Police Officers Open Fire on Dogs

Our crack investigative team here at Legal Schnauzer always is on the alert for injustice. But our investigators' ears really stand up when the victims of apparent injustice are dogs.

The Birmingham Police Department already had major problems on its hands, thanks to a videotaped beating officers recently administered to an unconscious human suspect. Now, it appears that officers have opened fire on three dogs for, well, pretty much being dogs.

We already know that local police officers can rough up human beings:



Now it looks like they don't treat animals any better.

The latest incident began early Sunday morning on Birmingham's Southside when officers responded to a call about stray dogs. The dogs' owners, Leisa Bunn and Rusty Crawford, had just gotten home after closing their nearby pizza restaurant. Crawford was walking the dogs, without a leash, in an area behind their apartment building when officers appeared.

Bunn and Crawford say the officers drew their weapons and started firing without speaking first to Crawford. A police department spokesman said officers became alarmed when the dogs charged them, and they asked Crawford to take control of the dogs.

Officers apparently fired about six shots. One dog was shot in the leg and may have to have an amputation. Another dog was shot but not seriously injured. The third dog was unharmed.

Crawford and Bunn became angry after the shooting and wound up being arrested for disorderly conduct.

Our investigators, of course, are primarily concerned about the dogs' well being. But taking the canine component out of the equation, the officers' behavior still appears to be egregious. Birmingham's Southside is a densely populated area, with people out and about at all hours. The officers' actions clearly were harmful to four-legged creatures, but they could have been deadly for two-legged types, as well.

Tommy Spina, attorney for Crawford and Bunn, said evidence indicated the dogs were running away from the officers when they were shot. Spina said the case is another example of overly aggressive behavior by Birmingham police officers:

"In light of recent behaviors by the Birmingham Police Department as reported on the national news, I find this aggressive behavior under those circumstances to be unacceptable and intolerable," Spina wrote in a letter delivered to Police Chief A.C. Roper and Mayor Larry Langford on Monday.

Abortion Provider's Murder and a Conservative Culture of Lawlessness

The murder yesterday of Kansas physician George Tiller, a well-known abortion provider, probably will be seen as a shocking event connected to one of America's hot-button issues.

But here at Legal Schnauzer, we submit that it reflects a culture of lawlessness that has consumed conservatism over roughly the past 40 years. Our theory is that a significant number of conservatives, resentful over affirmative action, busing, school integration and other race-based issues, have established a "parallel universe" where they don't have to follow laws that govern American society at large. Instead, they create their own laws in an effort to return our country to the "only whites need apply" era that they so fondly remember.

If our theory is correct, the Tiller killing has relatively little to do with a medical procedure. Rather, it has connections to Watergate, Iran-Contra, Enron, the U.S. attorneys' firings, the Don Siegelman and Paul Minor cases and . . . the list goes on.

In all of these examples, and many others we haven't named, people with conservative leanings thought they would be unable to accomplish their objectives inside the boundaries of the law. So they went outside the law, inside the conservative parallel universe, to get the job done.

Is anyone surprised that Scott P. Roeder, the suspect in the Tiller killing, was known to be involved in anti-government groups. The Wichita Eagle quotes one abortion opponent about Roeder:

"I know that he believed in justifiable homicide," said Regina Dinwiddie, a Kansas City abortion opponent who made headlines in 1995 when she was ordered by a federal judge to stop using a bullhorn within 500 feet of any abortion clinic. "I know he very strongly believed that abortion was murder and that you ought to defend the little ones, both born and unborn."

The Wichita paper has more about Roeder's background:

Roeder also was a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated the justifiable homicide position, said publisher Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist from Des Moines.

"I met him once, and he wrote to me a few times," Leach said. "I remember that he was sympathetic to our cause, but I don't remember any details."

And perhaps most alarming is this:

Roeder, who in the 1990s was a manufacturing assemblyman, also was involved in the "Freemen" movement.

"Freemen" was a term adopted by those who claimed sovereignty from government jurisdiction and operated under their own legal system, which they called common-law courts. Adherents declared themselves exempt from laws, regulations and taxes and often filed liens against judges, prosecutors and others, claiming that money was owed to them as compensation.

What did the "Freemen" do? They "declared themselves exempt from laws."

Many on the right will portray Roeder as a lone outcast, who had no formal ties to mainstream conservatism. But we would argue that Roeder has much in common with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.

Let's go on a brief travelogue over the past 40 years or so in conservative America:

* If you are Richard Nixon and his henchmen, with concerns about beating Democratic nominee George McGovern fair and square, you initiate the scandal that becomes known as Watergate.

