Is Another Bush Prosecution About to Implode?

Bush-era prosecutions are falling apart in Alaska on an almost daily basis. But now we have a prosecution in the Deep South that appears to be imploding.

Does it involve Don Siegelman in Alabama or Paul Minor in Mississippi? No, but you are getting warm.

It's the case of former Georgia senate leader Charles Walker, who was convicted on a variety of corruption charges in 2005. The federal judge who oversaw the Walker prosecution now has acknowledged that he never should have been involved in the case because his impartiality might reasonably have been questioned.

Walker supporters are pushing for a new trial. But Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor at Harper's, goes farther than that. He says Attorney General Eric Holder should intervene and dismiss the case.

Here is how Horton describes the environment around the Walker case:

In 1996, Charles Walker, a Georgia publisher and entrepreneur, became the first black American to be chosen as a Senate majority leader in the country. He achieved that in Georgia. And he quickly used his new position to advance some causes that were unpopular with whites in general and with the state’s Neoconfederate Republicans in particular. He pressed an initiative to drop the Confederate battle flag from the state flag of Georgia. Segregationists had adopted the Confederate banner as the state flag in 1956, as an act of defiance in the face of a growing civil rights movement. Walker’s effort succeeded, but it unleashed a tidal wave of resentment that Republicans rode to electoral success in Georgia. And it may have had personal consequences for Walker.

George W. Bush took charge in Washington in 2001, and new U.S. attorneys were appointed in Georgia. Walker suddenly discovered that he was the target of a no-holds-barred criminal investigation—an investigation launched in search of a crime. The U.S. attorney in question was the subject of a Justice Department investigation that found he opened criminal cases which appeared to advance the interests of a Republican candidate who happened to be his friend. The U.S. attorney in question was forced to resign his position, but did so after promising senior figures in the Georgia G.O.P. that the effort to get Walker would proceed just the same. And in fact it did. The case contained 142 counts, arguing that Walker engaged in fraud and corrupt dealings. The counts were for the most part an extreme stretch: at the heart of the government’s case was a claim that Walker defrauded advertisers in his publication by overstating its subscription base, a not exactly earth-shattering practice. But highly abusive practices identified by the Department’s own internal probe—reiterating corruption claims and widely fanning them in the press—drove the case to a dubious conviction.

And what about the trial judge?

The trial judge in the case was Dudley Bowen, who had close ties to the Augusta newspaper that was Walker’s principal competitor. Bowen turned out to be a perfect judge–from the prosecution’s perspective. He ruled against Walker on each of his 25 pre-trial motions, and directed that the jury be drawn from an overwhelmingly white pool.

Even in upholding Walker’s conviction, the Eleventh Circuit went out of its way to say it was “disturbed” by the district court’s handling of the case.

Will Judge Mark Fuller and Judge Henry Wingate soon be confessing that they had no business overseeing the Siegelman and Minor cases, respectively?

Let's not hold our collective breath. But the Walker case might offer a glimmer of hope that justice is slowly making its way south.

Basketball Coach Talks Nonsense About Assault Case

University of Mississippi basketball coach Andy Kennedy can't seem to keep from stepping in doo-doo when it comes to Cincinnati, an ill-fated cab ride, and an assault case that became national news.

The latest chapter in the saga came when Kennedy decided to talk trash about cab driver Mohamed Jiddou, who claimed that Kennedy assaulted him and used racial slurs last December in Cincinnati. Kennedy's comments are so nutty that it appears he has learned nothing constructive from the experience. And it makes you wonder if Ole Miss officials should review their decision to let Kennedy keep his job.

Given that Kennedy recently pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct, and several civil actions are pending, you would think the coach would either shut up about the case--or at least act a little contrite. But you would be wrong.

