Alabama's Right-Wing Publishers Are Hitting the Exits

The job security of publishers at Alabama's right-wing metro newspapers seems to have gotten shaky.

First came news that Victor Hanson III is retiring as publisher of The Birmingham News. Hanson, 53, became publisher in 2001.

Now we learn that Howard Bronson has been forced out at the Mobile Press-Register. And Bronson isn't happy about it. He has filed a lawsuit against the newspaper and its owners, claiming breach of contract and other wrongful acts when he was asked to retire.

What is behind these moves? Financial concerns almost certainly are part of it. The newspaper industry is struggling mightily as advertising revenue dwindles and readers turn to the Web for news and opinion.

Could something else be in play? The Press-Register and reporter Eddie Curran are credited with "breaking" the Siegelman story, leading to the governor's prosecution on federal corruption charges. The Birmingham News also played a major role throughout the Siegelman case and in coverage of the Alabama two-year colleges story, which has focused largely on Democrats serving in the state legislature.

Thanks largely to the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton, we now know that both newspapers enjoyed alarmingly cozy relationships with federal prosecutors during the George W. Bush era. Is it possible that someone is looking into the improper role Alabama newspapers might have played in helping to bring political prosecutions? Could that have contributed to the exit of newspaper publishers in Birmingham and Mobile?

If so, that would mean someone at the Obama Justice Department actually is awake and cares at least a little bit about rampant wrongdoing in the Bush DOJ. So far, we've seen little evidence that anyone on Team Obama has such an outlook. It's our guess that these exits are based mainly on financial difficulties in the newspaper industry, a situation that isn't likely to improve with the shuffling of publishers.

Whistleblower Is the Target of Dirty Tactics in Karl Rove's Alabama

What happens to individuals who incur the wrath of the right-wing machine that has come to rule Alabama since Karl Rove arrived on the scene in the mid 1990s?

If you are former Governor Don Siegelman or former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, the Department of Justice tries to turn you into a "criminal."

If you are me, a blogger who happens to write uncomfortable truths about Alabama's GOP-controlled justice system, someone cheats you out of your job.

If you are Tamarah Grimes, a former legal aide in the Middle District of Alabama, you experience both. After Grimes blew the whistle on prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case, right-wing forces seemingly pulled out all the stops--costing Grimes her job AND compiling bogus criminal charges against her.

Do loyal Bushies, many of whom still call the Justice Department home, play dirty? Oh, yes. And that is the central message in part II of Andrew Kreig's interview with Grimes at OpEd News.

Did the Justice Department welcome Grimes' revelations about prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case? Not exactly. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) referred her for a criminal investigation, arbitrarily waiving her right to confidentiality with arbitrator Sharon Stokes, of Atlanta. Says Grimes:

Then Mrs. Stokes and Rita Sampson, Assistant Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys EEO Staff, supposedly "neutrals" in the EEO process, began corresponding with DoJ's Office of Inspector General to push for a criminal investigation of me. Later, I discovered that Mrs. Sampson was no neutral at all. Mrs. Sampson formerly worked with the Executive Office's General Counsel and as former General Counsel for the FBI. On March 19, 2008, DoJ Special Agent Ronald Gossard of the Inspector General's office in Sharon Stokes' district of Atlanta requested that I be indicted on criminal charges arising from confidential discussions with the “neutral” mediator during an active mediation. The request was addressed to Assistant United States Attorney Melvin Hyde, Jr. in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Columbus, GA.

What was at the heart of Gossard's request that Grimes be indicted on criminal charges? Grimes tried to find out, and after considerable stalling from the DOJ, she determined that the request was based on charges that she had improperly tape recorded conversations while serving on the Siegelman prosecution team. Grimes was compelled to take part in a Kalkines interview, which means a government employee is required to answer questions about her official duties so long as the government also grants the employee immunity from prosecution based upon that information.

Did the DOJ uphold its end of the bargain? Not exactly. Says Grimes:

In violation of Kalkines, DoJ used my testimony from March 27, 2008, against me to accomplish my termination. According to a Report of Investigation authored by Special Agent Gossard on June 12, 2008, the investigation failed to develop any substantive evidence to support the charges against me. However, in Gossard’s sole opinion, I was guilty of making false statements to a federal law enforcement officer under oath during my Kalkines interview for every occasion I denied making statements to the mediator about the existence of audiotapes. Later, in an internal administrative action, DOJ accused me of lying to a federal agent. I asked them to produce the audiotapes, and of course they could not. There are none. There never were.