* If you are Ronald Reagan and his associates, and you don't like certain laws that have been passed by Congress, you go around them and set off the scandal that becomes known as Iran-Contra.

* If you are George W. Bush & Co., and you can't invade Iraq for legitimate reasons, you concoct phony reasons and spark the Iraq War, which has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

* If you are Dick Cheney and you can't obtain the information you want through lawful means, you authorize torture and spark a debate about the United States' diminished stature on the world stage.

* If you are Karl Rove and have concerns about maintaining GOP dominance in Southern strongholds such as Alabama and Mississippi, you pervert the justice system to get rid of prominent Democrats such as Don Siegelman and Paul Minor.

Are we correct about the central role of race, and race-based fear, in this tale of pathology? That's open for debate. But isn't it interesting that George Tiller practiced in predominantly white Kansas, where presumably, he provided abortion services mainly for white women? Would Tiller have been such a target if he had served mostly women of color? Would he have been targeted if his clinic had been in, say, inner-city Detroit?

And is it coincidence that our timeline of conservative lawlessness starts with the Nixon era, which was famed for its "Southern strategy" of dividing the country along racial lines and "taking the bigger half"?

Is it coincidence that it includes the Reagan era, which started with a campaign speech about "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi?

Is it coincidence that Karl Rove has his roots in Utah, a state that hardly is known for progressive thinking along racial lines?

For what it's worth, our own Legal Schnauzer case could be seen as a tiny chapter in this large, ugly story. . . . If you have conservative leanings and discover that a blogger/citizen journalist is writing uncomfortable truths about certain activities, what do you do? You pressure his employer, a public university, to fire him. And in the process, you probably violate a number of laws, including honest-services mail and wire fraud.

So, you see, we are not working on an abstract theory. It hits awfully close to home for us. And if our theory is at all valid, it should hit close to home for all Americans.

Scott Roeder is hardly a lone conservative whack job, who thinks laws don't apply to him. He has a whole lot of company. Some wear suits. Some wear badges. Some wear robes. Many have powerful positions in government, business, law, and politics.

Scott Roeder is more mainstream in conservative America than many of us would like to believe.

Do Republican Judges Cheat Discrimination Victims?

We recently discussed the challenges that plaintiffs face in bringing employment lawsuits. But we left out perhaps the biggest hurdle facing victims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and the like.

For 28 of the past 40-plus years, Republican presidents have been appointing federal judges. That means the federal bench is populated with GOP appointees who tend to favor management over workers.

Two Birmingham attorneys recently pointed out to me that we have a federal judge in our fair city who is particularly unfriendly to plaintiffs in discrimination cases. In fact, he seems to take special delight in dismissing employment cases, even when the facts and the law dictate that they should move forward.

The judge's name is James H. Hancock, a Richard Nixon appointee. "He just doesn't like discrimination cases," one of my sources says. "He will toss them out for no reason."

"I'm sure there are some bad employment cases that deserve to be kicked," I said.

"Oh, there are, but he dismisses good cases," my source said. "I know one firm that tells clients, if they get Hancock for the judge, that they are just wasting their time by moving forward."

So a federal judge could cheat victims of discrimination, based on his personal whims and not the law? Oh yes, say my sources.

"Hancock really hates it when a woman lawyer brings a case," one source says. "Particularly when the woman is taller than him--which includes just about all women."

So much for the hallowed scales of justice.

Did Former Siegelman Lawyer Have a Glaring Conflict?

Let's return to our storyline about Birmingham attorney and prominent Democrat Doug Jones.

We have a number of questions for Mr. Jones. They are based partly on his rather hostile response to our reporting about a massive federal lawsuit involving Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corp. And they are based partly on our own research about a fine ethical line Jones and fellow attorney Rob Riley seem to be walking between the HealthSouth civil case and the criminal case involving former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

So, on to our questions for Mr. Jones:

* Re: Your representation of Don Siegelman in his criminal case--You state in your critique of my reporting that you have been liaison counsel in the HealthSouth securities-fraud lawsuit since its inception in August 2002. A key figure in that case, of course, has been former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. In your testimony before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in October 2007, you state that you became lead counsel on Siegelman's defense team in January 2003, not long after the former governor's lawyer, David Cromwell Johnson, died. In your role as Siegelman's lead counsel, you learned in July 2004 that Richard Scrushy was to be a central figure in the government's case against Siegelman. Didn't this present a clear conflict of interest for you? You are serving in a lawsuit against Richard Scrushy and others connected to HealthSouth. Then you learn that Scrushy is to be an integral part of the government's case against your client, Don Siegelman. Why didn't you remove yourself from the Siegelman case immediately? Did you tell the former governor and Mr. Scrushy about your apparent conflict, especially considering that they were being tried together? Why did you remain on the Siegelman case until early 2006, and then withdraw not long before it went to trial?