Kennedy was asked about the case at last week's Southeastern Conference spring meeting. Instead of politely changing the subject, or saying he regretted the entire event, Kennedy decided to talk a little smack about Jiddou and eye witness Michael Strother. Reports The Birmingham News:

"I've come to realize there are a lot of people out there who don't want to work for a living," Kennedy said last week at the SEC spring meetings, referring to his accusers. "They want to continue that lifestyle of not working, so I have to be really cognizant of that."

How wacky is this comment? Let us count the ways:

* At the time the incident occurred, around 1 a.m., Jiddou and Strother were working, as a cab driver and a valet, respectively. Two guys who were working at 1 a.m. don't sound like slackers to me.

* Kennedy seems to be saying that Jiddou and Strother are out to make big bucks from lawsuits, so much that they won't have to work in the future. First of all, any lawsuit from a case such as this is unlikely to generate the kind of money that would put Jiddou and Strother on easy street. Second, who took the case into the civil arena? Answer: Kennedy did. All Jiddou did was file a criminal complaint, with Strother supporting his story. I know from firsthand experience that filing a criminal complaint is not a moneymaking proposition. It was Kennedy who opened fire in the civil arena, filing a dubious lawsuit for defamation.

Kennedy went on to indicate he had grown tired of the hoopla surrounding the case, telling the News: "I ended up pleading guilty to a disorderly conduct just to avoid the whole pomp and circumstances of what that had grown into."

Well, who is responsible for the "pomp and circumstances." Answer: Kennedy and his lawyers are. They have taken a number of ethically shaky actions. And most absurd of all, they dragged Kennedy's wife, Kimber, into the fray with a loss-of-consortium lawsuit.

Given the tactics of Team Kennedy, Jiddou and Strother had little choice but to respond with countersuits.

Perhaps most curious is this quote from Kennedy:

"Many times I've come to learn you're often forced out of your comfort zone and it's the only real opportunity to grow. I hope I learned some valuable lessons that will help me as I move forward."

Kennedy's right: This experience was an opportunity to grow--and to change his late-night ways. But his comments indicate he hasn't learned that lesson. Instead, he's blaming other people for a problem that he largely caused.

We've followed the Kennedy case partly because it raises a number of interesting legal issues and partly because the coach and two of his assistants are alums of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer.

If Ole Miss is going to keep Kennedy on as coach, it might want to hire two sets of babysitters--one to make sure that the coach and his immature assistants can stay out of bars into the wee hours and one to make sure that Kennedy can keep from spewing nonsense when he's asked for an interview.

Alabama Officials Will Examine Australia Diving Death

Is it possible that Australia's justice system actually could be worse than the one we have in Alabama?

It is starting to look that way after Gabe Watson was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter last week in Brisbane, Australia. Watson had been charged with murder in the drowning death of his wife, Tina Thomas Watson. After the plea, Watson received a 4 1/2-year sentence, suspended to 12 months.

The sentence drew cries of outrage, both in Australia and the United States. Law-enforcement officials in the Watsons' native Alabama say they might pursue murder charges here if they can find evidence that Gabe Watson plotted to kill his wife while at home and carried out the plan on their honeymoon in Australia.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Alabama Attorney General Troy King plans to lead a delegation to Australia to lobby for an appeal of the sentence.

The Sydney newspaper quoted Don Valeska, an assistant attorney general in King's office:

"I don't wish to throw stones at the Australian prosecutors but they spent hundreds of hours on this and told me personally they had a very strong case. It now seems Tina's parents made a huge mistake letting them handle this. What were (the prosecutors) thinking? Had we known Watson was only going to get a year, we would have begged the prosecutors to drop all charges and send him back to America.

"It is a fact that he would have received at least 20 years here, probably life without parole, because we can demonstrate he killed for the money."

Valeska was referring to a $160,000 life-insurance policy that prosecutors believe was the motive behind Tina Watson's death.

Gabe Watson and Tina Thomas grew up in the suburbs south of Birmingham. They married in October 2003, with a honeymoon set for Australia, and Tina Watson drowned 11 days later while diving off the Great Barrier Reef.

