We need a good belly laugh around here every now and then, and a reader provided one the other day.
It came in the form of a video that raises this ancient question: What happens when you've accomplished the great goal of your life? What happens when your mission in life is complete? What comes next?
I've often pondered this question about the anti-abortion rights crowd--the so-called pro-lifers. What if Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow. I suspect many pro-lifers would be miserable. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves--although after a lull, I suspect they would try to outlaw contraception.
Enough of that. Let's enjoy this little clip that asks one of life's great questions.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Alabama's High Court Screws Citizens Again
The Alabama Supreme Court apparently was not content to cheat the public with the outrageous ExxonMobil ruling. It pulled pretty much the same fraudulent stunt again the other day, with a few slight variations.
In late 2007, the Alabama Supremes stunned many observers by overturning most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict in a fraud case against oil giant ExxonMobil. That decision robbed state coffers of badly needed funds at the outset of the Bush recession.
The high court was at it again recently, overturning a $274 million verdict in a fraud case against three pharmaceutical companies. The Supreme Court found that AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline did not defraud the state in pricing Medicaid prescription drugs.
This issue goes well beyond Alabama. Similar lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies are pending in other states, including Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, Hawaii, and Alaska.
How did the Alabama Supreme Court come to its conclusion? The key issue was "reliance," one of four elements in a fraud case. Essentially, the high court found that the pharmaceutical companies tried to cheat the Alabama Medicaid Agency (AMA), but AMA did not "rely" on the misrepresentations, so a fraud did not occur.
That is like saying: "I tried to steal $500 out of your wallet, and I had my hand on the cash and was pulling it out, but you caught me--so I didn't do anything wrong."
If you think there is something wrong with that reasoning, join the crowd. It's almost exactly the same reasoning the Alabama Supreme Court used to justify the ExxonMobil ruling and its predecessor, Hunt Petroleum Corp. v. State (2004). In fact, the Supremes proudly cite Hunt Petroleum in their decision on the pharmaceutical case.
Here is the status of current fraud law in Alabama--at least as it relates to Big Oil and Big Pharma: The victim of a fraud cannot prevail unless he falls for the fraud totally and completely, from start to finish. Of course, if the victim falls totally for the fraud, he never knows he's been defrauded--and cannot possibly bring a case.
Under that interpretation of the "reliance" element, big business cannot commit fraud in Alabama. It is essentially open season on Alabama citizens.
We should point out a few oddities about the Big Pharma case. Justice Tom Parker, who wrote the bogus ExxonMobil decision, was the only justice to dissent on Big Pharma. And Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's only Democrat and the only dissenting vote in the ExxonMobil case, concurred with the Big Pharma result--although she said the court used the wrong legal grounds to get the correct result.
Cobb either must be tired of fighting the business interests all by herself--or maybe they have bought her off, too, by now.
How wretched was the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in the Big Pharma case? The trial was overseen by Charles Price, presiding judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Montgomery. Price did not mince words when he upheld the trial verdict against AstraZeneca. Reported the Associated Press:
The trial judge found Big Pharma's actions "reprehensible." But the Alabama Supreme Court says it was A-OK. That's what we get when we blindly vote for Republicans on our statewide courts, folks.
Price was not the only one blasting the behavior of Big Pharma in Alabama. Jere Beasley, one of the lawyers for the state, issued a scathing public statement about the drug companies--and the Alabama Supreme Court. Here is a portion of that statement:
Beasley says lawyers for the state will ask the high court to reconsider its decision. Good luck with that. Alabamians wanted a conservative court. They've got one.
In late 2007, the Alabama Supremes stunned many observers by overturning most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict in a fraud case against oil giant ExxonMobil. That decision robbed state coffers of badly needed funds at the outset of the Bush recession.
The high court was at it again recently, overturning a $274 million verdict in a fraud case against three pharmaceutical companies. The Supreme Court found that AstraZeneca, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline did not defraud the state in pricing Medicaid prescription drugs.
This issue goes well beyond Alabama. Similar lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies are pending in other states, including Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, Hawaii, and Alaska.
How did the Alabama Supreme Court come to its conclusion? The key issue was "reliance," one of four elements in a fraud case. Essentially, the high court found that the pharmaceutical companies tried to cheat the Alabama Medicaid Agency (AMA), but AMA did not "rely" on the misrepresentations, so a fraud did not occur.
That is like saying: "I tried to steal $500 out of your wallet, and I had my hand on the cash and was pulling it out, but you caught me--so I didn't do anything wrong."
If you think there is something wrong with that reasoning, join the crowd. It's almost exactly the same reasoning the Alabama Supreme Court used to justify the ExxonMobil ruling and its predecessor, Hunt Petroleum Corp. v. State (2004). In fact, the Supremes proudly cite Hunt Petroleum in their decision on the pharmaceutical case.
Here is the status of current fraud law in Alabama--at least as it relates to Big Oil and Big Pharma: The victim of a fraud cannot prevail unless he falls for the fraud totally and completely, from start to finish. Of course, if the victim falls totally for the fraud, he never knows he's been defrauded--and cannot possibly bring a case.
Under that interpretation of the "reliance" element, big business cannot commit fraud in Alabama. It is essentially open season on Alabama citizens.
We should point out a few oddities about the Big Pharma case. Justice Tom Parker, who wrote the bogus ExxonMobil decision, was the only justice to dissent on Big Pharma. And Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb, the court's only Democrat and the only dissenting vote in the ExxonMobil case, concurred with the Big Pharma result--although she said the court used the wrong legal grounds to get the correct result.
Cobb either must be tired of fighting the business interests all by herself--or maybe they have bought her off, too, by now.
How wretched was the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in the Big Pharma case? The trial was overseen by Charles Price, presiding judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Montgomery. Price did not mince words when he upheld the trial verdict against AstraZeneca. Reported the Associated Press:
In his eight-page ruling, Price said the evidence during the trial showed that AstraZeneca's actions in overcharging Alabama's Medicaid program were "reprehensible.''
"The state introduced evidence to establish that the defendants fraudulently diverted Medicaid funds intended to benefit the state's poor, elderly and infirm citizens,'' Price wrote. "The state established that defendants' wrongful conduct deprived the state of limited funds available for the state's Medicaid recipients.''
