Greg Craig Is Hunkering Down in the Obama Administration

Greg Craig, White House Counsel for President Barack Obama, is under fire for mishandling the politics of the Guantanomo Bay detention-facility closing. He should be under fire for his cozy relationship with Karl Rove, his indirect connections to the George W. Bush administration, and his ties to organizations that are anything but progressive.

Either way, Craig tells the National Law Journal, he has no plans to resign. Writes reporter David Ingram:

"I have no plans to leave whatsoever," Craig said. "The rumors that I'm about to leave are false. The reports that I'm about to leave are wrong. I have no plans to leave."

Craig, a fixture of Washington's legal and political establishments for decades, has faced a drumbeat of news reports since August that he is on his way out as President Barack Obama's top in-house lawyer. His dismissal of those reports is his first public comment on the matter, though he repeatedly declined to elaborate. Later in the interview, he described his relationship with Obama as "excellent."

Ironically, Craig is under fire for a decision that he probably got right. Guantanomo should be closed, but the White House is feeling heat from the plan--not because it is wrong, but because it has generated political fallout:

One of Obama's first hires as president-elect, Craig, 64, arrived with a long and varied resume. He has held top positions on Capitol Hill and in the U.S. State Department, served as special impeachment counsel to President Bill Clinton, and represented high-profile clients such as Kofi Annan, then secretary-general of the United Nations.

But for months, and especially the past two weeks, Craig has been fighting questions about whether he'll resign. Administration officials, quoted anonymously in news reports, second-guessed Craig's support of a one-year deadline to shutter Guantanamo. They accused him of causing a diplomatic rift while helping to transfer four detainees to Bermuda, and they described his role in the overall effort as diminished.

Progressives, the folks who put Obama in the White House, should be concerned about Craig on other fronts. As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, Craig has myriad ties to Republicans of the Bush/Rove variety.

Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney and key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, has led the way in pointing out Craig's conflicts of interest. Simpson has experienced those conflicts firsthand. Before her testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in October 2007, Simpson spoke at length with Craig about possibly retaining his legal services.

After hearing Simpson's full story, Craig backed out, claiming he had a conflict connected to U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). Simpson later learned that Craig and Rove were personal friends, and Craig even had represented the former Bush adviser on a book deal. Simpson becamse suspicious that Craig took privileged information she gave him and fed it to Rove.

Simpson learned that Williams & Connolly, Craig's former firm, represents numerous figures from the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush himself. She also discovered that Craig had financial ties to a Republican-oriented government relations firm in Washington, D.C. As we reported here:

Greg Craig's most recent financial-disclosure form shows that he was paid by Ogilvy Government Relations, says Alabama attorney Jill Simpson. The firm had been known as the Federalist Group before changing its name in 2007 after Democrats took over the U.S. House of Representatives.

Simpson's revelations come on the heels of a report yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that Craig might soon step down from his role in the Obama White House.

Simpson has firsthand knowledge of Ogilvy/Federalist Group. She served as a Republican opposition researcher and participated in a conference call about GOP plans to coordinate a political prosecution of Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Simpson testified under oath that Alabama Republican operatives, led by Business Council of Alabama CEO Bill Canary, had worked out the plan with Bush White House strategist Karl Rove.

Barack Obama has been an across-the-board improvement on his predecessor--which isn't saying much. But his administration, so far, has been a colossal failure on justice matters. And the blame for that should be placed at the feet of Greg Craig and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Craig might wind up being ousted because of the Guantanomo controversy--a matter he actually got right. Progressives should be much more concerned about the utter ineptitude he and Holder have shown on justice issues.

Legal Schnauzer Visits the Jeff Farias Show

It was our pleasure recently to drop in on the Jeff Farias Show, a syndicated progressive radio program from Phoenix, Arizona.

I told Farias how heartening it was for an Alabama blogger to appear on a radio show that espouses progressive views, something that pretty much doesn't exist here.

And I found it ironic that Jeff invited me to discuss the Don Siegelman case, recent events connected to Montgomery, Alabama, whistleblower Tamarah Grimes, and the ugly prosecution of Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi--while Alabama talk radio largely ignores those stories right in its own backyard.

We even discussed my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and Farias seemed amazed that I could be fired from a public institution for writing, on my own time, about matters of public concern--such as the Siegelman case. In Alabama, people tend to shrug at such actions--if they react at all.

