shaky ground and rebuild on solid principles. But has the president taken a look at our justice system in the first 100 days?
Justice in America, during the eight years of George W. Bush's rule, featured unscrupulous prosecutors, crooked federal judges, corrupt state courts, inept oversight agencies, and a betrayed citizenry. Some of those citizens (see Siegelman, Don and Minor, Paul, among others) actually were imprisoned for political reasons, as if they lived in Josef Stalin's Russia. Others were cheated out of their jobs and faced other forms of economic terrorism (see Schnauzer, Legal).
Obama clearly has stated that America's financial house was built on sand. But if he takes a close look, he will find that America's justice house was built on sewage--heaping mounds of nasty, disgusting, stomach churning, foul smelling sewage.
What is Obama's plan for fixing the problem. He hasn't made that clear, but it seems to be to "look forward, not backward." That apparently means that Obama will attempt to rebuild our justice house on the same shaky, stinking foundation where it already is rotting.
Obama has hired Eric Holder as the architect for our new justice house. And together, they apparently plan to throw a few layers of dirt over the sewage and put the house on top of that.
What is likely to happen? In a few years--five, 15, 25--sewage will start seeping up through the flooring, and America again will have a nasty mess on its hands.
It's encouraging to hear Obama borrowing from high-minded sources as he tries to explain the path out of America's current predicament. The Sermon on the Mount contains some of the most profound words ever written, and that's a good place to start. But perhaps Obama needs to reread Luke 6:48 and ponder how it might apply to a strong and renewed American justice system.
How do you build a justice house on rock and not sand (or sewage)? You start by conducting a thorough investigation of wrongdoing in the Bush Justice Department. You pursue vigorous prosecutions against any officials who appear to have committed crimes in the pursuit of "justice." You lay out for the American people exactly how their justice system has been compromised. You show how the corruption goes beyond the federal level to the state and local level. And you present a plan for effective oversight--of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, the works--so that the mass of sewage will not gradually build again.
Obama also might want to read a splendid new piece by Robert Parry at Consortium News. Our dysfunctional government, in recent years, has featured what Parry calls the Democrats' "Battered Wife Syndrome":
In recent years, the Washington political dynamic has often resembled an abusive marriage, in which the bullying husband (the Republicans) slaps the wife and kids around, and the battered wife (the Democrats) makes excuses and hides the ugly bruises from outsiders to keep the family together.
It's time Democrats quit letting themselves, and America's ideals, be bullied. Bill Clinton is the most recent Democratic president who tried to paper over Republican wrongdoing by throwing a few layers of dirt on it. It didn't work for Clinton, and it won't work for Obama.
So what will it be, Mr. President? Rock or sand?
Do Americans deserve a justice system that is build on a firm foundation?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Is Bob Riley Caught Red-Handed in a Federal Crime?
An article in yesterday's Montgomery Advertiser reveals that Alabama Governor Bob Riley apparently has committed a federal crime--not once, but twice.
The article, by reporter Sebastian Kitchen, was meant to provide details about the two political parties' financial condition heading into Alabama's 2010 election.
But Kitchen, perhaps inadvertently, reveals that Riley appears to have violated federal bribery and honest-services fraud statutes. Riley certainly committed crimes if the Don Siegelman case is to be believed as the law of the land.
Siegelman, Alabama's former Democratic governor, and codefendant Richard Scrushy, the former CEO of HealthSouth, were convicted on federal corruption charges in 2006. At the heart of the case was a transaction where Siegelman accepted $500,000 from Scrushy for an education-lottery campaign and then appointed Scrushy to a position on a state health-care board, where he had served under three previous governors.
Now, let's take a look at what Kitchen reveals in his reporting about the Alabama's GOP's swelling coffers.
First, Kitchen states that Riley is chairman of the Alabama GOP's Campaign 2010 fund-raising effort.
Then, comes this nugget about Raymond J. Harbert, CEO of Harbert Management Corporation in Birmingham:
Let's review that information briefly. Harbert made a donation to a fund-raising campaign, chaired by Riley, and then was appointed by Riley to the Auburn University board of trustees.