The trial judge found Big Pharma's actions "reprehensible." But the Alabama Supreme Court says it was A-OK. That's what we get when we blindly vote for Republicans on our statewide courts, folks.
Price was not the only one blasting the behavior of Big Pharma in Alabama. Jere Beasley, one of the lawyers for the state, issued a scathing public statement about the drug companies--and the Alabama Supreme Court. Here is a portion of that statement:
The opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court is most difficult to understand when you consider that:
* Committing fraud against the Medicaid program hurts the elderly, the disabled, the young, and the poor as well as every Alabama taxpayer;
*AstraZeneca--one of the companies--entered a guilty plea to a charge of criminal fraud in federal court involving state Medicaid reimbursement;
*AstraZeneca paid a criminal fine of $570 million relating to that criminal guilty plea;
* AstraZeneca settled state Medicaid fraud cases involving reimbursement for $355 Million;
* A top official at AstraZeneca prepared an internal pricing document containing a virtual roadmap for cheating state Medicaid agencies;
* AstraZeneca as a part of the settlements mentioned above--agreed to submit true prices to state Medicaid agencies;
* AARP--a national group with 500,000 Alabama members--has fully supported Alabama in its lawsuit against the drug companies and in the appeal;
* 13 state Attorneys General have supported Alabama's position and each filed a brief on Alabama's behalf;
* Since the Alabama case was tried--and after the case was appealed in July 2008 to the Alabama Supreme Court--a Federal Appeals Court heard a separate appeal in a case where AstraZeneca was found guilty in Federal Court of fraudulent conduct in a Medicaid reimbursement case--in a strong opinion and affirmed the trial court;
* The Federal Appeals Court found that AstraZeneca was guilty of extremely bad conduct;
* Yesterday, a Kentucky jury, after hearing the same evidence Alabama lawyers developed and presented in the Alabama case, delivered a verdict against the drug manufacturer in the amount of $14.72 million; and
Taking all of the above into consideration, and knowing the facts of this case, it is extremely difficult to see how the Alabama Supreme Court could side with the drug companies and against the citizens of Alabama who are in the Medicaid program and against all Alabamians who pay taxes that support the Medicaid program. These folks are the losers today and politically powerful drug companies declared winners by the Alabama Supreme Court. This is a sad day for the Alabama Medicaid Program and all Alabama taxpayers.
Beasley says lawyers for the state will ask the high court to reconsider its decision. Good luck with that. Alabamians wanted a conservative court. They've got one.
Bob Riley's Nose Is Growing--Again
Someone should have given Alabama Governor Bob Riley the nickname "Pinocchio" a long time ago.
You could almost hear Riley's nose growing the other day as he told the Alabama press that he intended to sign a multimillion-dollar computer contract with Paragon Source LLC, a Virginia company that has no headquarters, no business phone listing, and no Web site.
And get this: Riley says the no-bid contract is justified because Paragon Source is a sole-source vendor, meaning it is the only company qualified to do the specified work.
While you try to hold back guffaws, consider that Paragon Source does not deal in nuclear-waste cleanup or some such unusual specialty. It's being hired to overhaul the state computer system that is used for financial functions. One can only imagine how many hundreds, probably thousands, of companies do that sort of work.
But here is Riley's explanation for signing the contract:
Uh, right. The governor does not mention that the finance department, comptroller etc. are appointed by . . . the governor himself. He also does not mention that, in its existing state contract, Paragon Source paid large sums to other companies.
In other words, Paragon Source farms out much of its "sole-source" contract. That doesn't sound like highly specialized work.
On the same day that he said he would sign the Paragon Source contract, Riley announced that he is going to push for ethics reform in Alabama.
We're not making this up, folks. Riley truly has "big brass ones" when it comes to hypocrisy. But the whole Riley clan seems to be that way, whether its son Rob Riley and his shady business dealings or son-in-law Robert Campbell and the big bucks his law firm has raked in during the Riley administration.
The Paragon Source deal is just the latest example of the Rileys' arrogance. And our guess is that, in the year-plus remaining for the administration, friends and cronies will be treating state coffers like their personal piggy bank--the Bank of Bob, if you will.
What does this say about the Rileys as human beings? Multiple sources have told Legal Schnauzer that Rob Riley is an overgrown spoiled brat. Our sources say that when Junior doesn't get his way, he is noted for essentially saying, "My daddy's the governor, and I can pick up the phone and call so-and-so to make sure things turn out the way I want them to." That can mean costing some troublesome person his job. That can mean applying the screws to an insurance company to make sure one of Riley's fly-by-night businesses gets a favorable deal--one it doesn't deserve. Other sources say Little Rob learned this sort of childish, and unlawful, behavior from Big Bob himself, who reportedly has pulled such stunts for years.
But here is an interesting question: Will one or more of the Rileys eventually step in doo-doo they can't get out of it? Will the Rileys someday screw with the wrong person or persons?
The Rileys seem to think they are untouchable. Could they be in for a big surprise?
You could almost hear Riley's nose growing the other day as he told the Alabama press that he intended to sign a multimillion-dollar computer contract with Paragon Source LLC, a Virginia company that has no headquarters, no business phone listing, and no Web site.
And get this: Riley says the no-bid contract is justified because Paragon Source is a sole-source vendor, meaning it is the only company qualified to do the specified work.
While you try to hold back guffaws, consider that Paragon Source does not deal in nuclear-waste cleanup or some such unusual specialty. It's being hired to overhaul the state computer system that is used for financial functions. One can only imagine how many hundreds, probably thousands, of companies do that sort of work.
But here is Riley's explanation for signing the contract:
"Why wouldn't I?" Riley said. "I know of no reason why I should not sign the contract. This is a sole source vendor, a vendor who was recommended to the finance department by the comptroller, by the finance committee, by a group that came in and said this is going to be a sole source contract and a sole source contract can't be bid."
Uh, right. The governor does not mention that the finance department, comptroller etc. are appointed by . . . the governor himself. He also does not mention that, in its existing state contract, Paragon Source paid large sums to other companies.
In other words, Paragon Source farms out much of its "sole-source" contract. That doesn't sound like highly specialized work.
On the same day that he said he would sign the Paragon Source contract, Riley announced that he is going to push for ethics reform in Alabama.