Here is how the Sydney Morning Herald described the case against Gabe Watson:

Underwater footage taken during Mrs. Watson's fatal dive showed her husband swimming away while she sank to the ocean floor.

Watson, a rescue diver, told authorities his wife panicked underwater. He said she was too heavy to drag to the surface so he raced off for help. He later changed details of his account when quizzed by police.

An autopsy failed to find any pre-existing medical condition to explain her death, and tests proved there was nothing wrong with her diving gear.

The coroner found it likely Watson killed his wife by holding her underwater and turning off her air supply. The motive was believed to be her life insurance policy, which Watson tried to collect after her death.

Valeska said the case could present complications for Alabama officials hoping to intervene:

"As far as this department is concerned, the crime started in America and was then committed in Australia.

"We can demonstrate Watson started plotting here because he went to her job and tried to up the insurance, without her, right before they got married.

"We would definitely arrest him when he gets back but whether two countries can charge someone over the same murder remains to be seen. A judge here may turn around and say that he can't be put in jeopardy for the same crime twice."

Our blog is largely about the dismal state of the justice system in Alabama. But is it possible that Tina Thomas Watson could receive some measure of justice in her home state? It certainly appears that Australian authorities have failed her.

Even Republicans Can't Believe Holder's Latest Move in Alaska

Was Eric Holder appointed attorney general for the sole purpose of letting Republican scoundrels off the hook?

It's starting to look that way after news came yesterday that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking that two former Alaska state legislators be released from prison because of prosecutorial misconduct in their cases. Victor Kohring and Peter Kott, both Republicans, were convicted in the same corruption investigation that netted former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AL).

The Obama Justice Department already has dismissed cases or appeals against Stevens and alleged Republican phone jammer James Tobin. Kohring and Kott make four Republicans who have received favorable treatment since Obama took office in January. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Don Siegelman in Alabama and Paul Minor in Mississippi have received no known reviews of their cases.

If you are keeping score at home, it's now Republicans 4, Democrats 0 under the Obama DOJ.

Holder said Kohring and Kott should be set free because prosecutors failed to turn over favorable information to the defense, the same grounds upon which the DOJ asked for dismissal of charges against Stevens. In the Kohring and Kott cases, the DOJ is asking that they be set free and their cases sent to U.S. District Court in Anchorage for reconsideration. Legal experts say they could receive new trials or their cases could be dismissed.

Kohring and Kott were convicted with the help of videotaped recordings by the FBI. Here's how the Anchorage Daily News described the evidence against them:

The videos, secretly taken from a lamp in a Juneau hotel suite in 2006, captured Kott and Kohring talking oil-tax strategy with officials from the now defunct oil-field service company Veco Inc. The government presented evidence that those officials, chief executive Bill Allen and vice president Rick Smith, also made illegal payments to Kott and Kohring. Allen and Smith have pleaded guilty to bribery and are awaiting sentencing.

Even Alaska Republicans were stunned by the latest turn of events:

"Wow, wow, wow," said Sen. Fred Dyson, the Eagle River Republican who helped the FBI in its investigation. "I'm surprised, to say the least. I sat all the way through the Kott trial and watched the video," said Dyson, referring to secretly made recordings by the FBI.

A defense lawyer was so shocked that he couldn't help but make a joke about the Holder request:

The move by the Obama administration's reconstituted Justice Department "is enough to make Vic Kohring become a Democrat," lawyer John Henry Browne joked about his arch-conservative client.

Even Alaska's most famous Republican, Gov. Sarah Palin, seemed to be in a state of disbelief. In an e-mail statement, she said:

"Until I get more information on this newest twist, I can't comment beyond saying I am wildly curious what went on in DOJ back then, and what is going on in DOJ now that's resulted in these stunning turn of events. I agree with the attorney general that the Department of Justice should be about justice, not just about winning cases but I will withhold further comment until we see how this plays out."

Birmingham News is on Shaky Financial Ground

The Birmingham News, the only daily newspaper in Alabama's largest city, has announced that it is enacting graduated pay cuts for most employees.