I appeared on the October 6 show, and you can check out the segment by visiting the Jeff Farias archives. Just scroll down to the October 6 section and click on the "listen now" podcast icon. My segment starts at about the 57:40 mark.

Jeff was kind enough to invite me back for future visits, and I look forward to it. Interesting that Alabama events are worthy of serious discussion in Arizona--but not in Alabama.

The Cyril Wecht Case: When Faxing Becomes a Felony

Victims of the Bush Justice Department surely found nothing amusing about being targeted by rogue federal prosecutors. But as more information gradually emerges about the Bush DOJ cesspool, you sense an element of dark comedy.

Perhaps nothing symbolizes that quite like the absurd case of Cyril Wecht, the former Pennsylvania coroner who became famous for his discussions of forensic pathology on cable news programs. Attorney/Journalist Andrew Kreig examines the Wecht case in a new piece at Huffington Post titled "Why Did Feds Persecute Celebrity Expert Cyril Wecht? Who's Next?"

Kreig's conclusion? A growing number of Americans, from both the left and the right, are concerned about a justice system gone wrong:

Cases like this are creating bipartisan alarm nationally among legal experts who believe that DoJ increasingly abuses its vast powers. I've seen the change after covering DoJ fulltime as a newspaper reporter from 1976-1980 in DoJ's better days, and now as a researcher of such cases nationally.

Why should Americans care about what happened to Cyril Wecht? A Democrat, Wecht had chaired his party's county committee in the Pittsburgh area and even run for the U.S. Senate. Wecht had made a number of enemies in political circles with his blunt comments on local issues. Not long after taking office, Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan got Wecht in her sights.

Kreig notes that Wecht sometimes sent faxes from his office on personal matters. One of those, in February 2002, was an invoice to a New Jersey group for a speech. Here's how Kreig describes the charges against Wecht:

Four years later, the Justice Department used that fax for one of 84 felony charges against Wecht, thereby forcing his resignation after 20 years. The charges included 27 felonies for sending personal faxes, along with allegations over mileage vouchers, office stationary, permission for students to study autopsies, and requests for staff help.

How desperate were the feds to get Cyril Wecht? Kreig tells us:

Court rulings and prosecution errors ended Wecht's ordeal last June. By then, the 78-year-old had spent $8 million on legal fees over three years, putting him $6 million in debt currently. Authorities dropped the majority of charges against him just before trial in 2008. Thus, most of the charges were about 23 faxes, whose total out-of-pocket cost to the county was calculated by the defense as $3.96.

You read that correctly. Cyril Wecht spent $8 million to defend charges that largely involved $3.96 worth of faxes. God only knows how much money the government spent to bring the case.

Democrats are not alone in their concern about prosecutorial abuses. Kreig writes about a recent conference hosted by the free-market Cato Institute. One of the speakers was Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate, author of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Writes Kreig:

(Silverglate's) theme: The average U.S. professional unwittingly commits three felonies daily--thus enabling Feds to pick and choose whom to prosecute, with scant review by courts, defense attorneys and the news media. His book provides compelling case studies illustrated by defendants fighting to prevent their ruin from "creative" prosecutors using vague or seldom-enforced laws in health care, high-tech, legal affairs, financial services, labor, media and national security.

The system is rife with double standards, and Kreig cites Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, of Chicago, as an example:

Fitzgerald used his office fax machine this year to send HarperCollins a threat that he'd sue on a personal basis if the company failed to destroy copies of the book Triple Cross that contained criticism that he considered defamatory.

A personal fax? When questioned, DoJ says it approves incidental personal use of fax machines by government employees.

Did Richard Shelby Ignore Concerns From India About Discrimination at UAB?

Two government officials from India wrote letters in 2006 to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), expressing concern about discrimination against international medical residents at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

Shelby apparently took no action, and at least five international trainees--three from India, one from Pakistan, and one from Germany--eventually left UAB's Family Medicine Residency Program in Huntsville after charging that they had been victims of discrimination.

Dr. Seema Gupta, one of the residents from India, filed a lawsuit--and a federal jury in Birmingham recently found that UAB discriminated against her based on her Hindu religion. A second lawsuit, filed by a former resident from Germany, is pending. Birmingham attorney John Saxon represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

Shelby has been credited with funneling millions of dollars in research funds to UAB--for everything from bioterrorism to cognitive impairment. A major facility on the campus, the Shelby Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Building, is named in honor of the senator and his wife, Annette.