But that isn't the only curious transaction in Kitchen's story. We also have this regarding Birmingham physician Swaid Swaid:
Again, let's review. Swaid gave to a campaign chaired by Riley and then was appointed by Riley to a spot on the Alabama Certificate of Need (CON) Review Board.
Both of these transactions sound an awful lot like the alleged crimes in the Siegelman/Scrushy transaction, do they not? And Swaid even was appointed to the same board to which Scrushy was appointed.
A devil's advocate might point out that there was no proof of a quid pro quo in Riley's transactions with Harbert and Swaid. But a student of the Siegelman/Scrushy trial knows that a quid pro quo was not shown in that case either, and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's jury instruction did not require one.
A devil's advocate might also point out that the amounts of Harbert's and Swaid's donations were not nearly as large as the one from Scrushy. But if memory serves us correctly, the amount of the donation was not an overriding factor in determining whether a crime took place in the Siegelman/Scrushy case.
Finally, the donations apparently went to the Republican Party, not to Riley personally. But that also was the case in the Siegelman/Scrushy matter.
Scrushy currently is in federal prison, and Siegelman might be heading back, because Siegelman received a donation from Scrushy and then appointed the CEO to a state board.
That is exactly what appears to have taken place with Bob Riley's donations from Raymond Harbert and Swaid Swaid.
The article, by reporter Sebastian Kitchen, was meant to provide details about the two political parties' financial condition heading into Alabama's 2010 election.
But Kitchen, perhaps inadvertently, reveals that Riley appears to have violated federal bribery and honest-services fraud statutes. Riley certainly committed crimes if the Don Siegelman case is to be believed as the law of the land.
Siegelman, Alabama's former Democratic governor, and codefendant Richard Scrushy, the former CEO of HealthSouth, were convicted on federal corruption charges in 2006. At the heart of the case was a transaction where Siegelman accepted $500,000 from Scrushy for an education-lottery campaign and then appointed Scrushy to a position on a state health-care board, where he had served under three previous governors.
Now, let's take a look at what Kitchen reveals in his reporting about the Alabama's GOP's swelling coffers.
First, Kitchen states that Riley is chairman of the Alabama GOP's Campaign 2010 fund-raising effort.
Then, comes this nugget about Raymond J. Harbert, CEO of Harbert Management Corporation in Birmingham:
Some of those donors to the Republican Party include Raymond Harbert of Birmingham, who Riley appointed to the Auburn University board of trustees as an at-large member in March 2009. He donated $10,000 in 2008.
Let's review that information briefly. Harbert made a donation to a fund-raising campaign, chaired by Riley, and then was appointed by Riley to the Auburn University board of trustees.
But that isn't the only curious transaction in Kitchen's story. We also have this regarding Birmingham physician Swaid Swaid:
Dr. Swaid N. Swaid, who Riley appointed to the Certificate of Need Review Board, donated $5,000 in 2008.
Again, let's review. Swaid gave to a campaign chaired by Riley and then was appointed by Riley to a spot on the Alabama Certificate of Need (CON) Review Board.
Both of these transactions sound an awful lot like the alleged crimes in the Siegelman/Scrushy transaction, do they not? And Swaid even was appointed to the same board to which Scrushy was appointed.
A devil's advocate might point out that there was no proof of a quid pro quo in Riley's transactions with Harbert and Swaid. But a student of the Siegelman/Scrushy trial knows that a quid pro quo was not shown in that case either, and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller's jury instruction did not require one.
A devil's advocate might also point out that the amounts of Harbert's and Swaid's donations were not nearly as large as the one from Scrushy. But if memory serves us correctly, the amount of the donation was not an overriding factor in determining whether a crime took place in the Siegelman/Scrushy case.
Finally, the donations apparently went to the Republican Party, not to Riley personally. But that also was the case in the Siegelman/Scrushy matter.
Scrushy currently is in federal prison, and Siegelman might be heading back, because Siegelman received a donation from Scrushy and then appointed the CEO to a state board.
That is exactly what appears to have taken place with Bob Riley's donations from Raymond Harbert and Swaid Swaid.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Why is Congress Treating Karl Rove and Roger Clemens Differently?