This comes on the heels of buyouts offered to about 85 veteran employees last year.

Even though it enjoys a monopoly in this market, the newspaper clearly is struggling financially.

Columnist John Archibald assures the world that the News will forge ahead. But I suspect Archibald is too much of a company man to fully grasp why his organization is failing.

Certainly lost ad revenue during a Bush-initiated recession is a key factor. And the paper's classified-ads section has been shrinking for months, with the Web offering better alternatives for many ad buyers.

But I would submit that the News' greatest failing involves journalism, not new "business paradigms."

I am 52 years old, and one of the most important stories of my lifetime has taken place right under the News' nose. Over the past eight years, the U.S. Justice Department has been used as a political tool, causing a number of innocent individuals to become political prisoners.

This sounds like a story out of Josef Stalin's Soviet Union. But it has happened--and is still happening--right here in the United States. And the story's roots, thanks to the Don Siegelman case and Karl Rove's personal history, are firmly planted in Alabama.

But our state's largest newspaper has done zero serious reporting on the story. In fact, it has mostly helped cover it up by acting as cheerleader for corrupt Bush prosecutors Alice Martin and Leura Canary.

The fundamental purpose of a newspaper is not to sell ads. It is to practice serious and responsible journalism. The News has failed miserably in that regard. And I suspect that has a lot to do with why it is struggling financially.

Cyril Wecht Lands Verbal Haymakers on Bush Prosecutor

Mary Beth Buchanan, a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh, is to Pennsylvania what Alice Martin and Leura Canary are to Alabama. All three women appear to be right-wing fanatics who base their cases largely on politics rather than facts and law.

While Martin and Canary went after former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on flimsy charges, Buchanan's most celebrated target was renowned forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, a frequent guest on television news shows.

After a new judge suppressed much of the evidence in the case, Buchanan was forced to dismiss the charges against Wecht. We took special delight in reading that Buchanan received a verbal beatdown after the Wecht case blew up in her face.

Buchanan started the verbal sparring by pointing out that Wecht's first trial resulted in a hung jury. "He wasn't acquitted of anything," she said. "It was a hung jury."

Wecht responded by calling Buchanan a "sore loser":

"Her record, her actions speak for themselves," he said. "She has no shame at all. Absolutely none. Evidently, whether it's biological, or genetic or an environmental, infectious contaminant of some kind, she is incapable of simply telling the truth, not to mention being a gracious loser."

Lord, could those words ever apply to a couple of prosecutors we know in Alabama?

Wecht couldn't resist taking a shot at the government's tactics:

Dr. Wecht criticized the government for filing an 84-count indictment and whittling it down to just 14 counts before dismissing the entire case.

"What does that say about professional decency and ethical responsibility?" he asked.

The Wecht case turned when an appellate panel forced trial judge Arthur J. Schwab to step down. The new judge, Sean J. McLaughlin, ruled that much of the government's evidence had been improperly obtained. End of case.

That caused us to wonder why a clearly biased trial judge, Mark Fuller, remains on the Siegelman case in Alabama.

A legal expert was quick to say that Buchanan's comments after the Wecht dismissal were classless and inappropriate:

University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris said the government had no choice but to dismiss the case and that Ms. Buchanan's personal feelings are irrelevant.

"To state her belief in Dr. Wecht's guilt at the same time she dismisses the charges against him shows confusion on her part about her proper role," he said.

Harris said a mouthful there. Buchanan, Martin, and Canary are just three of many Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys who seem to have confusion about the proper role of a prosecutor.

Wecht couldn't resist taking a jab at the Obama administration, wondering why it has allowed "public servants" like Buchanan to remain in office:

"With Iraq, Israel, Hamas, Fatah, the economy and healthcare plan, smugglers from Mexico, swine flu and pirates in Somalia, I can't understand how President Obama has considered all of those to be a greater priority than replacing Mary Beth Buchanan," Dr. Wecht said with a smile.