What did Gossard wind up doing? Better take a deep breath before you read this because it boggles the mind:

Special Agent Gossard issued, “OIG Report of Investigation No. 2008-00904,” from which I draw many of these specifics and timelines. The report concludes that although no evidence was developed to support the allegation that I made audiotape recordings of anyone at all, for any reason at all, he concluded that I made false statements because I denied making audiotape recordings.

You heard that right. Grimes denied making audiotape recordings, the DOJ failed to produce any evidence that such recordings existed, but the DOJ charged her with lying to a federal agent for making what--according to their own evidence--was a truthful statement.

This is reminiscent of what happened to me at UAB. All of us in the Office of Periodicals had multiple components to our job descriptions. But two of them clearly were: (1) Use the Web to keep track of Alabama-related news events that could become story ideas for our various publications; and (2) Use the Web to learn about blogs, audio/visual sites, and other forms of "new media" in order to develop possible new projects for our clients. I did those two things--along with all of my other duties--and my boss determined they were "non-work related activity"--even though she had told me to do them.

Nutty, indeed.

Grimes puts her experience in perspective:

The main thing is that I never said I had made audiotape recordings. That is a false claim. The no-win nature of the process is that the only alleged evidence is a claim that I made a verbal claim that I had a tape, and yet I was being criminally accused of denying it. There is no audiotape. No smoking gun.

Legal Profession Tries to Hide Misconduct from the Public

If I had to pick just one thing that is wrong with our dysfunctional justice system, it would be this: The law is a self-regulating profession, meaning that complaints of wrongdoing against a lawyer almost always are heard by other lawyers. And lawyers often have a vested interest in sweeping their profession's "dirty undies" under the mattress, rather than airing them out for public view.

A recent article by Reporter John Schwartz in The New York Times shows that, even in the age of the World Wide Web, the legal profession clings to its ethos of self-protection over self-disclosure. Who are the losers in this game of "hide and don't seek"? The public. And that's just the way the legal profession wants it.

Schwartz reports that a number of brave lawyers have taken to various online social-media sites to gripe about judges. Did the associations and commissions that oversee the legal profession look into the complaints to see if, indeed, the judges were incompetent, or worse, corrupt? Not exactly.

Instead, they took action against the complaining lawyers, issuing reprimands, fines, and other forms of discipline. Schwartz focuses on Sean Conway, a Florida lawyer who blogged about a Fort Lauderdale judge, calling her an "evil, unfair witch." Reports Schwartz:

Mr. Conway is hardly the only lawyer to have taken to online social media like Facebook, Twitter and blogs, but as officers of the court they face special risks. Their freedom to gripe is limited by codes of conduct.

“When you become an officer of the court, you lose the full ability to criticize the court,” said Michael Downey, who teaches legal ethics at the Washington University law school.

Here is the rub, however, and it's an issue that Downey fails to address. If Conway were to use official channels to complain about the judge, his concerns almost certainly would be ignored.

I know because I've seen how state legal-oversight bodies work. I've filed complaints against three different judges with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission. In each case, I did more than just "air gripes." I presented extensive evidence that each judge had repeatedly and intentionally ruled contrary to clear, simple law. I presented evidence that each judge either was incompetent, biased, or corrupt--or some combination of all three.

No action was taken on any of my complaints. None of them was even investigated.

I filed a complaint against lawyer William E. Swatek with the Alabama State Bar. Swatek has been disciplined by the bar three times previously, including a suspension of his license for acts of "fraud, misrepresentation, deceit, and dishonesty." And that does not include a criminal prosecution against him for perjury in the early 1980s. Swatek somehow managed to be acquitted, even though public documents indicate he clearly was guilty, and that allowed him to keep his bar card.

Bar rules state that a lawyer with previous disciplinary problems is subject to particularly close scrutiny. But was my complaint even investigated? Nope.

I know of a Jefferson County man who filed a bar complaint against Swatek, and it involved a case where someone almost lost his life. Did the Alabama State Bar do anything? Nope. (Much more on this case is coming in a future post.)