A UAB press release states that Shelby helped secure much of the $90 million in funding for the building.

When government officials from India voiced concern about discrimination at UAB, however, Senator Shelby apparently became mute. Two letters, dated May 15, 2006, make it clear that Indian leaders felt discrimination was a serious problem at the UAB School of Medicine.

One of the letters is from R.L. Kureel, a former member of Parliament, a deputy leader of Lok Sabha in the Republic of India, and an advocate of the Supreme Court of India. Kureel also is Dr. Seema Gupta's father.

Supporting Kureel's document is a letter from Ashok Argal, a current member of the Parliament in Lok Sabha.

Kureel references his daughter in the letter to Shelby:

It is my understanding that she, as well as other foreign medical graduates, are regularly discriminated against by individuals at this program, due to the nation of origin, race, religion, and gender. (Seema) has documented and described to me several such instances. There has been an organized campaign to get rid of her at this institution.

Does Kureel consider this a serious matter? Sure sounds like it:

I have recently come to find out that Seema has been suffering emotional and verbal abuse in Huntsville during her training for the past several months. This is in addition to disregard for her religious beliefs, as well as forcing her to listen to several gender-based inappropriate comments by her supervisors. She has been denigrated to the extent to being called "stupid" in meetings. This is no way for educated people like physicians to act! Attempts have been made to embarrass her in front of her peers, as well as assassinate her character.

These acts are very disappointing and heartbreaking to me as a parent. In fact, such behavior is appalling and unpardonable.

When money is at issue, or his name is about to be put on a building, Richard Shelby apparently springs into action on UAB matters. But when the university is systematically discriminating against multiple international medical trainees? Doesn't look like that is worthy of Shelby's attention.

We will be addressing other issues raised in the letters from India. Here are the letters in their entirety:

India Letters to Richard Shelby

Who Will Benefit From Bob Riley's Deal With Paragon Source?

Alabama Governor Bob Riley is pushing for a $13-million computer-services contract with a Virginia-based company called Paragon Source LLC. Never mind that Paragon Source does not have a headquarters, phone listing, or Web site.

When Riley starts pushing for a fishy no-bid contract, that usually means a member of the extended Riley clan--or one of their close associates--stands to benefit.

Alabama Rep. Alvin Holmes apparently intends to find out what is up. He says he will seek a subpoena of Paragon Source CEO Janet Lauderdale. Holmes told Bob Lowry, of The Huntsville Times, that members of the Riley administration have been blocking his efforts to learn more about Paragon Source:

If Lauderdale doesn't honor the committee's subpoena to appear before the panel, Holmes said a lawsuit would be filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

Holmes has been rebuffed for nearly a month by Gov. Bob Riley's administration in his efforts to obtain more information about the firm. He has asked for the names, addresses, job descriptions and salaries for each employee.

"I know Bob Riley has been calling members on the committee," said Holmes. "He's trying to get them stop the subpoena."

Even the sleepy Alabama mainstream press, which normally gives Riley a free pass on most anything, has been paying attention to the Paragon Source story.

The Gadsden Times addressed the subject in an editorial titled "No Bid Contract? No Way!" Wrote the Times:

Something smells with this company, and it is about to receive a big chunk of taxpayer money. Our money. Money that is desperately needed to run the state’s business.

Any state agency has a phone number, an office and probably a Web site. So what gives with this firm with no office, no phone or Web site. At least, Paragon should have a Web site!

The president of Paragon, Janet Lauderdale, says the company “relies on referrals from previous clients and peers, rather than using mass marketing channels such as the Internet.”

Well, the referrals must be impressive, because the firm was awarded a $5.9 million contract last year. Those involved attempted to increase that bid by $6.9 million, the legislature stepped in and stopped it, pending closer scrutiny.

A lot of things smell about the Bob Riley administration. It's nice to see the Alabama press paying attention for a change.

Alabama's GOP Governor Has a Kissing Cousin on the Federal Court

Alabama Governor Bob Riley went into crowing mode when a federal judge recently made a ruling that appears to be contrary to gambling interests in Alabama.

But Riley failed to mention a couple of items for public consumption: (1) The ruling was not nearly as unfavorable toward gambling interests as Riley would have you believe; and (2) The judge who issued the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith, is Riley's cousin.

Yes, you heard that right. A federal judge, who ruled on a case in which the governor had a clear interest, is the governor's cousin. You can't get more Alabama than that.