We're not making this up, folks. Riley truly has "big brass ones" when it comes to hypocrisy. But the whole Riley clan seems to be that way, whether its son Rob Riley and his shady business dealings or son-in-law Robert Campbell and the big bucks his law firm has raked in during the Riley administration.
The Paragon Source deal is just the latest example of the Rileys' arrogance. And our guess is that, in the year-plus remaining for the administration, friends and cronies will be treating state coffers like their personal piggy bank--the Bank of Bob, if you will.
What does this say about the Rileys as human beings? Multiple sources have told Legal Schnauzer that Rob Riley is an overgrown spoiled brat. Our sources say that when Junior doesn't get his way, he is noted for essentially saying, "My daddy's the governor, and I can pick up the phone and call so-and-so to make sure things turn out the way I want them to." That can mean costing some troublesome person his job. That can mean applying the screws to an insurance company to make sure one of Riley's fly-by-night businesses gets a favorable deal--one it doesn't deserve. Other sources say Little Rob learned this sort of childish, and unlawful, behavior from Big Bob himself, who reportedly has pulled such stunts for years.
But here is an interesting question: Will one or more of the Rileys eventually step in doo-doo they can't get out of it? Will the Rileys someday screw with the wrong person or persons?
The Rileys seem to think they are untouchable. Could they be in for a big surprise?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Does Discrimination Case Put UAB's Federal Funding At Risk?
A federal jury has found that the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) discriminated against a medical resident from India based on her Hindu religion. But the implications of that finding could go way beyond Dr. Seema Gupta and her lawsuit.
Academic medical centers, including UAB, receive $100,000 per resident per year for graduate medical education (GME). That money comes from Medicare, and it represents a huge chunk of federal dollars flowing into Alabama. But here is the kicker: The funding is predicated on abiding by federal anti-discrimination laws.
A federal jury has found that UAB did not abide by federal law in its treatment of Seema Gupta. And she is only one of five international medical residents who left UAB's Huntsville program, claiming they were the victims of discrimination. So here is the bigger question: Has UAB put its federal funding at risk by treating international medical residents in a shabby fashion?
R.L. Kureel, a former member of Parliament and deputy leader of Lok Sabha in the Republic of India, was getting at that issue when he wrote a letter to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) in May 2006, seeking help about discriminatory treatment of international medical graduates at UAB. Kureel is Dr. Seema Gupta's father. (See Kureel's complete letter to Shelby below.)
Shelby apparently ignored Kureel's request, but the legislator from India made it clear he understood the issues involved:
Does Kureel hold certain individuals at UAB in low regard? Sure sounds like it:
UAB, however, could pay a steep price for failing to keep its renegades in check. A former medical resident from Germany has a lawsuit pending. A former resident from Pakistan has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.
The issue goes beyond medical training. UAB has a number of pending discrimination cases from veteran employees in the general university environment. Our research indicates that UAB is required to conduct all of its affairs in a non-discriminatory manner--if it intends to accept federal dollars. Could those cases, too, put UAB's federal funding at risk?
We are talking about huge dollars here. UAB receives more than $400 million a year in federal research funding, for example.
Consider the money at stake just in GME: As we noted above, UAB receives $100,000 per resident per year. It has 36 residents each year at Huntsville, so that means the university receives $3.6 million for that program. But our research indicates UAB has close to 1,000 medical residents total--most of them in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. If our math is correct, that means UAB receives about $100 million a year for GME.
We should keep this in mind: UAB already has been found to have committed health-care fraud related to Medicare. As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, UAB paid a judgment of $3.4 million to settle a federal whistleblower case in 2005. One of the whistleblowers, a forensic accountant who was UAB's research-compliance officer at the time, estimated the total fraud at $600 million. So even though UAB admitted to defrauding the government in that case, it got off with not even a wrist slap--less than 1 percent of the total fraud.
Is UAB a serial offender when it comes to federal laws? Sure looks that way.
Will the university pay a heavy price someday? Well, UAB clearly has protectors in the federal government, including Richard Shelby. And there might be loopholes in the federal law that a big university can slip through.
We are researching those issues and will examine them more closely in future posts. But the record is clear: UAB has a history of violating federal anti-discrimination and anit-fraud law--and so far, it has pretty much gotten away with it.
India Letters to Richard Shelby
Academic medical centers, including UAB, receive $100,000 per resident per year for graduate medical education (GME). That money comes from Medicare, and it represents a huge chunk of federal dollars flowing into Alabama. But here is the kicker: The funding is predicated on abiding by federal anti-discrimination laws.
A federal jury has found that UAB did not abide by federal law in its treatment of Seema Gupta. And she is only one of five international medical residents who left UAB's Huntsville program, claiming they were the victims of discrimination. So here is the bigger question: Has UAB put its federal funding at risk by treating international medical residents in a shabby fashion?
R.L. Kureel, a former member of Parliament and deputy leader of Lok Sabha in the Republic of India, was getting at that issue when he wrote a letter to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) in May 2006, seeking help about discriminatory treatment of international medical graduates at UAB. Kureel is Dr. Seema Gupta's father. (See Kureel's complete letter to Shelby below.)
Shelby apparently ignored Kureel's request, but the legislator from India made it clear he understood the issues involved:
As a fellow legislator and senator from the state in question, I request you to take personal interest to investigate the facts of this case. As an attorney, I am well aware of the state sovereignty issues in this case. However, (Dr. Gupta's) training program is dependent and run by Medicare funding.
Does Kureel hold certain individuals at UAB in low regard? Sure sounds like it:
I am aware that laws for acts of discrimination currently exist and are enforced in the United States, and my daughter intends to seek justice. However, in a state-funded university (such as UAB), the particular individuals in question are typically not affected as Office of the Counsel of the university handles these cases. As a result, these renegade individuals continue to function, ignoring the laws in place, knowing their universities' legal procedures would protect them.
UAB, however, could pay a steep price for failing to keep its renegades in check. A former medical resident from Germany has a lawsuit pending. A former resident from Pakistan has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.
The issue goes beyond medical training. UAB has a number of pending discrimination cases from veteran employees in the general university environment. Our research indicates that UAB is required to conduct all of its affairs in a non-discriminatory manner--if it intends to accept federal dollars. Could those cases, too, put UAB's federal funding at risk?