The Times does not say if Conway, the Florida lawyer, had tried to use official channels to complain about the judge. But it sounds as if Conway felt he was out of options. And his concerns involved issues that could deprive defendants of their right to a fair trial--and their freedom:

In Mr. Conway’s case, the post that got him in trouble questioned the motives and competence of Judge Cheryl Aleman, and appeared on a rowdy blog created by a criminal defense lawyers’ group in Broward County. The judge regularly gave defense lawyers just one week to prepare for trials, when most judges give a month or more. To Mr. Conway, the move was intended to pressure the lawyers to ask for a delay in the trials, thus waiving their right under Florida law to have a felony trial heard within 175 days, pushing those cases to the back of the line.

“All I had left were my words,” Mr. Conway said, adding that he decided to use the strongest ones he had.

If I could offer Mr. Conway some advice, it would be this: The next time, you criticize a judge online--and I hope you will do it if it is justified--don't just use words like "unfair evil witch." Spell out exactly how he or she is acting contrary to law. Show how he or she is violating procedural, statutory, or case law--and what that means to the parties involved. And don't write on a blog that is read mostly by other lawyers. Write where the general public is likely to see it.

We have written before about the law as a self-regulating profession--and spotlighted the problems that causes. We have proposed solutions, and John Schwartz' article convinces us even more that non-lawyers must get involved in the process. Here are our earlier words, and we stand by them today:

Lawyers have proven that they can't regulate themselves, so let's stop pretending that they can. Most bar associations scare lawyers about as much as Barney Fife scares the criminals of Mayberry. And most judicial inquiry boards scare judges about as much as Otis the Town Drunk scares the criminals of Mayberry.

We need citizen boards with the power to disbar, impeach, fine, spank, apply wedgies, and recommend indictments for wayward lawyers and judges. Obviously these boards will need to be trained by honest lawyers (perhaps law professors?). And they will need lawyers available for advisory purposes. But citizens need to be the ones who determine if lawyers and judges are following the law. And citizens need to be given the teeth to bite bad lawyers in the britches--until it hurts.

Football Coach's Criminal Trial Was a Lose-Lose Proposition

Everyone involved is likely to come out a loser following the trial of a Kentucky high-school football coach on criminal charges related to the death of one of his players on the practice field.

A Louisville jury yesterday found Coach David Jason Stinson not guilty of reckless homicide and wanton endangerment in the death of 15-year-old Max Gilpin in August 2008. Stinson's supporters reacted to the news with relief and tears, but the coach hardly is left a winner. He probably is faced with paying massive legal bills on a teacher's salary.

One of the biggest losers is Commonwealth Prosecutor R. David Stengel, a Democrat who brought a case that had almost no chance of success from the outset. Jurors deliberated only 90 minutes before returning a verdict.

The biggest problem with the case? The statutes in question did not come close to matching the alleged actions on the football field the day of Gilpin's death. As we reported in a recent post, experts found huge problems with both charges:

The Louisville Courier-Journal quotes one veteran attorney:

“The classic example of reckless homicide is firing a gun into a crowded building and killing somebody,” said defense lawyer Steve Romines of Louisville. “Having kids run wind sprints doesn't equate to that.”

The wanton endangerment charge looks flimsy, too. Reports the Courier-Journal:

It may be even harder for the prosecution to convict Stinson on the wanton endangerment count because it requires proof that he knew about the risks to Max's health and consciously disregarded them, said University of Kentucky professor Robert Lawson.

“They must prove he saw the risk . . . and said, ‘To hell with it, I'm going to do it anyway,'” said Lawson, the main author of Kentucky's laws on crime and punishment.

The case did not get any better for prosecutors at trial. Several of Gilpin's teammates testified that on the day in question, they ran only a few more wind sprints than normal. Three of Gilpin's classmates, and his stepmother, testified that Gilpin had complained of not feeling well throughout the day he collapsed.

The biggest blow to the prosecution, aside from its own decision to bring a bad case, was expert testimony showing Gilpin was not dehydrated after his collapse. Prosecutors argued that Stinson had withheld water from his players, causing Gilpin's death. But evidence showing lack of dehydration tended to counter that argument.

Gilpin's parents might have been a double loser. They have filed a lawsuit related to their son's death, which is common in such cases. It's certainly possible that the school district and various officials and coaches will be found to have civil liability. But the Gilpins' civil case might have been hurt by the outcome of the criminal case. Our guess is that they eventually will receive a settlement in the lawsuit, but it might not be what it would have been without the criminal matter.