UAB Cuts Jobs After Defrauding the Federal Government

The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) announced yesterday that it was eliminating 245 jobs in its health-care operation. The plan, which resulted in the termination of 164 employees, is expected to save $16 to $20 million a year.

That leaves this glaring question, one UAB obviously does not want raised publicly: What happened to the estimated $300 to $600 million that UAB allegedly pilfered from the federal government in a massive research-fraud scheme that lasted for approximately 10 years, starting in the 1990s?

In other words, what happened to UAB's dirty money?

As we have reported previously, UAB settled a whistleblower lawsuit under the U.S. False Claims Act for $3.4 million in 2005. But according to court documents, the settlement represented only a tiny fraction of the actual alleged fraud.

The case against UAB was built on the complaints of two whistleblowers--Thomas Gober, a former auditor and research-compliance officer at the university, and Dr. Jay Meythaler, a physician who practiced in rehabilitation medicine at UAB until his resignation in 2004.

Gober now has a forensic-accounting firm, specializing in fraud detection, in Iuka, Mississippi. Meythaler now serves on the faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit.

Gober's complaint was filed on April 19, 2001. Meythaler's complaint followed on June 1, 2004. The U.S. Department of Justice consolidated the complaints prior to the settlement in 2005.

The nature of the fraud is summarized in Gober's complaint:

The false claims include double billing and improper billing of the federal Medicare, Medicaid, and CHAMPUS Programs and misrepresenting facts on grant applications and continuation grant applications to the government.

Part of the fraud involved improper "effort reporting" on federal grants. Effort reporting is supplied in a grant application to inform the government of the applicant's time and effort available for a grant or research program. Gober states that UAB failed to disclose overlap support "on hundreds and perhaps thousands" of grant applications over a 10-year period.

How big was the fraud? Gober's complaint states:

In the year 2000 alone, (UAB) submitted over 100 false claims in grant applications and continuation grant applications. These claims resulted in approximately $72,000,000 of grants and continuation grants being given to (UAB) by the government in the year 2000.

The complaint goes on to state that "based on the statutory penalty of $10,000 for each false claim submitted, treble damages applied, and a conservative estimate of 100 false claims in the year 2000," the total amount to be recovered was $217 million.

That was just for one year--and for only one form of fraud. UAB's fraud took several forms.

For example, Gober says UAB submitted thousands of claims to federal health-care programs that should have been billed to non-federal entities. The Gober complaint states:

This resulted in (UAB) double billing and improperly billing the government for goods, services, and other health care provided to persons participating in federally funded and non-federally funded research programs. (UAB was) aware of this double billing and improper billing, yet took no action to correct it . . .

Gober says UAB submitted more than 1,000 such false claims in 2000 alone, totaling about $23 million. Under federal law, the government should have recovered $79 million for those violations--in one year alone. And Gober stated that the double billing had been going on for at least 10 years.

Finally, the complaint states that UAB overcharged the government for bed space on a grant that had been sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. This fraud totaled about $30,000, which would have allowed the government to recover about $100,000 in damages.

Now, let's do a little math:

* On the "effort reporting" scheme, Gober says the fraud totaled $72 million in 2000 alone, and the misrepresentations went on for approximately 10 years. Let's be generous to UAB and say the fraud averaged $40 million a year in the other nine years. That would bring the total to $432 million in effort-reporting fraud. Based on a statutory penalty of $10,000 for each false claim, plus treble damages, the recoverable amount for the government would easily top $1 billion.

* On the "double billing" scheme, Gober says the fraud totaled $23 million for 2003 alone, and the unlawful billing continued for approximately 10 years. Again let's be conservative and estimate that the fraud averaged $15 million a year in the other nine years. That would bring the total in double-billing fraud to $158 million. Based on statutory damages, the recoverable amount would approach $500 million.

* The "bed space" scheme covered only one year, totaling $30,000 and a recoverable amount of about $100,000.