We are talking about huge dollars here. UAB receives more than $400 million a year in federal research funding, for example.
Consider the money at stake just in GME: As we noted above, UAB receives $100,000 per resident per year. It has 36 residents each year at Huntsville, so that means the university receives $3.6 million for that program. But our research indicates UAB has close to 1,000 medical residents total--most of them in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. If our math is correct, that means UAB receives about $100 million a year for GME.
We should keep this in mind: UAB already has been found to have committed health-care fraud related to Medicare. As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, UAB paid a judgment of $3.4 million to settle a federal whistleblower case in 2005. One of the whistleblowers, a forensic accountant who was UAB's research-compliance officer at the time, estimated the total fraud at $600 million. So even though UAB admitted to defrauding the government in that case, it got off with not even a wrist slap--less than 1 percent of the total fraud.
Is UAB a serial offender when it comes to federal laws? Sure looks that way.
Will the university pay a heavy price someday? Well, UAB clearly has protectors in the federal government, including Richard Shelby. And there might be loopholes in the federal law that a big university can slip through.
We are researching those issues and will examine them more closely in future posts. But the record is clear: UAB has a history of violating federal anti-discrimination and anit-fraud law--and so far, it has pretty much gotten away with it.
India Letters to Richard Shelby
Bush Influence Lives On In the U.S. Department of Justice
Is the George W. Bush era over in the U.S. Department of Justice? Is the corrupting influence of Karl Rove a thing of the past? Not by a long shot.
Consider the corruption trial of Birmingham mayor Larry Langford, which started this week in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
The prosecution team consists of four lawyers--George Martin, Lloyd Peeples, Scarlett Singleton, and Tamarra Matthews Johnson. All of them were hired by Alice Martin, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and a Bush appointee.
Is that a problem? Not if you ignore the fact that Martin faces allegations of criminal misconduct from her time in office. Not if you ignore the words of Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's and a law professor at Columbia University, who called Martin perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.
For good measure, the judge in the Langford case is Bush-appointee J. Scott Coogler.
A Birmingham News profile of the Langford prosecutors inadvertently puts its finger on one of the many problems in Alice Martin's former kingdom. Regarding prosecutor Lloyd Peeples, the News tells us:
That would be the case of William and Marie King, who operated a health-care consulting company called King & Associates. The Kings apparently have little political clout in conservative circles, so they got nailed for their transgressions.
But here's what The Birmingham News doesn't tell you: Alice Martin & Co. were not always so tough on health-care fraudsters. Just consider two other cases that we've covered at Legal Schnauzer:
* The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) was involved in a massive health-care fraud scheme that was alleged to total some $600 million over at least 10 years. There is every reason to believe the problem still exists, under current UAB President Carol Garrison. But UAB, run by the business honchos of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, has political clout. So it got off with a $3.4 million civil settlement--way less than 1 percent of the total fraud. Under the treble-damages provision of the relevant federal law, UAB could have been on the hook for roughly $1.5 billion. But Alice Martin let them off easy, and our sources say her minions never seriously investigated the charges.
* According to a whistleblower lawsuit filed in federal court, Birmingham-based Performance Group LLC has engaged in widespread health-care fraud.
Did Alice Martin bring down the hammer on that rogue outfit? Not exactly. You see, one of the owners of Performance Group is Homewood lawyer Rob Riley, the son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley. Other owners, including Dr. Thomas Spurlock and Dr. Francois Blaudeau, are affiliated with UAB. So Alice Martin chose not to intervene in the case, leaving the whistleblower to fend for herself. Riley and his gang are not in the clear; the case could be refiled. But if the governor's son ever faces justice, it won't be because of Alice Martin.
Compelling evidence suggests that Alice Martin played political favorites throughout her time as U.S. attorney. It seems reasonable to assume that the folks she hired, her proteges, would do the same thing.
All of that leaves us with a a couple of questions:
Is Larry Langford guilty? It's certainly possible. Many of us who have lived in the Birmingham area for awhile have long been concerned about Langford's tendency to play fast and loose with a buck.
Will Langford get a fair trial, given the smelly environment that Bush, Rove, and Martin left behind?
I doubt it.
Consider the corruption trial of Birmingham mayor Larry Langford, which started this week in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
The prosecution team consists of four lawyers--George Martin, Lloyd Peeples, Scarlett Singleton, and Tamarra Matthews Johnson. All of them were hired by Alice Martin, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and a Bush appointee.
Is that a problem? Not if you ignore the fact that Martin faces allegations of criminal misconduct from her time in office. Not if you ignore the words of Scott Horton, legal-affairs contributor for Harper's and a law professor at Columbia University, who called Martin perhaps the most corrupt and crooked public official in the country.
For good measure, the judge in the Langford case is Bush-appointee J. Scott Coogler.
A Birmingham News profile of the Langford prosecutors inadvertently puts its finger on one of the many problems in Alice Martin's former kingdom. Regarding prosecutor Lloyd Peeples, the News tells us:
A case prosecuted by Peeples recently resulted in a $1.44 million civil settlement against a Shelby County business and prison time for the owners in a Medicare fraud case.
That would be the case of William and Marie King, who operated a health-care consulting company called King & Associates. The Kings apparently have little political clout in conservative circles, so they got nailed for their transgressions.
But here's what The Birmingham News doesn't tell you: Alice Martin & Co. were not always so tough on health-care fraudsters. Just consider two other cases that we've covered at Legal Schnauzer:
* The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) was involved in a massive health-care fraud scheme that was alleged to total some $600 million over at least 10 years. There is every reason to believe the problem still exists, under current UAB President Carol Garrison. But UAB, run by the business honchos of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, has political clout. So it got off with a $3.4 million civil settlement--way less than 1 percent of the total fraud. Under the treble-damages provision of the relevant federal law, UAB could have been on the hook for roughly $1.5 billion. But Alice Martin let them off easy, and our sources say her minions never seriously investigated the charges.
* According to a whistleblower lawsuit filed in federal court, Birmingham-based Performance Group LLC has engaged in widespread health-care fraud.