This is just the latest evidence that Riley's hypocrisy knows no bounds. The Republican "anti-gambling governor" is the same guy who cruised into office in 2002 with the help of $13 million in Mississippi gambling money, freshly laundered by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Riley continues to serve his Mississippi gambling supporters by trying to ensure that they do not have competition next door in Alabama.

After Smith's ruling that bingo machines at a Huntsville facility were "akin" to illegal slot machines, Riley's office pounced with a quick press release. It quoted Riley as saying, "The federal judge's ruling could not be clearer about the illegality of these so-called bingo machines in Alabama."

Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that the governor is essentially full of it. Writes Martin:

The case, involving gaming in the town of Triana in Madison County, only relates to Constitutional Amendment No. 387; one of 16 constitutional amendments which permit bingo across Alabama. "The opinion addressed itself solely to the constitutional amendment permitting bingo in Madison County," said Madison County attorney Julian Butler, who represented the county's sheriff.

The opinion also did not rule on the legality of the machines in question. Here's what U. S. District Judge Lynwood Smith wrote about the machines: "Although this court finds that the electronic bingo gaming machines at issue in this case are more akin to slot machines than the game commonly known as bingo, this court does not decide in this ruling the question of whether the electronic machines constitute bingo."

For good measure, Martin provides more information about the limitations of Smith's rulings--and includes a little dig about the judge's "family ties" to Riley:

The judge made the ruling to shut down the gaming operations on violations of other provisions in Amendment 387; it has absolutely no bearing on any other constitutional amendment authorizing bingo in Alabama. It would have been impossible for Smith, who is the governor's cousin, to make a lawful ruling on the machines without an evidentiary hearing on whether or not the machines were electronic bingo machines or slot machines.

Supporters of the planned Country Crossing development near Dothan joined Martin in jumping on Riley's misstatements--and his ties to Judge Smith. Attorneys for Country Crossing Developer Ronnie Gilley issued a statement to the Dothan Eagle:

Before one delves into the details of the Houston County amendment, it should be recognized that, despite what Governor Riley says, the opinion does not hold that electronic bingo machines are slot machines. Instead, it opines that the machines resemble slot machines, and then says that the court does not need to reach that question, because the operations of the Texas VFW in Triana were not conducted in compliance with Amendment 387.

Country Crossing, by contrast, will be conducted in strict compliance with Amendment 569, as well as with all applicable resolutions of the Houston County Commission. For example, unlike the Madison County Amendment, the Houston County Amendment has a provision that allows “special permits,” and the Houston County Commission has specifically granted the Houston Economic Development Association a special permit to operate electronic bingo games in Houston County. Moreover, these games will be actually conducted by the Houston Economic Development Association, which is an Alabama nonprofit corporation."

Jay Walker, a spokesman for Country Crossing, addressed the larger issue: Why was Riley's cousin hearing the case in Huntsville?

“I commend the court for acting justly in regards to illegal bingo operations in our state,” says Jay Walker, spokesman for Country Crossing. “However, the governor totally misrepresented the judge’s order.”

Walker asks the question, “Since the governor and Judge Smith are related, did Riley and his cousin speak before the ruling, and should Judge Smith have recused himself because they are related? As we all know, blood is thicker than water.”

UAB Discriminates Against Medical Trainee From India

A federal jury in Birmingham has found that the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) discriminated against a medical resident from India, based on her Hindu religion.

Dr. Seema Gupta filed a discrimination lawsuit after she was dismissed from the UAB Family Medicine Residency Program in Huntsville. Dr. Allan Wilke, then director of the residency program, gave Gupta a notice of nonrenewal as she was about to complete the second year of the three-year program.

If UAB is any indicator, discrimination against international medical students must be widespread. Testimony at the Gupta trial indicated that she was one of at least five students--three from India, one from Pakistan, one from Germany--who left the program after alleging that they had been victims of discrimination.

Wilke apparently was a central figure in all five cases. Not long after Gupta filed her lawsuit, UAB removed Wilke from his role as residency director.

The problem, however, does not appear to be limited to Wilke. Dr. Marcia Chesebro and Dr. Melissa Behringer played key roles in Gupta's complaint. And the multiple charges of discrimination raise questions about the leadership of Dr. Robert Rich, dean of the UAB School of Medicine, and Dr. Robert Centor, an associate dean who is responsible for the Huntsville program.