Other big losers were the taxpayers of Kentucky, who spent probably several hundred thousand dollars on a case that simply did not fit the definition of criminal behavior.

Finally, the case shows there is widespread misunderstanding about the purpose of our criminal-justice system. One Courier-Journal article stated that the prosecution, despite Stinson's acquittal, "sends a strong message" that coaches must err on the side of caution when sending their players through practices on hot days.

But our criminal-justice system is not about sending messages. We're talking about cases where a defendant's freedom often is at stake. Such cases are about this question: Do the facts and the relevant law indicate that a crime was committed?

The answer to that question, in the Stinson case, clearly was no.

Civil cases can bring justice to those who have been harmed--and they can send messages. But if prosecutors pursued the Stinson case in order to "send a message," they were on the wrong track from the outset.

Don Siegelman and the Poisoning of American Politics

Numerous media outlets have reported in recent years on the coarsening of our culture. A country that once exhibited a sense of grace and humility now seems awash in people who are rude, arrogant, selfish, and dishonest.

If our overall culture has one leg in the sewer, what about our political culture? It seems to be covered in slime from head to toe, with no better example than the bogus prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

Andrew Kreig, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney and journalist, shows in a recent piece at Huffington Post how the Siegelman prosecution showcases a political culture that is covered with muck.

Kreig focuses on a recent Justice Department filing that argues that Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy have presented "no evidence" since their 2006 bribery convictions that justifies a hearing or new trial. You can almost hear Kreig's jaw hitting the floor as he writes that:

No evidence?

As too often in the past, DoJ officials look like they're exaggerating to block justice and to protect themselves. By seeking to imprison Siegelman for 20 additional years, DoJ clearly seeks to end public debate about Alabama’s most prominent Democrat. He held that distinction for years, at least until he narrowly lost re-election in 2002 following still-mysterious Election night switches of 6,000 votes out of his column in a rural county after polls closed.

Kreig goes on to cite the mountain of evidence that suggests Siegelman and Scrushy were unlawfully prosecuted and convicted:

New evidence since Siegelman’s 2006 trial includes claims of judicial bias and corruption, plus DOJ political prosecution orchestrated by Rove, judge-shopping, jury tampering, failing to comply with prosecutor recusal, firing a DoJ whistleblower, and suppressing evidence that DoJ tried to blackmail its central witness against Siegelman with a sex scandal.

How much more evidence do you need? Not only do everyday Americans have problems with the truth these days, so do the folks who carry out federal prosecutions. That's comforting.

Kreig is not alone in pointing out the dysfunction that has come to permeate our political and justice systems. A group of 91 former state attorneys general recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal in the Siegelman case, coming on the heels of a similar petition from nine U.S. law professors.

The petitions are written in polite legal language, but their essential message to the Supreme Court is this: "Our trial and appellate courts now are so corrupt that they butchered this case and imperiled the freedom of all politicians and their financial supporters. You've got to do something!"


You can check out the documents here:


Siegelman--Former State Attorneys General (PDF)


Siegelman--Law Professors (PDF)

Does such dysfunction have consequences for all of us? Oh yes, says Andrew Kreig:

The all-out federal criminal prosecution launched against Siegelman in 2004 remains the centerpiece of unresolved evidence that Karl Rove used DoJ to target Democratic officials nationwide. In-depth public scrutiny of the DoJ's high-ranking prosecution teams risks revelations about similar problems in hundreds of other disputed DoJ investigations that altered the nation’s political map during the Bush years.

In the long run, however, DoJ risks even more – including public confidence that it's protecting our rights to fair elections and trials – if it shirks its responsibility to endorse a full hearing to clear the air.

University of Alabama Continues to Exhibit Clueless Leadership

The folks who run the University of Alabama System continue to look like a bunch of dolts.

The latest example? My former employer, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), apparently is not content to cheat people out of their jobs. Now UAB faces charges that it essentially stole intellectual property belonging to two local graphic artists. Interestingly, the case centers around UAB's Office of Public Relations and Marketing, where I worked before being unlawfully terminated.

The case also raises interesting questions about another lawsuit, one involving perhaps the best-known artist in Alabama--a man who has become synonymous with University of Alabama football. (More on that in a moment.)

Samuel and Amy Collins state in a federal lawsuit that UAB unlawfully used copyrighted illustrations in various print publications and on university Web sites. The Collinses cite roughly 250 instances where their illustrations were improperly used. Their complaint alleges copyright infringement and conversion, which is essentially a civil form of theft.