* Re: The statute of limitations in the Siegelman case--Public documents indicate the prosecution was tardy in bringing the case against Siegelman and Scrushy. Corrupt federal judges have allowed the government to get away with bringing a case that falls outside the statute of limitations. But it appears you didn't help matters any. In your Congressional testimony you stated:

There was a concern from the prosecutors that the five year statute of limitations was about to expire with regard to the appointment of Mr. Scrushy to the CON Board, which had occurred in late July, 1999. The Government wanted more time to try and fill in the evidentiary holes in the case and asked us if Governor Siegelman would sign a tolling agreement extending the statute of limitations for an additional 30 days.

Because we were convinced from our conversations that the other matters had either been written off and/or were such that we did not believe any crime had occurred, we agreed to have the Governor sign the tolling agreement.

As a layperson, I find this mind blowing. The government had almost five full years to build a case, they admit to you that they have failed to do it, and you convince your client to give them more time? What on earth were you thinking? Has it occurred to you that Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy wound up in prison largely because of this bone-headed decision? And you question whether I know what I'm doing in my field, journalism? Seems to me that Siegelman would have pretty strong grounds for a legal-malpractice case against you.

* Re: Your motives and alliances in the HealthSouth lawsuit--More than $500 million worth of settlements have been announced in this case, with you representing plaintiffs against Richard Scrushy and others. Sounds like things are going pretty well for the plaintiffs--and the plaintiffs lawyers. By continuing to represent Siegelman after you learned of Scrushy's involvement in the criminal case, did you learn anything that has proved useful in the civil case? Have you and your clients profited from your involvement in the Siegelman defense? How important was the HealthSouth lawsuit to the future of your former firm, Whatley Drake & Kallas?

* Re: Your alliance with Rob Riley--You state in your response to my reporting, that you have no knowledge of Riley's involvement in a health-care company, Performance Group LLC. Actually, you do. You've admitted you read my post about it, which references public documents that are easily available to you. (In fact, I would be glad to send them to you.) Rule 8.3 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states that a lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of misconduct "shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation." Public documents, which you are aware of, indicate that Rob Riley owns a company that has engaged in "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." It is your duty to report this information to an appropriate authority. Do you intend to fulfill your duty?

* Re: Your alliances with UAB--How many times have you represented UAB, or people affiliated with UAB, in legal matters? Public records indicate you represented six UAB administrators in the Brittany Benefield case, which might be the ugliest chapter in UAB history. Benefield was 14 years old when she enrolled at UAB and moved into a campus dorm. She allegedly became a sexual plaything for several UAB football and basketball players and wound up suing the university.

I ask about your ties to UAB administrators because here is something I find interesting: I wrote about Rob Riley's involvement in the HealthSouth litigation on March 13, 2008. Thanks to your comments a few weeks ago on an Alabama-based listserv, we know that is a sensitive topic for you. We also know that two of Riley's partners in Performance Group LLC are on the staff at UAB. On April 16, 2008--a little more than a month after I wrote the Riley/HealthSouth piece--the harassment from my boss at UAB got so bad that I wound up complaining to her superior about age discrimination and filed a formal grievance in UAB Employee Relations. Roughly three weeks after I filed the grievance, I was fired, contrary to multiple university policies.

Follow me on this timeline: Write about Riley/HealthSouth in March, get harassed unmercifully by supervisor in April, get fired in May. Call me paranoid, but I see a possible cause and effect going on there.

You admit in your response that you tried to squash Sam Stein's original report at Huffington Post about Riley and HealthSouth. Having failed in that effort, is it safe to say that you, Riley, and perhaps UAB officials weren't happy to see a Birmingham blogger (me) pick up on it?

Here's the bottom-line question: Given your ties to Rob Riley and UAB, do you know anything about who is behind my unlawful termination?

Anyone who has followed my blog for a period of time knows that I've studied and written about honest-services mail/wire fraud extensively. I strongly suspect that honest-services fraud, and perhaps other federal crimes, are present in my firing.

As a former federal prosecutor, you surely are concerned about such matters. And as a private attorney, you are pursuing a fraud case involving HealthSouth. What about UAB? Are you concerned about fraud that has gone on there? Do you have firsthand knowledge of such fraud?

Here is one final question: In your critique of my post on an Alabama listserv, you actually don't criticize my original reporting at all. Rather, you seem irked about issues that first were raised in Sam Stein's report at Huffington Post.