And where was UAB President Carol Garrison while international students were facing multiple incidents of discriminatory treatment? As we have reported at Legal Schnauzer, Garrison's record on human-resources issues is dismal, and she apparently was missing in action throughout Seema Gupta's ordeal.

Rich came to UAB in 2004, touted for his ability to secure research grants while serving as executive associate dean at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. The Gupta case raises this question about the current leadership at UAB: If Rich is busy trying to bring in money, who is supposed to ensure that medical students can study in an environment free from discrimination and mistreatment?

Testimony in the Gupta trial indicates that no one at UAB is paying attention to such issues. And what kind of price do the victims of discrimination pay?

Seema Gupta had to spend more than $30,000 to find another residency program, and she wound up completing a program in preventive medicine and public health. Career prospects in those fields are much more limited than they are in family medicine, a field in which she had completed almost two-thirds of her training before Allan Wilke intervened.

Two of Gupta's colleagues from India had to leave the United States and return to their home country after facing alleged discrimination at UAB. A former medical resident from Germany has a lawsuit pending in federal court. And Dr. Rehan Puri, from Pakistan, filed a complaint against UAB with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging that the university did not properly pay its residents.

Patrika, one of India's leading newspapers, has reported on the difficult times international skilled workers can face in the United States:

India Newspaper Discrimination


Reporter Dinesh Sharma writes from New Delhi:

For outsiders, the United States could be a dream destination. But the bitter experience of a large number of Asians, especially Indians, Chinese, and Pakistanis, tell a different story--and a sad one indeed.

Tens of thousands of skilled workers, like software engineers and doctors holding graduate degrees who go to the United States on H-1B visas every year, are having real tough times because of their abject exploitation by employers.

Sharma goes on to cite UAB as one employer that exploits international workers. He quotes one expert in India, who says that many H-1B visa holders are "treated like indentured servants."

I covered the Seema Gupta trial in Birmingham and came away realizing that international workers and trainees can not only be exploited in the workplace; they can be treated unfairly in U.S. courts.

Seema Gupta, represented by Birmingham attorney John Saxon, prevailed on her claim of religious discrimination. But an Alabama jury, contrary to the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, found against her on claims of national-origin discrimination and constructive discharge--and awarded a paltry sum in monetary damages that probably did not even cover Dr. Gupta's travel expenses to attend the trial.

While UAB was found to have discriminated, the overall outcome of the Seema Gupta trial raises serious questions about the fundamental fairness of the U.S. federal court system.

And it also raises serious questions about the ethics of UAB's current administration--and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. The board is the legal entity responsible for all three campuses of the University of Alabama System--and as such, is the primary defendant in most lawsuits involving UA. The Gupta case involved the Birmingham campus, so we will be referring to UAB as the opposing party in her lawsuit. But technically, the primary defendant was the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.

New documents in the court file indicate that UAB, apparently with the support of the trustees, is contesting an award of attorney fees to Seema Gupta. According to our understanding of the law, Gupta is entitled to an award of attorney fees, based on having prevailed on at least one claim of discrimination.

We will be taking a detailed look at the Seema Gupta case in a series of upcoming posts. What will we learn? The central message is this: Based on Seema Gupta's experience, UAB is prone to mistreat international workers from start to finish--in the workplace, in the courtroom, even after the trial is over.

And UAB's hypocrisy is overwhelming. While it treats skilled workers from India in an unlawful and shabby fashion, the university clearly is mindful of certain booming economies around the world--places where money can be made.

In fact, at roughly the exact time Seema Gupta was on the receiving end of a grossly unjust verdict in an Alabama courtroom, articles appeared in the local press about UAB trying to form business relationships with a certain large, South Asian country, one that rivals China for economic growth.

What South Asian country was that? Take a wild guess.

(To be continued)

Some Sick Humor to Start Your Day (Language Alert)

Here at Legal Schnauzer, we are big fans of the movie Raising Arizona, so that means we enjoy dark humor as much as the next guy. Heck, as progressives living in Alabama, we probably would not survive without an appreciation for the darkly comic moments in life.

So here is one of the best pieces of sick humor we've seen in a while. Almost made us wet our pants.

Department of Justice Pulls a Whitewash on Siegelman Whistleblower

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) long ago proved that it should not be taken seriously, particularly in matters connected to former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

OSC did not help its already sullied reputation with a recent finding that whistleblower Tamarah Grimes' allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the Siegelman case were "unsubstantiated."