Defendants are the University of Alabama Board of Trustees (the legal entity for UAB), the UAB Health System Managing Board, and Ron Gamble, the director of UAB Creative Services.

I worked closely with Gamble for the past six or seven years. A couple of years ago, the managers in our office--including Gamble and my former supervisor, Director of Periodicals Pam Powell--became aflutter over this very issue.

It must have been around March 2007 because, according to the Collinses' lawsuit, that's when they notified Gamble that they had discovered one of their illustrations being used as the banner on the UAB Comprehensive Cancer Center Web site.

I can remember the editors in our group receiving cautionary notes about the use of copyrighted illustrations. Evidently someone wasn't cautious enough. The Collinses' complaint states that in September 2007 they discovered more than 200 of their illustrations on various UAB Web sites and publications, re-published or re-used beyond the scope of their respective licenses.

I'm not sure why Gamble is singled out as the only individual named in the lawsuit. I can think of several other folks, particularly Powell and Associate Vice President Dale Turnbough, who are responsible for UAB publications and Web sites--and should be held accountable in this case.

Gamble is one of many people at UAB who does real work--and does it well. It's possible Gamble screwed up in this situation. But based on my experience, my guess is that he was hampered, like everyone else in Public Relations and Marketing, by an utter lack of leadership from Dale Turnbough--and from her superior, Vice President Shirley Salloway Kahn. If the Collinses want to hold some individuals accountable, I hope they will look higher up the UAB food chain, beyond Ron Gamble.

God knows, I'm hardly a fan of Pam Powell at the moment. But she, too, operated under the handicap of lax leadership. In fact, Powell flat out told me that she didn't trust her UAB superiors to make a wise decision in naming her successor upon her retirement. That's one area where Powell and I agreed.

Turnbough and Kahn provide almost no oversight or support to those who work under them, and from where I sit, they are the ones who ultimately should be held accountable in the Collins lawsuit.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall seeing a memo from the UAB Office of Counsel about the issue of copyrighted images. That might explain this whole screwup. Based on what I've seen of University of Alabama lawyers, they would have to improve greatly to merit a comparison to The Three Stooges. If UA lawyers were involved, they probably are the source of the problem.

We will follow this case with great interest. The last time I checked the court file, UAB had filed its usual defense, claiming that its status as a state entity makes it immune from a lawsuit.

Interesting isn't it that an institution that rakes in more than $400 million a year in federal funds would claim that its immune from federal law? But UAB seems to do it almost every time it is sued. There are a number of exceptions to claims of sovereign and qualified immunity, and I suspect the Collinses' lawsuit will move forward--if they get a judge who is halfway honest, always a big if.

And what about that beloved artist we mentioned earlier. We are talking about Daniel Moore, who has become famed for his paintings of iconic moments in University of Alabama football. One can only imagine the number of dens and living rooms around Alabama that feature a Daniel Moore print.

In a baffling case of ineptitude and cluelessness, the University of Alabama Board of Trustees decided to sue Moore four years ago, claiming that he was improperly benefiting from use of the university's image. The case is ongoing, now on its sixth judge, and here is the latest.

Moore has filed a countersuit, and from where we sit, he clearly should prevail on First Amendment grounds.

The University of Alabama suing Daniel Moore is a little like the Catholic church suing Michelangelo. Few people on the planet have done more than Daniel Moore to portray the University of Alabama in a favorable light. And he is much loved by UA's supporters. So it makes lots of sense to sue him, right?

The Daniel Moore lawsuit might go down as one of the most ignorant legal maneuvers in history. But it's an example of the kind of short-sighted, ham-fisted thinking that rules in the University of Alabama System these days.

The Collins lawsuit--and my unlawful termination--are two other glaring examples. And there are others, including recent lawsuits involving longtime UAB faculty members, such as Susan Key, Rosalia Scripa, and Horace Huntley. And let's not forget lawsuits involving several international medical residents at the UAB family medicine training program in Huntsville--a subject we will be covering extensively in the coming weeks.

Now let's compare the Moore and Collins lawsuits for a moment. In one, the University of Alabama is hyper protective of its image. In the other, the University of Alabama says its perfectly fine to misuse images belonging to someone else.

See what I mean about ham-fisted thinking?