Did Alice Martin bring down the hammer on that rogue outfit? Not exactly. You see, one of the owners of Performance Group is Homewood lawyer Rob Riley, the son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley. Other owners, including Dr. Thomas Spurlock and Dr. Francois Blaudeau, are affiliated with UAB. So Alice Martin chose not to intervene in the case, leaving the whistleblower to fend for herself. Riley and his gang are not in the clear; the case could be refiled. But if the governor's son ever faces justice, it won't be because of Alice Martin.
Compelling evidence suggests that Alice Martin played political favorites throughout her time as U.S. attorney. It seems reasonable to assume that the folks she hired, her proteges, would do the same thing.
All of that leaves us with a a couple of questions:
Is Larry Langford guilty? It's certainly possible. Many of us who have lived in the Birmingham area for awhile have long been concerned about Langford's tendency to play fast and loose with a buck.
Will Langford get a fair trial, given the smelly environment that Bush, Rove, and Martin left behind?
I doubt it.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Alabama Shooting--With Political Overtones--Mirrors the Steve McNair Case
News continues to break in the shooting death of former National Football League star Steve McNair, with the release yesterday of text messages between McNair and the girlfriend who shot him.
Before that, the McNair case took a turn that reminds us of an ugly Alabama incident--one that has indirect ties to Republican Party politics and our Legal Schnauzer story. That's because, like many of the ugly incidents we write about here, the Alabama case involves corrupt Pelham attorney William E. Swatek.
As regular Legal Schnauzer readers know, Bill Swatek has family ties to GOP royalty, including former Bush strategist Karl Rove. Both the McNair case and the Alabama case drive home this key message: It's unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, and there's a good reason for that.
McNair was shot and killed in early July in Nashville, Tennessee, where he had once starred for the Tennessee Titans. Investigators determined that McNair's mistress, 20-year-old Sahel Kazemi, shot him four times before killing herself with a single gunshot to the head.
About two weeks after the death, authorities charged Adrian J. Gilliam Jr., of La Vergne, Tennessee, with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. A criminal complaint said Gilliam confessed to selling the gun to Kazemi. Gilliam recently pleaded guilty in federal court in Nashville, and sentencing is set for December 18.
How does this connect to our Legal Schnauzer story? Well, as we have reported in numerous posts, Alabama lawyer William E. Swatek is largely responsible for the legal headaches my wife and I have endured. Not only is Swatek the father of Alabama GOP consultant Dax Swatek (a protege of Karl Rove confidante Bill Canary), he has a 30-year history of unethical behavior in the legal profession. We have outlined Bill Swatek's legacy of sleaze here and here.
Until Adrian Gilliam's role in Steve McNair's shooting death came to light, we had pretty much forgotten about a particularly ugly episode from Bill Swatek's sordid past. Now seems like a good time to bring it to light. The case is not only revealing about Bill Swatek, it says a lot about a justice system that appears to protect rogue lawyers like him.
In December 1995, 42-year-old Lawrence Weems was shot 11 times outside his home in Trussville, Alabama. The gunman was a private detective named Don Weiffenbach, who had been hired by Beverly Weems and her attorney for a divorce case against her husband, Larry Weems.
Who was Beverly Weems' attorney? Bill Swatek. And what did Don Weiffenbach have in his background? A felony conviction, from Arizona. So how was he in possession of a firearm?
Larry Weems alleged in a lawsuit that Swatek helped Weiffenbach obtain a pistol permit in Shelby County after he had been denied in Jefferson County because of the felony conviction.
What exactly happened that evening in Trussville? The details are murky. Weiffenbach said Beverly Weems had asked him to come to the Weems residence to check for an outside tap on the phone line, and Larry Weems confronted him. Weems said he was called to the residence and walked into an ambush.
According to public documents, Weiffenbach was shot twice, and Weems was shot 11 times. Weems was hospitalized in critical condition, but he survived.
This much appears to be clear. Weiffenbach was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. And it's a miracle someone was not killed.
What happened in the aftermath of the shooting? Larry Weems filed lawsuits against Shelby County and the City of Trussville. His lawsuit for negligent hiring and supervision against Swatek and Beverly Weems generated enough documents to fill several large folders at the Jefferson County Courthouse.
Larry Weems says that depositions in the case present compelling evidence that Swatek was at least partly responsible for Weiffenbach obtaining a pistol permit in Shelby County. Not long after the shooting, Swatek sold his house to his wife and put it in her name, according to Shelby County probate records.
Was Swatek concerned about a possible major judgment against him? His actions indicate the answer is yes.
Weems' lawsuit dragged on for years before eventually losing steam and being dismissed--for reasons that are hard to determine from viewing the case file.
Was the lawsuit dismissed mainly because Weems had a member of the Birmingham legal community in the crosshairs? Did the "justice" community rally to dismiss Weems' lawsuit, not based on the facts and law, but based on the need to protect one of its own?
Consider this: Weems says he filed a criminal complaint with the Birmingham office of the FBI, and nothing was done about it. He filed a complaint against Swatek with the Alabama State Bar, and it was not investigated--even though Swatek had been disciplined three times previously by the state bar, including a suspension of his license.
Don Weiffenbach moved to Florida and died a few years ago. Larry Weems remains convinced that Bill Swatek was responsible for a shooting that nearly claimed his life.
Did Bill Swatek help a convicted felon unlawfully obtain a firearm? The Alabama legal and law-enforcement community apparently want to make sure the public never knows the answer to that question.
Before that, the McNair case took a turn that reminds us of an ugly Alabama incident--one that has indirect ties to Republican Party politics and our Legal Schnauzer story. That's because, like many of the ugly incidents we write about here, the Alabama case involves corrupt Pelham attorney William E. Swatek.
As regular Legal Schnauzer readers know, Bill Swatek has family ties to GOP royalty, including former Bush strategist Karl Rove. Both the McNair case and the Alabama case drive home this key message: It's unlawful for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, and there's a good reason for that.
McNair was shot and killed in early July in Nashville, Tennessee, where he had once starred for the Tennessee Titans. Investigators determined that McNair's mistress, 20-year-old Sahel Kazemi, shot him four times before killing herself with a single gunshot to the head.
About two weeks after the death, authorities charged Adrian J. Gilliam Jr., of La Vergne, Tennessee, with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. A criminal complaint said Gilliam confessed to selling the gun to Kazemi. Gilliam recently pleaded guilty in federal court in Nashville, and sentencing is set for December 18.