OSC's report is dubious on its face. It fails to address perhaps Grimes' two most serious allegations--that U.S. Attorney Leura Canary remained involved with the case after her supposed recusal and that prosecutors pressured witnesses to remember events a certain way.

It is interesting to note that those two charges can clearly be substantiated--the first with e-mail evidence that Grimes provided to the Department of Justice, the second with similar accounts from a number of other individuals. Is that why OSC did not want to touch those issues? Does that raise questions about the validity of OSC's entire investigation?

The report becomes even more dubious when you consider OSC's recent history. Federal agents raided the office of former OSC chief Scott J. Bloch in May 2008 amid allegations of improper political bias and obstruction of justice. The New York Times reported that agents were trying to determine if Bloch, a 2003 George W. Bush appointee, had hired an outside firm to scrub his computer.

Gee, where would a Bush loyalist ever come up with such an idea?

As we reported last November, substantial evidence indicates Bloch and associate deputy attorney general David Margolis did their best to sweep Grimes' allegations under the rug and protect Leura Canary. And it appears that Bloch, before leaving office with the feds on his tail, removed Grimes' most serious allegations--making sure investigators would not even look into them.

How bad have things been at OSC in recent years? Consider this article from governmentexecutive.com in May 2009. It provides a searing analysis of the agency's woes:

The Office of Special Counsel is an independent oversight agency charged with protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, particularly whistleblower retaliation. For an agency that must build a reputation for fairness with federal employees and other agencies, scandals like the ones during Bloch's tenure can be especially harmful.

"There was a lot of damage done," says former Deputy Special Counsel Timothy Hannapel, who served under Clinton-appointed Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan. "We'd tried to put the agency on a new path to credibility and . . . it was all just erased and in a drastic way, with the credibility of the agency at rock bottom."

The agency's credibility is "at rock bottom," according to a former insider? And we are supposed to believe that OSC conducted a fair, thorough investigation of Tamarah Grimes' charges?

Things do not appear to have gotten any better at OSC in recent weeks. With Bloch's exit, William E. Reukauf became interim special counsel. Reukauf issued the report on Grimes' allegations, and his biography raises questions about whether he was able to approach the task in an impartial manner.

Reukauf is described in press reports as a career Department of Justice employee. But he was elevated to the role of associate special counsel in 1985, under the Reagan administration. He was appointed interim special counsel by George W. Bush.

A source tells Legal Schnauzer that Washington, D.C., insiders say Reukauf is a "Bush flunkie" and has been one since at least 1983. Our source also says that Reukauf worked for President George H.W. Bush about the time that Bill Canary worked in the White House as a special assistant for intergovernmental affairs.

Consider this item from Bill Canary's biography:

A former local elected official, Canary has an extensive background in the public policy and governmental arenas. In 1989, President George H. W. Bush appointed him to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs.

Canary, now head of the Business Council of Alabama, just happens to be married to . . . Leura Canary. Mr. Reukauf wouldn't have issued a seriously flawed report in order to save the skin of his buddy's wife, would he?

Tamarah Grimes was quick to point out the dysfunctional environment from which the OSC report sprang. Says Grimes:

The OSC report dated 9-29-09 is particularly egregious in that its conclusions are based on DOJ’s internal investigation. The gist of the OSC report is: Based upon information obtained from DOJ, in an investigation conducted by DOJ, we conclude that DOJ acted reasonably and within statutory limitations.

No one has been appointed as special counsel since former Special Counsel Scott Bloch resigned under a cloud of controversy late last year. Thus, based upon the OSC reports, it would appear that the Office of Special Counsel is a rudderless organization where no one is willing to stick his or her neck out for fear of reprisal.

After observing my fate and the fate of other whistleblowers, who could blame them? The irony is that the OSC is “the” whistleblower organization!

Grimes notes the high cost she has paid for bringing prosecutorial misconduct to public attention. She says change is desperately needed in the federal government's whistleblowing procedures:

None of this is likely to change unless the public demands change from the only entity with the authority to investigate–Congress. Congress has oversight authority over DOJ.

Today my life and my career are in shambles for performing my duty as a federal employee, for telling the truth and speaking out. Tomorrow it could be anyone--for without accountability, there is no justice.