While we're at it, let's compare the Moore lawsuit to my unlawful termination. In one, the University of Alabama contends that Moore does not have a First Amendment right to create art based on public events. In the other, the University of Alabama apparently contends that an employee (me) does not have a First Amendment right to discuss matters of public concern on a blog that he produces on his own time.

Hey, at least university leaders are consistent on the First Amendment. They don't believe in it for anybody.

I don't know all of the facts and the law associated with the Moore and Collins cases. But I do know I'm going to be pulling for Moore and the Collinses to prevail big time.

If they do, perhaps that will help cause the people of Alabama to wake up and realize they need major changes in leadership at their flagship university.

Siegelman Prosecutors Received Extensive Perks From Their "Recused" Boss

Prosecutors in the Don Siegelman case regularly received perks from U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, even though Canary supposedly had recused herself. During the case, Siegelman prosecutors worked at an isolated, off-site location that was accessible only to them--and were subject to almost no managerial review.

Those are among numerous revelations from Department of Justice whistleblower Tamarah Grimes in a fascinating interview with attorney/journalist Andrew Kreig at OpEd News.

Grimes wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on June 1, 2009, about prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case. She was fired on June 9 from her position as a legal aide in the DOJ's Middle District of Alabama office in Montgomery.

Grimes provides numerous insights into the dysfunctional environment that surrounded the prosecution team in the Siegelman case. And she makes it clear Canary remained intimately involved, long after she had supposedly recused herself.

Canary lavished perks on those who were working what the office called "The Big Case." Grimes tells Kreig:

The victory-at-all-costs mentality of the prosecution of The Big Case pervaded the office. Every question was answered with, "This is the most important case in the office." Every milestone in The Big Case was rewarded with a personal acknowledgement from U.S. Attorney Leura Canary. When the superseding indictment was unsealed, Mrs. Canary hosted a party at the Marina to celebrate. This pattern of special recognition by Mrs. Canary was repeated throughout the case. Eventually, there was new office furniture, premium office space in the new building, plum appointments and assignments, conferences and seminars, new titles, generous time-off and no supervision, all-related to the work on The Big Case. FBI Agents also received perks and rewards for their work on the case.

How special was The Big Case in the Montgomery office?

We were told dozens of times that The Big Case was the most important case in the office, and that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary would grant the prosecution virtually unlimited latitude to obtain convictions. This message created a victory-at-all-costs mentality within the prosecution. This mindset was regularly reinforced by “victory” celebrations hosted by Leura Canary at every milestone in the prosecution. As you know, Leura Canary was alleged to have recused herself during this time.

Victory celebrations? Most Americans probably did not realize that federal prosecutors worked that way. They also probably did not realize this:

The Big Case prosecution team did not work within the U.S. Attorney's Office. Instead, it was in an isolated off-site location accessible only to the prosecution team. There was a complete lack of normal managerial and peer oversight at the offsite.

Was this special location for the prosecution team a minor detail? Not in Grimes' view. She says it was a breeding ground for dysfunction and improper conduct:

In my personal experience, these circumstances created a perfect storm. It was an environment not at all conducive to self-control, personal or professional responsibility or accountability. In that isolated off-site location, away from any managerial oversight, the situation quickly deteriorated into a false sense of invulnerability and omnipotence among the prosecution.

What was it like to work in the Montgomery office during the Siegelman case? Grimes provides disturbing details:

The prosecution of The Big Case divided the employees along ethical and ideological lines. The first group, comprised of those willing to do whatever it took to succeed, received extraordinary rewards and preferential treatment with the full support of Mrs. Canary. The second group, comprised of those who opposed unethical and sometimes unlawful conduct, were subjected to harsh retaliation. The third and final group simply sought to keep their heads down and make it through the day without getting on the wrong side of the "right" people and losing their jobs.

This is the reality of life in the Montgomery U.S. attorney's office for dozens of DOJ employees. As a consequence of observing harsh retaliation, it is difficult to find a single employee willing to risk his or her job to honestly discuss the matters without fear of reprisal. This is particularly true since they have seen me and the other employees who were willing to stand up for principles and ethics escorted from the building and terminated.

Family Ties to Riley Pay Off Big Time for Birmingham Law Firm

A Birmingham law firm has raked in bucket loads of cash since Governor Bob Riley took office in 2002. Riley's son-in-law, Robert J. Campbell, just happens to be a shareholder at the firm--Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings.