In fact, you state that anyone familiar with the appointment of lead and liaison counsel in the HealthSouth lawsuit would laugh at the notion that Rob Riley's entry into the case was connected to Siegelman or the result of "legal-political insider trading."

Stein, however, quotes an anonymous source who says that Riley entered the case specifically because of his political connections. And a key source in Stein's case was Scott Horton, a New York attorney, Columbia University law professor, and legal-affairs contributor for Harper's magazine.

Horton, by the way, did not seem to find Riley's role to be a laughing matter. Stein reports:

"[Riley] very aggressively thrust himself into that suit as a late comer," said Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University who has written extensively on these issues for Harper's magazine. "He knew that Fuller had made statements suggesting that he felt he had once been a target of a politically motivated attack by Siegelman. He knew that this would make someone predisposed against Siegelman and perfect hanging judge. And he would reap the benefit of the class action suit on the side."

Stein went on to discuss connections between Riley's knowledge of the criminal case and his role in the civil case. Again, Stein quoted Horton. And Horton wasn't laughing:

"Rob Riley approved of the strategy of dragging Scrushy into the [criminal] case because it would have benefits for him in the class action suit," said Horton. "It was clear that he was intently following what was going on in Fuller's court and knew that the conviction of Scrushy in that case would have strong benefits in the class action suit."

Are you saying that Scott Horton doesn't know what he's talking about?

And here's an even better question: If a Scrushy conviction would pay dividends for Rob Riley in the civil case, it also would pay dividends for you, wouldn't it? After all, you were even more directly involved in the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case than was Rob Riley. And unlike Rob Riley, you were involved in the HealthSouth lawsuit from the beginning.

The questions Scott Horton raises about Rob Riley would also apply to you, wouldn't they?

Is that why you were so interested in quashing Sam Stein's reporting on the subject? Is that why you were so irritated by my reporting on the subject?

Does all of this have something to do with why I currently find myself out of a job?

Songs For Murphy

Regular readers know that our blog is inspired by, and dedicated to, the memory of Murphy Abigail Shuler (1993-2004), our wonderful miniature schnauzer who helped keep us more-or-less functional during the worst of our legal travails.

I never sit down to write a post without thinking of Murphy. Sometimes that makes me sad because we still miss her terribly. But mostly it makes me grateful for the 11 years we had her. And it almost always makes me smile, thinking about the funny things she did--and the goofy things she inspired us to do.

Take singing, for example. I couldn't carry a tune in a wheel barrel--and Mrs. Schnauzer isn't a whole lot better. Murphy seemed to take so much joy in simple things--a trip to the Sonic drive-in, a game of hide-and-seek. She even seemed to get a great kick out of us singing to her, no matter how off key we were. (Schnauzers are a forgiving audience, one of their many great traits.)

One of our first "Murphy songs" came when we noticed how much she loved to go for walks. Our neighborhood has five streets, and on a steamy Alabama summer day (think 95 degrees, with 85 percent humidity), "The Murph" was content to go up and down just our street. Then she would happily go back in the house and plop down next to one of the air conditioning vents.

But on a cold day, and especially on a wintry night, it was a different story. She would want to walk the entire neighborhood, and it wasn't unusual for us to take her on walks of two miles or more. And if it was major cold for Alabama--say, in the middle teens, with frost coming off every breath--we almost had to drag her back in the house.

Schnauzers are native to Germany, and this paragraph from an article about the history of the breed, probably explains why Murphy loved cold Alabama nights:

All Schnauzers had their origin in the neighboring kingdoms of Wurttemberg and Bavaria. These are agricultural sections where the raising of sheep, cattle, and other livestock has been a major occupation for years. Since railroads were not known, sheep and cattle had to be driven to market, which meant that dogs were necessary to help the shepherds.

Like most Americans, I'm somewhat geographically challenged. But I'm pretty sure Bavaria is a cold place, so I guess that explains why the Murph liked frosty weather in Alabama.