How does this connect to our Legal Schnauzer story? Well, as we have reported in numerous posts, Alabama lawyer William E. Swatek is largely responsible for the legal headaches my wife and I have endured. Not only is Swatek the father of Alabama GOP consultant Dax Swatek (a protege of Karl Rove confidante Bill Canary), he has a 30-year history of unethical behavior in the legal profession. We have outlined Bill Swatek's legacy of sleaze here and here.
Until Adrian Gilliam's role in Steve McNair's shooting death came to light, we had pretty much forgotten about a particularly ugly episode from Bill Swatek's sordid past. Now seems like a good time to bring it to light. The case is not only revealing about Bill Swatek, it says a lot about a justice system that appears to protect rogue lawyers like him.
In December 1995, 42-year-old Lawrence Weems was shot 11 times outside his home in Trussville, Alabama. The gunman was a private detective named Don Weiffenbach, who had been hired by Beverly Weems and her attorney for a divorce case against her husband, Larry Weems.
Who was Beverly Weems' attorney? Bill Swatek. And what did Don Weiffenbach have in his background? A felony conviction, from Arizona. So how was he in possession of a firearm?
Larry Weems alleged in a lawsuit that Swatek helped Weiffenbach obtain a pistol permit in Shelby County after he had been denied in Jefferson County because of the felony conviction.
What exactly happened that evening in Trussville? The details are murky. Weiffenbach said Beverly Weems had asked him to come to the Weems residence to check for an outside tap on the phone line, and Larry Weems confronted him. Weems said he was called to the residence and walked into an ambush.
According to public documents, Weiffenbach was shot twice, and Weems was shot 11 times. Weems was hospitalized in critical condition, but he survived.
This much appears to be clear. Weiffenbach was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. And it's a miracle someone was not killed.
What happened in the aftermath of the shooting? Larry Weems filed lawsuits against Shelby County and the City of Trussville. His lawsuit for negligent hiring and supervision against Swatek and Beverly Weems generated enough documents to fill several large folders at the Jefferson County Courthouse.
Larry Weems says that depositions in the case present compelling evidence that Swatek was at least partly responsible for Weiffenbach obtaining a pistol permit in Shelby County. Not long after the shooting, Swatek sold his house to his wife and put it in her name, according to Shelby County probate records.
Was Swatek concerned about a possible major judgment against him? His actions indicate the answer is yes.
Weems' lawsuit dragged on for years before eventually losing steam and being dismissed--for reasons that are hard to determine from viewing the case file.
Was the lawsuit dismissed mainly because Weems had a member of the Birmingham legal community in the crosshairs? Did the "justice" community rally to dismiss Weems' lawsuit, not based on the facts and law, but based on the need to protect one of its own?
Consider this: Weems says he filed a criminal complaint with the Birmingham office of the FBI, and nothing was done about it. He filed a complaint against Swatek with the Alabama State Bar, and it was not investigated--even though Swatek had been disciplined three times previously by the state bar, including a suspension of his license.
Don Weiffenbach moved to Florida and died a few years ago. Larry Weems remains convinced that Bill Swatek was responsible for a shooting that nearly claimed his life.
Did Bill Swatek help a convicted felon unlawfully obtain a firearm? The Alabama legal and law-enforcement community apparently want to make sure the public never knows the answer to that question.
Unmasking the Crooks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
These are not the "glory days" for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And that should be good news for U.S. citizens.
First, came reports that a number of urban chambers and prominent companies are distancing themselves from the "mother ship" because of its right-wing stance on policy issues.
Then came word that the progressive advocacy group Velvet Revolution had launched a campaign called stopthechamber.com. The folks at VR mince no words, calling the U.S. Chamber exactly what it is--a criminal front group.
It hasn't always been that way. Our guess is that the national chamber, and its many local affiliates, once played an important role in promoting business interests--and responsible business practices. But that was before Tom Donohue came along. Writes VR:
As a resident of Alabama, I've seen firsthand the corrupting influence the U.S. Chamber can have. With the help of Karl Rove, the U.S. Chamber turned our state courts into a Republican playground. Those corporate-protectionist judges overturned most of a $3.6 billion fraud verdict for the state of Alabama and against oil giant ExxonMobil. That money certainly would helped the state deal with the ravages of the Bush recession. But big business must be protected.
VR says a criminal investigation should be launched into the U.S. chamber's electoral activities:
Eliot Spitzer, former attorney general of New York, cut to the chase about Donohue and his corporate buddies:
Some good news has surfaced about the U.S. Chamber. Mother Jones reports that its influence, and membership, appear to be dwindling.
Will Congress and the U.S. Justice Department look into the chamber's unsavory side? Velvet Revolution is pushing for just that.
First, came reports that a number of urban chambers and prominent companies are distancing themselves from the "mother ship" because of its right-wing stance on policy issues.
Then came word that the progressive advocacy group Velvet Revolution had launched a campaign called stopthechamber.com. The folks at VR mince no words, calling the U.S. Chamber exactly what it is--a criminal front group.
It hasn't always been that way. Our guess is that the national chamber, and its many local affiliates, once played an important role in promoting business interests--and responsible business practices. But that was before Tom Donohue came along. Writes VR:
The Chamber of Commerce, under the leadership of Tom Donohue, has gone from a well respected trade organization to an extremist political organization dedicated to corrupting American democracy by elevating the profits of big corporations over the well being of the citizens they serve. The most recent example of this corrupt behavior is the Chamber's announcement that it is spending more than $100 million to defeat initiatives to protect the environment and provide affordable health care to everyone.
The Chamber is the biggest lobbying operation in the United States, spending billions of dollars on behalf of big business over the past decade to corrupt the political system. Polluters like Big Coal, Big Asbestos, and Big Oil only need call the Chamber to stop any accountability for their toxic destruction. Wall Street banks and CEOs need only make sure that they have paid their Chamber dues to ensure that they can continue to rip off the taxpayers. And killers like Big Tobacco need only form a partnership with the Chamber to ensure that they will be given immunity from lawsuits that seek accountability for the death and sickness of millions of Americans.