The Montgomery Independent reported on August 20 that Riley had paid Bradley Arant at least $650,000 in public funds to advise a "task force on gambling" Riley created earlier this year.

But that only scratches the surface of the cushy relationship between Bradley Arant and the governor's office.

Bradley Arant's legal fees for representing the state of Alabama have increased almost 460 fold under the Riley administration, according to a Montgomery Independent story dated March 26, 2009.

Riley took office in January 2003, and Bradley Arant hired the new governor's son-in-law roughly nine months after the inauguration. Rob Campbell is married to Minda Riley Campbell, the governor's daughter.

Have connections to the Rileys paid off for Bradley Arant? Let's do some math, courtesy of the Montgomery Independent and reporter Bob Gambacurta.

Based on numbers from the Alabama Comptroller's Office, Bradley Arant received $7,264 for legal services from the state in the four years before Riley took office. As of March 17, 2009, the firm had received $3,339,258.77 for legal services since Riley took office. That's a 460-fold increase. Reports Gambacurta:

Section 36-25-5 of the Code of Alabama prohibits the use of public office for personal gain by a public official or a member of his or her family. Code Section 36 is the Alabama Ethics law.

Rob Campbell told the Independent that there is nothing improper or illegal about the firm doing business with the state while employing one of the governor's family members. John B. "Beau" Grenier, Bradley Arant's executive-committee chairman, insisted the firm is in compliance with state ethics law.

Grenier, however, declined to provide details about Campbell's compensation package or his contract with the firm.

A member of the Alabama Ethics Commission staff called the arrangement "somewhat problematic." Reports Gambacurta:

Questions have circulated on Goat Hill for years about the relationship between the Riley administration and the firm which employs his son-in-law. Because the Ethics Commission has never received a complaint against Riley, the matter has never been investigated.

Reliable sources tell The Independent such a complaint will soon be forthcoming.

This is the second ethics question to surface against Riley in recent weeks, coming on the heels of allegations that he had improperly contacted members of the Alabama Supreme Court about a pending gambling-related case.

Alabama's two largest newspapers, The Birmingham News and Mobile Press-Register, were all over the story when allegations of unethical conduct arose against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. In fact, the newspapers pretty much created the allegations with their enterprising reporting.

Has either newspaper reported on the recent signs of wrongdoing from the Riley administration? We haven't spotted the first word. If anyone sees evidence of reporting on these issues--from any newspaper other than the Montgomery Independent--please let us know.

Interestingly, a Bradley Arant partner named Matthew Lembke joined Riley's son, Rob Riley, in submitting affidavits to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee regarding the testimony of Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson.

As we reported here at Legal Schnauzer, the Riley and Lembke affidavits were filled with hedge language that did little, if anything, to counter Simpson's allegations that Siegelman was the target of a political prosecutions.

Was Lembke motivated to file his flimsy affidavit because of the financial boost his law firm was receiving from the Bob Riley administration? It certainly looks that way now.

Alabama Jury Awards $2.4 Million in Workplace-Retaliation Case

A federal jury in Birmingham recently struck a blow for victims of workplace retaliation.

Jurors found that Sumter County Sheriff Johnny L. Hatter must pay $2.4 million to two former employees who faced retaliation and wrongful termination on the job.

The jury awarded almost $1 million to Kimberly Smith-McKenzie, a part-time dispatcher who filed a sexual-harassment complaint after Hatter said he would offer her a full-time job if she participated in phone sex with him.

Jurors awarded $1.4 million to Bruce Walker, a deputy who said he was fired after supporting Smith-McKenzie and discussing the sexual harassment with a state investigator.

The case presents a number of intriguing angles.

One, the verdict is unusually large for an employment case. Does that mean jurors, with unemployment raging in the Bush recession, have a heightened sensitivity for those who are mistreated on the job?

Two, Alabama has a tortured history on race, but this case hints at progress in that area. Hatter and Smith-McKenzie are black. Walker, who stood up for a black victim of sexual harassment, is white.

Hatter's attorneys vowed to fight the verdict through post-trial reviews or appeals. The case has been a drawn-out ordeal for Smith-McKenzie and Walker. Reports Stephanie Taylor of the Tuscaloosa News:

Walker, a fourth-generation Sumter County resident, could not find a job in the county after he was fired, Robertson said, so he joined the U.S. Army. He had been a member of the National Guard for many years. The case, filed in 2001, languished in court because Walker was on active duty for much of the time.