The grand total? According to Gober's complaint UAB committed--by a conservative estimate--$590 million of research fraud. And the government should have been able to recover approximately $1.5 billion in damages.

Does Tom Gober know what he's talking about? You can check out his bio at his Web site. You can read a Newsweek article that quotes him extensively about the AIG scandal. And you can even check him out with your own eyes. Here is a video of Gober discussing the financial fraud that has led to our nation's current economic crisis:



Let's return our thoughts to those 164 people who have lost their jobs at UAB. How does an institution, according to the sworn statement of a forensic accountant, defraud the federal government out of almost $600 million (and that's a conservative figure)? How does that same institution wind up with such financial difficulties that it has to lay off employees?

How badly managed does an institution have to be in order to pull off that feat?

Did Holder Go Easy on Republican Phone Jammer?

The criminal case against Republican organizer James Tobin, famed for his role in the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming caper, came to an end last week.

It appears that Tobin, like former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), caught a break from the Obama Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder. And it should be noted that Tobin, like Stevens, was represented by the Washington, D.C., firm Williams & Connolly, which produced Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig.

Democrats, such as former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mississippi attorney Paul Minor, should be so fortunate.

The Tobin case was fairly convoluted, but the bottom line is this: The Justice Department, led by Eric Holder, dropped the case against a GOP hatchet man.

Here is how the Bangor (ME) Daily News describes the Tobin case:

Tobin’s legal saga began on Election Day in 2002, when the phone lines for New Hampshire Democrats’ get-out-the-vote effort were jammed for a brief time. Tobin was convicted in December 2005 by a federal jury in Concord, N.H., of being part of a conspiracy to jam the phone lines. He was acquitted on the more serious charge of violating residents’ constitutional right to vote.

The 1st Circuit overturned his conviction in 2007. It found that the telephone harassment statute was not a good fit for what Tobin had been convicted of doing.

After the conviction was overturned, federal prosecutors brought new charges against Tobin in Maine for lying to FBI agents. What happened next? Prepare for a shocker. Here's how the Bangor Daily News described it:

U.S. District Judge George Z. Singal in February dismissed the Maine charges on the basis of vindictive prosecution. Federal prosecutors on March 17 appealed Singal’s decision but on May 1 filed a motion to dismiss it.

You heard that right. A federal judge dismissed charges against a Republican phone jammer on the basis of "vindictive prosecution." If Don Siegelman and Paul Minor are drinking coffee when they read that sentence, they surely will spew it across the room.

You also read the last sentence from the Bangor newspaper correctly. The Holder-led Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of the judge's decision.

End of case. And a Republican scoundrel goes free.

At last report, Holder had made no effort to review either the Siegelman or Minor cases.

We are now a little more than four months into the Obama administration. And for those of you keeping score on justice issues at home, it's now:

Republicans 2, Democrats 0.

Mismanagement Continues at UAB, With 245 Jobs Eliminated

No sooner had we put up our previous post, about the mysterious whereabouts of UAB's "lost" administrator, than word came that the UAB Health System is eliminating 245 jobs.

The "lost" administrator was former Health System CEO David Hoidal, who after saying he was stepping down to care for aging parents in South Dakota, wound up at a hospital in the United Arab Emirates. Last time we checked, that's a long way from South Dakota.

Hoidal's successor, Will Ferniany, announced earlier today that the Health System is eliminating 245 jobs. That comes on the heels of a productivity study that Ferniany had initiated.

Taken together, these stories continue two ongoing themes at UAB, my former employer:

* A Culture of Deceit--We have outlined a growing list of deceitful and unlawful practices at UAB. The truth about David Hoidal's whereabouts is just the latest addition. When Hoidal left, UAB issued an official statement, saying he was going to South Dakota to care for aging parents. So what is he doing in the Middle East? UAB's statement now appears to have been a lie. Why is the university lying about what transpired with its former Health System CEO?