As a resident of Alabama, I've seen firsthand the corrupting influence the U.S. Chamber can have. With the help of Karl Rove, the U.S. Chamber turned our state courts into a Republican playground. Those corporate-protectionist judges overturned most of a $3.6 billion fraud verdict for the state of Alabama and against oil giant ExxonMobil. That money certainly would helped the state deal with the ravages of the Bush recession. But big business must be protected.
VR says a criminal investigation should be launched into the U.S. chamber's electoral activities:
The Chamber was found to have committed fraud and campaign finance violations in Ohio by creating a front group called Citizens for a Strong Ohio and funneling millions of dollars through it to defeat Supreme Court Justice Alice Resnick because she could not be bought. This Chamber practice is widespread and was also used against Karl Rove targeted Mississippi Justice Oliver Diaz, and in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Michigan, West Virginia, and Arkansas. We are asking the Department of Justice to investigate these illegal practices under RICO and to review whether the Chamber is actually a political action committee rather than a trade association.
Eliot Spitzer, former attorney general of New York, cut to the chase about Donohue and his corporate buddies:
''Tom Donohue has never once found a crime that he couldn't justify, as long as it was committed by one of his dues-paying members."
Some good news has surfaced about the U.S. Chamber. Mother Jones reports that its influence, and membership, appear to be dwindling.
Will Congress and the U.S. Justice Department look into the chamber's unsavory side? Velvet Revolution is pushing for just that.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Larry Langford, Paul Bryant Jr., and "Justice" in Alabama
Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford goes to trial today on federal corruption charges. But a behind-the-scenes story might say more about our justice system than the Langford trial ever could.
Here's the gist of the backstory: If you are Larry Langford--a black Democrat, who grew up in a housing project--you almost certainly will pay for your alleged wrongs. If you are Paul W. Bryant Jr.--a white conservative businessman and a child of wealth and privilege (his father was University of Alabama football icon Paul "Bear" Bryant)--you can avoid scrutiny of your fishy finances.
How does Bryant Jr., president of Greene Group Inc. and a member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, have connections to the Langford trial?
Langford's defense attorney is Mike Rasmussen, who spent almost 30 years as a federal prosecutor before going into private practice. In 1997, Rasmussen was a lead prosecutor in Pennsylvania on one of the biggest insurance-fraud cases in U.S. history. The case ended with a conviction and 15-year federal prison sentence for a Philadelphia lawyer named Allen W. Stewart.
Why was Rasmussen, based in Alabama at the time, working on a case in Pennsylvania? It's because a central player in Allen W. Stewart's fraudulent scheme was a company called Alabama Reassurance. In fact, Alabama Re was implicated in at least eight of the 135 counts on which Stewart was convicted--for racketeering, money laundering, wire and mail fraud.
Alabama Re just happens to be one of Paul Bryant Jr.'s companies, part of the Greene Group. When the Stewart trial started, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama was Caryl Privett, now a Jefferson County circuit judge.
Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Privett's message to prosecutors and investigators on the Stewart case was this: If you go to Pennsylvania and come back with a conviction, you can move forward with a heightened investigation of Alabama Re. In other words, Paul Bryant Jr. & Co. had stepped in some serious doo-doo.
By the time the Stewart case was completed, however, Privett no longer was in office. And when investigators attempted to build on the ugly information they already had uncovered about Alabama Re, someone in a position of authority called off the dogs.
That meant that Bryant's company, which was implicated in criminal activity in Pennsylvania, would face no further scrutiny in Alabama.
Larry Langford should be so lucky.
Mike Rasmussen undoubtedly will have a number of microphones and cameras thrust into his face in the coming days. Wouldn't it be interesting if some enterprising reporter asked this question: "You were a lead prosecutor on a Pennsylvania case in which Alabama Reassurance was implicated in the late 1990s. You were authorized to pursue a heightened investigation of Alabama Re once Allen W. Stewart was convicted in Philadelphia, but someone pulled the plug. Who brought that investigation to a halt? Who took steps to make sure that Paul Bryant Jr. and his company would be protected?"
And here is perhaps a bigger question for Mike Rasmussen: "Does it bother you that your current client--a product of a Birmingham housing project--faces the full weight of the United States government today, while Paul Bryant Jr.--the product of wealth and privilege--escaped scrutiny even though his company already had been implicated in criminal activity?"
Those questions probably would cause Mike Rasmussen to "hmm" and "haw" quite a bit. Not that he did anything wrong back in the late 1990s. Our sources say Rasmussen was gung ho to go after Alabama Re--and almost certainly would have nailed them--until someone over his head put a stop to the investigation.
Our point is not that Larry Langford should be given a free pass. If it is proven that he accepted bribes in exchange for steering government-bond business to certain investment bankers, he should pay the price.
But the same should hold true for Paul Bryant Jr. and anyone else who might have been associated with wrongdoing at Alabama Re. Heck, the company only has two employees--Scott M. Phelps, president and director, and W. Rodney Windham, vice president and actuary. Bryant is chairman of the board and Tuscaloosa veterinarian A. Wayne May, a longtime associate of Bryant's, is a director.
The statute of limitations probably has passed on the financial fraud involved in the Allen W. Stewart case. But how does Alabama Re conduct its business now? Did it change its ways once it received a "Get Out of Jail Free" card back in the late 1990s?
It would not be hard to answer that question. The company and its two employees are located in the Bryant Bank building at 1550 McFarland Blvd. in Tuscaloosa.
In his "Message From the Chairman," Bryant says:
I wonder if that invitation applies to federal investigators.
Here's the gist of the backstory: If you are Larry Langford--a black Democrat, who grew up in a housing project--you almost certainly will pay for your alleged wrongs. If you are Paul W. Bryant Jr.--a white conservative businessman and a child of wealth and privilege (his father was University of Alabama football icon Paul "Bear" Bryant)--you can avoid scrutiny of your fishy finances.
How does Bryant Jr., president of Greene Group Inc. and a member of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, have connections to the Langford trial?
Langford's defense attorney is Mike Rasmussen, who spent almost 30 years as a federal prosecutor before going into private practice. In 1997, Rasmussen was a lead prosecutor in Pennsylvania on one of the biggest insurance-fraud cases in U.S. history. The case ended with a conviction and 15-year federal prison sentence for a Philadelphia lawyer named Allen W. Stewart.