Anyway, on one cold night when we could barely keep up as Murphy scurried around the neighborhood, one of us said, "Murph, it's like you could walk 500 miles." That led us to include this classic '80s hit from The Proclaimers in our repertoire for the Girl:



Another song was inspired by the fact that Murphy always seemed to feel so darned good. She was like a female, canine version of Jack Lalanne. If she had been human, she would have been one of these people who can't wait to get out of bed so they can do jumping jacks and pushups and squat thrusts and junk like that. Murphy's zest for life prompted us to think of a classic from James Brown. The notion of a guy as white as me trying to channel the Godfather of Soul is absurd, I'll admit. But Murphy inspired us to try the impossible:



As Murphy became more and more central to our lives, we couldn't imagine not having her around. That made us think of a Bee Gees classic from the 1960s--although we altered the lyrics to "lonely days, lonely nights, where would I be without my schnauzer:"



Maybe our favorite "Murphy Song," appropriately enough, came from a band whose roots are firmly planted in Tuskegee, Alabama. It was inspired by the Girl's solid little build. We've read that some miniature schnauzers weigh in the 10- to 12-pound range. But that wasn't our girl. She was 18 to 20 pounds of solid muscle. "Murph, you're built like a brick s--thouse," one of us said one day. That prompted us to try our version of this Commodores classic: (On the video, notice future solo star Lionel Richie playing saxophone in the background. That's Walter Orange on lead vocals.)

Is Key Figure in Siegelman Case Walking An Ethical Tightrope?

We recently posted about Birmingham attorney Doug Jones and his curious response to one of our posts here at Legal Schnauzer.

On the surface, it would appear that Jones and I are on the same political "team." He served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Bill Clinton. He was lead counsel for three-plus years on the criminal defense team for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

But Jones has taken exception to my recent reporting on a massive federal lawsuit against a number of entities and people connected to Birmingham-based HealthSouth Corp. Maybe that's because Jones appears to be straddling some uncomfortable ethical fences. And maybe my reporting is hitting close to home because Jones, while a Democrat on one hand, has a huge financial stake in the HealthSouth lawsuit on the other.

Based on our review of some of the 1,600-plus documents in the HealthSouth case file, it looks like one of the biggest money grabs in the history of Birmingham lawyering. In fact, I'm told that some area firms and lawyers have pretty much staked their futures on the case.

And Doug Jones is right in the middle of it. That's quite a turn of events for the former U.S. attorney who looked so righteous in successfully prosecuting the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.

Jones is one of the chief plantiffs' lawyers in the HealthSouth case, and one of his colleagues is Rob Riley, the son of current Alabama Governor Bob Riley and a long-time political adversary of Don Siegelman. One of the key defendants in the HealthSouth lawsuit is former CEO Richard Scrushy, who was Siegelman's codefendant in the criminal case that landed them in federal prison.

Jones' main beef with my post about the HealthSouth lawsuit seems to be that it spotlighted the ethical tightrope that Rob Riley seems to be walking between the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case and the HealthSouth civil case. Perhaps Jones didn't like my reporting because he is walking the same ethical tightrope that Rob Riley is walking.

Actually, there are probably several hundred million reasons my reporting struck a nerve with Doug Jones. The HealthSouth lawsuit already has produced more than $500 million in settlements, with more likely to come. You don't have to be a math whiz to see that massive amounts of attorney fees are at stake these days on the Birmingham legal scene. And it comes at a time, I'm told, when many lawyers and firms are hurting in a down economy.

You might say that Me and Mr. Jones "have a thing going on." But it's hardly the lovey-dovey kind of thing. Mr. Jones evidently didn't care for my reporting, and I didn't much care for Mr. Jones' statements that I had jumped to "absurd conclusions based on what appears to be purely political motivations."

What political motivations are you talking about, Mr. Jones? In case you haven't heard, someone cheated me out of my job at UAB (where I worked for 19 years), and evidence shows it was because of my blog content supportive of Don Siegelman, your former client. And you, of all people, are questioning my "political motivations"?

Here's a tip, Mr. Jones. My motivations here at Legal Schnauzer are not political. They are part personal and part related to justice, simple right and wrong. For eight-plus years, I've witnessed gross corruption in our justice system--the kind that landed Don Siegelman, your former client and an innocent man, in federal prison. I've witnessed multiple federal crimes committed by lawyers and state judges in the Northern District of Alabama. As a former prosecutor in this district, you should be concerned about the kind of sleaze that exists in an area you once presided over.

If one of your goals as U.S. attorney was to discourage public corruption, it looks like you failed miserably. Shelby County is well-known as a legal cesspool, and I'm hearing a growing number of reports that Jefferson County isn't much better.

When I decided to write a blog about the corruption I had witnessed, I received numerous anonymous threats, including one that specifically threatened my job. About a month after receiving that threat, I was fired at UAB. The university's administration upheld my firing, even after its own grievance committee found I had been wrongfully terminated.

As a quick-thinking attorney, you might have guessed that I'm not real happy about that turn of events, particularly since we recently passed the first anniversary of my "firing." And you would be right.

But I'm starting to wonder if you might know something about my firing at UAB. The chances are extremely strong that your new chum, Rob Riley, knows something about it.