* Gross Mismanagement and Corruption--From research fraud to multiple HR-related lawsuits to numerous missteps in its men's basketball program, UAB is awash in mismanagement and corruption under President Carol Garrison and her Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. How long before Birmingham residents wake up and realize that one of their greatest assets is being run into the ground by incompetent "leaders"?

The Mystery of UAB's "Lost" Administrator

Fans of the hit television series Lost--and Mrs. Schnauzer definitely is among them--should be intrigued by the David Hoidal story.

Who is David Hoidal?

He was named CEO in 2004 of the UAB Health System, the health-care arm of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer. He stayed in that position until his rather abrupt resignation in January 2008. According to news reports at the time, Hoidal and his wife planned to return to their native Midwest to help care for aging parents.

Did Hoidal wind up in his native South Dakota? Not exactly.

Turns out Mr. Hoidal is now chief executive officer of Al Rahba Hospital in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). Last time I looked at a globe, United Arab Emirates is quite a distance from South Dakota.

So why did UAB and Hoidal offer the classic BS explanation about him leaving to "spend time with my family"? Let's examine that question for a moment.

Hoidal's resignation at UAB was fairly big news in the hospital-management world. That's probably because his colleagues in the field couldn't believe the explanation that was being put forth.

Here is what Hoidal said in a written statement about his departure from UAB:

"While my wife and I have enjoyed our many years in Alabama, our roots remain in the Midwest. At this point in our lives our priority is to spend more time with family, particularly our aging parents. It is with mixed emotions that I depart the UAB Health System, disappointed that I will not be an active participant in its continued growth and development, but delighted with our decision regarding family."

Hmmm, at some point it looks like Hoidal decided he had roots in United Arab Emirates, too. Those are some roots.

You will notice that Hoidal issued a written statement, a common practice at UAB's tight-lipped operation, and did not take questions from the press. That was probably a good idea, considering that reporter Jimmy DeButts of the Birmingham Business Journal reported that Hoidal was making more than $1 million a year at the time of his departure.

Had DeButts been granted an interview with Hoidal, one of his first questions probably would have been: "Why on earth can't a guy making more than $1 million a year afford to move his aging parents from South Dakota to Birmingham?"

Now we know that Hoidal's aging parents almost certainly had nothing to do with his decision to leave UAB. And we know that UAB appears to have intentionally deceived the public about what was behind the departure.

So why did David Hoidal leave UAB? As a former 19-year employee of the university--until I was cheated out of my job because of the contents of this blog--I can make a couple of educated guesses.

Guess No. 1--As we have reported several times, UAB allegedly has been involved in massive research fraud that, according to one whistleblower, totals $300 million or more. The university wound up settling the case with the government for a mere $3 million or so, a penalty that probably does not even qualify as a slap on the wrist. Hoidal had not been CEO of the Health System long when the settlement was reached. Part of the settlement agreement says the government can reopen a civil, administrative, or criminal investigation at any point--particularly if the problem has not been cleaned up. Is it possible that David Hoidal saw that UAB, having gotten off easy, was making no real effort to clean up its research-fraud mess? Is it possible that Hoidal was afraid UAB might become the target of a future investigation, and the university's leaders were likely to try to pin the blame on him? I would say there is a good chance that the answer to both questions is yes. And the "South Dakota" explanation probably was just a deception, designed to give Hoidal time to find another position--as far away as possible from UAB.

Guess No. 2--UAB has tried to build alliances in the Middle East before. Dr. Douglas Tilt left UAB Internal Medicine to spend two years in United Arab Emirates before returning to start The Camellia Medical Group, a boutique clinic for wealthy patients at UAB. The Camellia Medical Group is part of a trend called "concierge medicine," which has drawn criticism in some circles--particularly when practiced at a public university.

Was David Hoidal dispatched to United Arab Emirates in an effort to help bring boatloads of Middle-East cash to Birmingham? If that was the case, why didn't UAB simply tell the truth about its plans?

Why the subterfuge about South Dakota and aging parents?

Our enquiring Schnauzer mind will continue to look into these questions.