Will anyone hold Leura Canary and her henchmen in the Middle District of Alabama accountable? Does anyone in the Barack Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, have a clue what is going on in "The Heart of Dixie"? Will Congress ever carry out its duty and investigate the Bush DOJ?

We still are waiting for answers to those questions.

Golden Arches Intersect With Peculiar Alabama Prosecution

What do hamburgers have to do with the peculiar federal prosecution of noted outdoorsman Edmond H. "Eddie" Smith IV in Mobile, Alabama?

The answer, apparently, is everything.

Smith has been held in the Mobile County Jail for more than eight months following his conviction on federal ammunition charges--a crime that court documents indicate he did not commit.

So why is Smith a federal prisoner? Why is his case generating a foul odor similar to the one that has surrounded the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman?

It might be because Smith was living in one of Mobile's most prestigious homes, one built by a key figure in the McDonald's chain of hamburger restaurants. Smith has told Legal Schnauzer, in a phone interview from the Mobile jail, that certain individuals wanted him out of the home so they could turn it into a commercial and residential development.

We will take a closer look at Smith's claims in future posts. But first, let's examine this spectacular piece of property, which is known as the Sonneborn House on Fowl River near Mobile.

The Mobile Press-Register calls the "sprawling, architecturally unique" Sonneborn House "one of Mobile County's most celebrated homes."

It was built in the early 1970s by Harry J. Sonneborn, the first president and chief executive officer of McDonald's. The Press-Register provides some history on the house:

Construction of the 17,000-square-foot home began in 1969 on a lot near Bellingrath Gardens, on some of the hundreds of acres that the Sonneborns purchased in the area. Design complications postponed completion until 1972, but the wait was worth it. The home built with hardwood floors and 12-foot ceilings instantly became a local landmark, something to gawk at then and still, especially by boaters.

Among the amenities: A heated indoor pool, a sauna and steamroom, a wine cellar, an elevator, four fireplaces and a pond, part of which is in the house, the rest outside. Strangely for a house that size, it had only one bedroom, but it was huge, and with a full view of the river.

Many people know that Ray Kroc was the founder of McDonald's. But few people know of the critical role Harry Sonneborn played in turning the Golden Arches into a national brand:

Ask any trivia hound who founded McDonald's, and they'll spit out Ray Kroc's name.

In the mid-1950s, Kroc bought the ninth hamburger store built by company founders Dick and Mac McDonald, and later bought the first eight and the company name as well. The rest is history.

According to accounts of the burger empire, a lesser-known figure, Harry J. Sonneborn, also deserves much of the credit for McDonald's ascendance as one of the world's most recognizable brand names.

In 1955, the adopted son of German Jewish immigrants and a former Tastee Freeze vice president approached Kroc to present his ideas about growing McDonald's through store ownership and franchising.

"What converted McDonald's into a money machine had nothing to do with Ray Kroc, or the McDonald brothers, or even the popularity of McDonald's hamburgers, French fries, and milkshakes. It was Harry J. Sonneborn," wrote John Love in his book, McDonald's: Behind the Arches.

Sonneborn became to McDonald's what Keith Richards has been to the Rolling Stones--a "second banana" who was essential to the organization's future huge success:

Although Kroc was the majority stockholder, Sonneborn was, for the first 12 years, the company's president and chief executive officer. He quit in 1967 over disagreements with Kroc, and sold his shares - meaning he left as a millionaire, and not the future billionaire he would have otherwise become.

Sonneborn's future would rest in, of all places, Alabama:

Two years after departing, Sonneborn and his wife, Aloyis, a Mobile native, decided to build their dream home.

"Harry fell in love with Mobile the first time he ever came here," Aloyis Sonneborn said in an interview a few weeks ago. "We looked at Palm Springs, at Palm Beach, but we just loved Fowl River."

Harry Sonneborn died in 1993, and Aloyis Sonneborn decided to sell the property in 2000. A local businessman bought the home, along with two adjacent lots, one with a guest house, for $1.1 million.

The businessman renovated the home, mainly to add some bedrooms, and put the landmark home up for sale in 2005.

That started a complicated chain of events that ended with Eddie Smith living in the Sonneborn House. And that, Smith says, is why he now finds himself in the Mobile County Jail for a federal crime he did not commit.

Could a man become a target of federal prosecutors because he lives on a magnificent piece of property--one that might have enormous value to developers?

The Eddie Smith story suggests the answer to that question might be yes.

(To be continued)