Beyond my personal situation, your response to my reporting on the HealthSouth lawsuit raised questions in my mind about a number of subjects:

* Your actions in defense of Don Siegelman;

* Your motives and alliances regarding the HealthSouth lawsuit;

* Your motives and alliances regarding Rob Riley, particularly in light of the fact that Riley is an owner of Performance Group LLC, a physical-therapy company that allegedly has a serious problem with health-care fraud;

* Your motives and alliances regarding UAB, my former employer. This is of particular interest since your represented several UAB administrators in at least one very ugly, high-profile case.

So hold on, Mr. Jones. We've got some questions coming on.

(To be continued)

Are Crimes of the Bush Administration "Prosecutable"?

If I had to pick my favorite syndicated newspaper columnist, Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald certainly would be in the five finalists.

Pitts is a strong, reasoned, progressive voice in the South--if you consider Florida the South. And as an African-American male, he has a finely tuned ear on matters of injustice.

So imagine my astonishment when I read a recent Pitts column, essentially saying that we should give Bush officials a free pass on their apparent crimes.

Pitts states that the Bush administration's primary offenses were incompetence and arrogance, which are not illegal. He goes on to write:

Still, most of the signature sins of the Bush gang--Katrina, Iraq, torture, politicizing the Justice Department--are not so much violations of law as defilement of the public trust.

That is not--obviously--a small failing. But that doesn't make it prosecutable.

Pitts seems to be saying that violating the constitution is not prosecutable. That's an argument I've never heard before. And it doesn't seem to square with "The People v. Dick Cheney," a recent piece by Karen Greenberg at Mother Jones.

Greenberg reports:

The list of potential legal breaches is, of course, enormous; by one count, the administration has broken 269 laws, both domestic and international. It begins with illegal wiretapping and surveillance (which in the view of many experts violated the Fourth Amendment, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for starters), the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine US attorneys, and numerous instances of obstruction of justice—from the destruction of cia interrogation tapes to the willful misleading of Congress and the public. Perhaps the paramount charge that legal experts have zeroed in on is the state-approved torture that violated not just the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture but also the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment and other "outrages upon personal dignity."

The administration has broken 269 laws? That sounds pretty prosecutable to me.

Such noted legal experts as Jonathan Turley of Georgetown University and Scott Horton of Columbia have said that Bush officials must be held accountable for their actions. Horton compares the Bush administration to a criminal enterprise, so he appears to see its actions as prosecutable.

At times, Pitts doesn't seem to believe his own argument. He wonders if America has the stomach for holding the Bush crowd accountable, and that is a legitimate concern. He even notes that certain right-wing voices would go apoplectic in the face of accountability for the Bushies, and then notes:

You might reasonably say we should not forestall justice just because people threaten temper tantrums. Good point.

Yes, it is a good point. And here's another one: Real people--who bleed and breathe and laugh and cry--have been victims of the Bush Justice Department, or people associated with it. I know, because I am one of those victims.

And I've just been on the periphery. I know of at least four people--Paul Minor, Wes Teel, John Whitfield, and Richard Scrushy--who are being held political prisoner in the United States right now. And former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman might be headed back to prison because the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals unlawfully upheld his conviction.

Leonard Pitts is a smart guy, so I wonder if he really believes what he wrote about Bush officials and their apparent crimes. It also makes me wonder if the Obama administration, which apparently wants to "look forward and not backward," is sending out this message to certain media outlets.

Alabama whistleblower Jill Simpson has repeatedly raised questions about White House Counsel Greg Craig and his former law firm, Williams & Connolly, which represents numerous Bush luminaries--Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Dubya himself. Simpson has raised concerns that Craig is more interested in protecting his old firm's clients than in achieving justice. And the Pitts column makes me wonder if the White House has launched a media offensive to help convince the public that we should let bygones be bygones.

How is this for irony? Barack Obama rode into the White House on a trail that was blazed by people like Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Shuttlesworth, and many more. Does Obama think those civil-rights pioneers turned this country in a better direction by turning a blind eye to the sins of the past? How sad it would be if our first black president acted in a manner that is contrary to the lessons of America's civil-rights movement.

Pitts concludes by making an important point. He says that we, the people, largely are responsible for the mess Bush created:

Yes, the Supreme Court put Bush in office the first time, but 51 percent of us returned him there four years later, by which time we should have known better. But the Bush gang played our fears as old men in the park play chess, i.e., obsessively and with skill, a brilliant game of half truths, dire warnings, moral incoherence. And we--most of us--fell for it.

Pitts is right about that. A frightening number of Americans were duped by the Bush crowd. So the public must shoulder a large chunk of the blame.