I can't even read Sports Illustrated these days without being reminded about our screwed-up justice system.
Consider the April 27 issue of SI, which includes "Fall From Grace," a story about the looming legal woes of baseball great Roger Clemens. I've never been a Clemens fan. While the big Texan is unquestionably one of baseball's all-time great pitchers, he has long come across as an arrogant jackass who cheated the game by using performance-enhancing drugs.
But SI now reveals that Congress treated Clemens in a much tougher way than it apparently plans to treat former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove. Suddenly, Clemens seems like a sympathetic character.
We've known for weeks that Congress plans to let Rove testify unsworn, in a private setting, about apparent politicization of the Justice Department under Bush.
SI makes it clear that Clemens was offered no such accommodations when he testified before Congress in February 2008 about baseball's steroid problems.
Consider this passage from "Fall From Grace":
We learn that the statements were sworn. And that's why Clemens is in such hot water now--because "he could be prosecuted for lying to Congress."
Congressional aides have tried to convince us that any testimony before Congress is de facto sworn testimony, meaning that Rove could face charges of lying to Congress. But that doesn't seem to square with SI's reporting on the Clemens case.
It also adds credence to Alabama lawyer (and Siegelman-case whistleblower) Jill Simpson and her contentions that Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig is trying to protect Rove.
After all, Rove is one of several former Bush officials who have been represented by Williams & Connolly, Craig's former law firm.
Clemens was represented by a couple of big hitters--Rusty Hardin, of Houston, and Lanny Breuer, of the D.C. firm Covington & Burling. President Obama has named Breuer to head the criminal division of the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder.
Breuer clearly has clout, but he's not a Williams & Connolly guy. Maybe that's where Clemens went wrong.
Consider the April 27 issue of SI, which includes "Fall From Grace," a story about the looming legal woes of baseball great Roger Clemens. I've never been a Clemens fan. While the big Texan is unquestionably one of baseball's all-time great pitchers, he has long come across as an arrogant jackass who cheated the game by using performance-enhancing drugs.
But SI now reveals that Congress treated Clemens in a much tougher way than it apparently plans to treat former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove. Suddenly, Clemens seems like a sympathetic character.
We've known for weeks that Congress plans to let Rove testify unsworn, in a private setting, about apparent politicization of the Justice Department under Bush.
SI makes it clear that Clemens was offered no such accommodations when he testified before Congress in February 2008 about baseball's steroid problems.
Consider this passage from "Fall From Grace":
Flanked by his lawyers, Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer, Clemens entered room 2157 of the Rayburn Building, took the oath and promptly declared, "I have not used steroids or growth hormone." He repeated this denial, in various formulations, six times in the first 30 minutes of the exceedingly awkward meeting.
These were probably the most important sentences Clemens had ever uttered. The sworn statements were direct and unequivocal, and they were recorded verbatim. From that moment forward, if it were ever proved that Clemens had used steroids or HGH, he could be prosecuted for lying to Congress. For much of the deposition he sat silently while his lawyers spoke to the investigators, clarifying the pitcher's answers and bashing the methodology of the Mitchell Report. Clemens had eagerly looked forward to testifying. It was his chance to demonstrate resolve and, it seemed, to blow off steam.
We learn that the statements were sworn. And that's why Clemens is in such hot water now--because "he could be prosecuted for lying to Congress."
Congressional aides have tried to convince us that any testimony before Congress is de facto sworn testimony, meaning that Rove could face charges of lying to Congress. But that doesn't seem to square with SI's reporting on the Clemens case.
It also adds credence to Alabama lawyer (and Siegelman-case whistleblower) Jill Simpson and her contentions that Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig is trying to protect Rove.
After all, Rove is one of several former Bush officials who have been represented by Williams & Connolly, Craig's former law firm.
Clemens was represented by a couple of big hitters--Rusty Hardin, of Houston, and Lanny Breuer, of the D.C. firm Covington & Burling. President Obama has named Breuer to head the criminal division of the U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder.
Breuer clearly has clout, but he's not a Williams & Connolly guy. Maybe that's where Clemens went wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)