Smith-McKenzie moved to Montgomery with her husband and son and works full time for the U.S. Postal Service.

Regular Legal Schnauzer readers know that I, like Smith-McKenzie and Walker, have been the victim of workplace retaliation. I complained about age discrimination and harassment against my former supervisor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and wound up being fired roughly three weeks later--contrary to UAB policy and federal law.

Retaliation seems to be rampant in the modern workplace, and we have written extensively about the subject--in Alabama and beyond.

Does the Sumter County verdict mean the ground has shifted on retaliation lawsuits? Does it mean that I, or other victims, will receive seven-figure judgments in our favor?

Absolutely not. In fact, it doesn't mean we will prevail at all. If I've learned anything about the federal-court environment, it's this: Juries can swing wildly from one extreme to another--on cases that appear to present similarly vile levels of misconduct.

So what can we take from the Sumter County case? Perhaps it is this message: If rogue employers, in Alabama or elsewhere, think juries are going to treat workplace retaliation as a frivolous matter . . . they might want to think again.

Court Ruling Might Tighten the Reins On the Wild, Wild Web

A catfight between two women with ties to the fashion industry has evolved into a New York court case with possibly far-reaching implications for the way people interact on the Web.

The case might give pause to those who find it sporting to hurl insults and threats at others under the cloak of Web anonymity.

Here at Legal Schnauzer, we have been the recipient of numerous anonymous threats, and we know they can harm more than your reputation. They can help ruin your career, and we have been paying close attention to the case in New York.

The story in New York apparently started when model Liksula Cohen made a derogatory comment about fashion student Rosemary Port to Port's boyfriend. Port, who is from Florida, responded by starting an anonymous Google-based Web site called Skanks in New York, referring to Cohen as an "old hag" and a "ho."

Cohen sued Google to force the company to hand over identifying information about her cyber tormentor--and she won. Reported The New York Daily News:

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge forced Google to unmask Port, rejecting Port's claim that blogs "serve as a modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and shouldn't be regarded as fact.

Port has responded by filing a lawsuit against Google. Reports the Daily News:

"When I was being defended by attorneys for Google, I thought my right to privacy was being protected," Port said.

"But that right fell through the cracks. Without any warning, I was put on a silver platter for the press to attack me. I would think that a multi-billion dollar conglomerate would protect the rights of all its users."

Port's lawsuit should not get very far. The right to privacy never has been held to include the right to anonymously trash other people's reputations--and courts are unlikely to toss defamation law out the window now.

Like most bullies, Port seems to be nothing but a crybaby when she is unmasked. Notice that she is unhappy when the press "attacks" her. But her real attacks on Cohen's reputation? Those are perfectly fine.

Why does the "skank" case resonate here in SchnauzerWorld? Well, we know what it's like to be on the receiving end of cyber bullies. Our experience has centered mostly on anonymous threats--at least two of which apparently came from someone who was involved in costing me my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

After a February 2008 post about connections between U.S. Attorney Alice Martin and Alabama GOP political consultant Dax Swatek, we received an anonymous comment: "Nut case, yours is comong (sic)."

After an April 2008 post, we received an anonymous comment claiming that I was blogging at work, and my employer, UAB, needed to be notified. On the date in question, I was taking a vacation day, so I was not blogging at work--then or any other time.

But roughly a month later, I was fired at UAB, after 19 years on the job, amid vague allegations that I was blogging at work. (By the way, UAB's own IT expert testified at my grievance hearing that those allegations were not true.)

Am I interested in the source of those anonymous threats? Oh, yes. Am I intrigued that a judge forced Google to turn over identifying information in the New York case? Yes, indeed.

What does the "skank" case mean for the Web in general? You can read a Web-oriented analysis of the case here. An excellent legal analysis is available here at reputationdefenderblog.com.

As a trial-court decision in New York, the "skank" case has no precedent value on other courts. But it's importance could go beyond legal technicalities:

The Cohen case still sets a precedent in the court of public opinion. This is a celebrity case that is being followed by a lot of people who otherwise would not be interested in the technicalities of Internet law. It is sending a clear message to would-be spiteful bloggers who are quickly learning that their cloak of anonymity may not be as thick as they once though it was. It is one more step along the road from Internet-as-Wild-West to Internet-as-suburb.