But that doesn't mean our current representatives should not hold Bush officials accountable. The evidence is powerful that they did commit crimes. And those crimes are prosecutable.

Siegelman and Scrushy Should Have Testified in Their Own Defense

The testimony of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in a state-court civil case has been big news in Birmingham.

Accounts of Scrushy's performance on the stand has taught us at least one thing here at Legal Schnauzer: Scrushy and former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman should have testified in their own defense in the Montgomery criminal case that resulted in their convictions.

According to press reports, Scrushy did not crack under intense cross examination from shareholders' attorney John Haley, described by The Birmingham News as one of Alabama's "shrewdest litigators."

The civil case marked the first time that Scrushy had testified about the massive accounting fraud that nearly sank HealthSouth. In the end, it appears that Haley barely laid a glove on Scrushy.

The former CEO did not back down under stiff questioning, making a compelling case that he was one of the largest losers in the HealthSouth fraud.

Perhaps the strongest part of Scrushy's testimony came when he discussed his plans for mergers during the fraud period:

There were big plans for HealthSouth mergers during the fraud period, and Scrushy never objected to showing the books to outsiders.

In 1999, he said, he was deeply involved in merger talks with an Ohio-based nursing home company. Scrushy lawyer Jim Parkman produced a 20-page memo from Scrushy to the other firm's chief that contained detailed financial and operational notes on HealthSouth.

"Why would a CEO involved in fraud produce this document?" Parkman asked.

"You wouldn't do it," Scrushy said.

No one that I'm aware of ever has disputed that Scrushy is a bright, tough individual. Now we know that he also is a strong witness when questioned under fire. We also know that Don Siegelman is a pretty sharp fellow, one who almost certainly would make a strong impression on a witness stand.

All of which makes us think lawyers in the criminal case made a huge mistake by not having their clients take the stand in their own defense.

If Scrushy can fight off John Haley, he surely would have had little trouble against the ding dongs prosecuting the government's case for U.S. Attorney Leura Canary in Montgomery. If Siegelman can mount the kind of effective public offensive he has shown after his conviction, he surely would have made a strong case on the stand--probably preventing the conviction in the first place, even with a corrupt judge like Mark Fuller in charge.

I'm sure the Scrushy/Siegelman lawyers had valid reasons for not having their clients testify, and we have speculated about what some of those were. It seems clear the government had not proven its case, so declining to testify probably made sense at the time. Also, defense testimony would have dragged the trial out and possibly tested the patience of jurors.

From where I sit, having a defendant decline to testify makes sense when you have a client who maybe isn't terribly articulate, has a criminal history, or is likely to make a negative impression on a jury. But with smart, articulate clients like Scrushy and Siegelman, I'm thinking it was a huge mistake to not have them testify.

Former Auburn football coach Pat Dye used to say that "hindsight is 50-50, " and that's what I am using here. But think how easily the prosecution's key points could have been countered.

Nick Baily said he asked Siegelman, "What's (Scrushy) going to want for (his check)?" and the governor replied, "The CON board"?

Siegelman could testify, truthfully I presume, "I never was asked that, and I never gave that response."

The prosecution claims the Siegelman-Scrushy meeting involved a discussion of a something-for-something deal?

Siegelman could testify, truthfully I presume, "I wanted Richard to serve on the CON board because he had done so under three previous governors, and he was the most high-profile healthcare executive in our state. It would look bad not to have him on the board. Our discussion about the donation to the lottery campaign was a separate matter. One was not contingent on the other."

Prosecutors claim Scrushy badly wanted to serve on the CON board? Scrushy could back the testimony of former Alabama Power CEO Elmer Harris and say, "I'd been on the board a long time and was tired of being on it. I really didn't want to do it. I only agreed because our new governor asked me to do it."

Even with a corrupt judge and a goofy jury, it seems that kind of testimony would have resulted in an acquittal.

As for the current civil case, it continues in Birmingham this week. But from what I can tell, Scrushy acquitted himself pretty darn well on the stand.

That's not to say Scrushy will prevail in the case. It's a bench trial before Jefferson County Circuit Judge Allwin Horn, and I know from firsthand experience that Horn is a sorry excuse for a judge.

Horn already has ruled against Scrushy once, ordering him in 2006 to repay $47.8 million in bonuses, plus interest. My guess is that Horn already had determined how he was going to rule in the trial before testimony ever began.

I look for Horn to find in favor of the plaintiffs, in an amount that is roughly half of the $2.6 billion they are asking for. That sounds like a nice comfortable thing for the judge to do, and it should make the Birmingham legal community happy. If there is anything I've learned about Jefferson County judges, they want to keep the local lawyers happy.

Why did the Scrushy side agree to have Horn hear the case as a bench trial? My best guess is that they thought it would be easier to appeal under those circumstances than if a jury had heard the case.

Was Richard Scrushy really in the dark about the fraud going on at HealthSouth? Before I read his testimony from the current civil case, I found that pretty hard to believe. But now I'm not so sure. I think it's certainly possible that Scrushy was in the dark.

Either way, with Allwin Horn in charge, don't look for justice to be served. I imagine Scrushy's lawyers already are planning their appeal.

As for the criminal case in Montgomery, I think Scrushy's recent testimony shows that he and Siegelman easily could have beaten those flimsy charges if they had taken the stand.

Is Obama Going on a Crime Spree?

Is President Barack Obama, in making his choices for ambassadorships, engaging in a criminal enterprise?

If you take the findings in the Don Siegelman case as legitimate, the answer apparently is yes.

That answer, of course, would be ridiculous. But it illustrates the ridiculous nature of the Siegelman prosecution.

Benjamin Sarlin, of The Daily Beast, reports that Obama plans to appoint Chicago investment banker Louis Susman as an ambassador in London:

Susman, like previous presidential friends posted to places like London and Paris, has one major thing to recommend him: money. The Democratic fundraising legend got behind Obama's candidacy early and later bundled some $300,000 in donations toward his inauguration. As John Kerry's national finance chairman, Susman raised a staggering $247 million for that campaign in 2004 and he has worked on several presidential campaigns in the past as well.

Obama is hardly alone in appointing money men (and women) to ambassadorships. It's become a presidential tradition:

Recent examples of the ambassador-as-money-man include Robert Tuttle, one of George W. Bush’s ambassadors to the Court of St. James, a California auto dealer who raised $100,000 for Bush's 2004 campaign and an additional $100,000 for his inauguration. St. Louis businessman Sam Fox, Bush’s ambassador to Belgium, donated $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 and raised more than $200,000 for Republicans. Ronald P. Spogli, the ambassador to Italy, who raised more than $100,000 for Bush's re-election. There are many, many others like them with similar totals next to their names.

So the George W. Bush administration was awash in pay-to-play schemes--and Obama apparently is following suit--and Siegelman could get a 20-year prison sentence for his appointment of campaign supporter Richard Scrushy to a health-care board?

What's the difference between the Siegelman transaction and those that have been practiced by numerous presidents, including the current one? None that I can see, except this: Don Siegelman was governor of Alabama, a state where Karl Rove had deep ties and the connections to make sure it stayed in the "red" column.

Justice in America. Ain't it great?

Hey, Morley Safer: If You Want to Trash Somebody, Try These Folks

Veteran CBS news man Morley Safer recently trashed blogging and other forms of "new media." In our view, Safer was way off base.

If Safer wanted to trash something that probably deserves trashing, he should scrutinize what we call the "citizen journalism movement."

What is the citizen journalism movement? It consists of folks like Dan Gilmour, Jeff Jarvis, and Amy Gahran, who have blogs that purport to discuss and promote citizen journalism.

But when the "rubber meets the road" in citizen journalism, these folks seem to be missing in action.

What do I mean? Well, consider this scenario: Someone practices citizen journalism and exposes corruption that has statewide, regional, even national implications. The citizen journalist then is cheated out of his job at a public university by political forces that want to shut him up.

It's hard to imagine a more compelling issue in citizen journalism. And it just happens to describe exactly what has happened to me.

And yet when I contacted Gilmour, Jarvis, and Gahran to let them know about my experiences, I didn't receive as much as a courtesy brushoff.

Why is that? I suspect it's because they see my site as "partisan" and me as a "liberal." And just like their brethren in the mainstream press, they are terrified of being labeled as the "liberal media."

Of course, if these so-called experts on citizen journalism actually looked at my site, they would see it's not partisan at all. It started because of corruption I had witnessed, not from any desire to promote one party or another.

Any partisan tone comes from the fact that the wrongdoers in my personal story, with one or two exceptions, have been Republicans. Those are just the facts, and they dovetail with the corruption we've seen on the national stage from the George W. Bush administration.

I don't expect Gilmour & Co. to "solve" the problems I've encountered from practicing citizen journalism. But if they aren't going to report on such cases, at least a little bit, what is their purpose?

From reading their work, it appears Gilmour & Co. attend a lot of conferences and scratch their chins quite a bit about various heady issues. But if they aren't going to address the challenges real-life citizen journalists can face, what are they really trying to accomplish?