Why was Rasmussen, based in Alabama at the time, working on a case in Pennsylvania? It's because a central player in Allen W. Stewart's fraudulent scheme was a company called Alabama Reassurance. In fact, Alabama Re was implicated in at least eight of the 135 counts on which Stewart was convicted--for racketeering, money laundering, wire and mail fraud.
Alabama Re just happens to be one of Paul Bryant Jr.'s companies, part of the Greene Group. When the Stewart trial started, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama was Caryl Privett, now a Jefferson County circuit judge.
Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Privett's message to prosecutors and investigators on the Stewart case was this: If you go to Pennsylvania and come back with a conviction, you can move forward with a heightened investigation of Alabama Re. In other words, Paul Bryant Jr. & Co. had stepped in some serious doo-doo.
By the time the Stewart case was completed, however, Privett no longer was in office. And when investigators attempted to build on the ugly information they already had uncovered about Alabama Re, someone in a position of authority called off the dogs.
That meant that Bryant's company, which was implicated in criminal activity in Pennsylvania, would face no further scrutiny in Alabama.
Larry Langford should be so lucky.
Mike Rasmussen undoubtedly will have a number of microphones and cameras thrust into his face in the coming days. Wouldn't it be interesting if some enterprising reporter asked this question: "You were a lead prosecutor on a Pennsylvania case in which Alabama Reassurance was implicated in the late 1990s. You were authorized to pursue a heightened investigation of Alabama Re once Allen W. Stewart was convicted in Philadelphia, but someone pulled the plug. Who brought that investigation to a halt? Who took steps to make sure that Paul Bryant Jr. and his company would be protected?"
And here is perhaps a bigger question for Mike Rasmussen: "Does it bother you that your current client--a product of a Birmingham housing project--faces the full weight of the United States government today, while Paul Bryant Jr.--the product of wealth and privilege--escaped scrutiny even though his company already had been implicated in criminal activity?"
Those questions probably would cause Mike Rasmussen to "hmm" and "haw" quite a bit. Not that he did anything wrong back in the late 1990s. Our sources say Rasmussen was gung ho to go after Alabama Re--and almost certainly would have nailed them--until someone over his head put a stop to the investigation.
Our point is not that Larry Langford should be given a free pass. If it is proven that he accepted bribes in exchange for steering government-bond business to certain investment bankers, he should pay the price.
But the same should hold true for Paul Bryant Jr. and anyone else who might have been associated with wrongdoing at Alabama Re. Heck, the company only has two employees--Scott M. Phelps, president and director, and W. Rodney Windham, vice president and actuary. Bryant is chairman of the board and Tuscaloosa veterinarian A. Wayne May, a longtime associate of Bryant's, is a director.
The statute of limitations probably has passed on the financial fraud involved in the Allen W. Stewart case. But how does Alabama Re conduct its business now? Did it change its ways once it received a "Get Out of Jail Free" card back in the late 1990s?
It would not be hard to answer that question. The company and its two employees are located in the Bryant Bank building at 1550 McFarland Blvd. in Tuscaloosa.
In his "Message From the Chairman," Bryant says:
In times of economic uncertainty, it’s natural and prudent to carefully examine the strength of those financial institutions to which you entrust your hard-earned resources.
That’s why I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that we are always working to make certain our bank is a safe place for your money. . . .
So, call us at any of the convenient locations listed on this site. Or, better yet, come see us.
I wonder if that invitation applies to federal investigators.
The Horrible Costs of Distracted Driving
We have written several times about the dangers of distracted driving. (You can check out posts here and here.) But a new video, making the rounds on the Web, makes the point far more powerfully than we ever could.
Research studies and government reports should not be necessary to tell us that distracted driving is a bad idea. Common sense should tell us that it's dangerous to talk on a cell phone or fiddle with a text message while trying to maneuver a vehicle.
But alas, we live in an era when common sense is in short supply. And many of us apparently are all too easily addicted to anything--including electrical devices.
Consider an op-ed piece by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who's had her own misadventures with distracted driving. Writes Dowd:
So, we become distracted behind the wheel because it gives us a thrill. And the corporatists who run the country--and the legislators they buy off--encourage it because they make a ton of cash off electronic gadgets:
Corporate chieftains certainly are not going to save us from distracted driving. And don't look for government types to do it anytime soon. We are going to have to save ourselves--from ourselves.
Perhaps the best way to do that is through widespread viewing of a new public-service video. I'm not sure about the origins of the video, but it appears to come from a Web site called http://www.streetracing.ru/, which I believe is based in Russia.
Wherever it came from, it sends an important message. It's graphic, gory, and disturbing--and it should be watched by everyone who drives.
Research studies and government reports should not be necessary to tell us that distracted driving is a bad idea. Common sense should tell us that it's dangerous to talk on a cell phone or fiddle with a text message while trying to maneuver a vehicle.
But alas, we live in an era when common sense is in short supply. And many of us apparently are all too easily addicted to anything--including electrical devices.
Consider an op-ed piece by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who's had her own misadventures with distracted driving. Writes Dowd:
As John Ratey, the Harvard professor of psychiatry who specializes in the science of attention, told The Times’s Matt Richtel for his chilling series, “Driven to Distraction,” using digital devices gives you “a dopamine squirt.”
That explains the Pavlovian impulse of people who are out with friends or dates to ignore them and check their BlackBerrys and cellphones, even if 99 out of 100 messages are uninteresting. They’re truffle-hunting for that scintillating one.
So, we become distracted behind the wheel because it gives us a thrill. And the corporatists who run the country--and the legislators they buy off--encourage it because they make a ton of cash off electronic gadgets:
Americans woke up one day to find that they were don’t-miss-a-moment addicts who feel compelled to respond to all messages immediately.
The tech industry is our drug dealer, feeding the intense social and economic pressure to stay constantly in touch with employers, colleagues, friends and family.
Corporate chieftains certainly are not going to save us from distracted driving. And don't look for government types to do it anytime soon. We are going to have to save ourselves--from ourselves.
Perhaps the best way to do that is through widespread viewing of a new public-service video. I'm not sure about the origins of the video, but it appears to come from a Web site called http://www.streetracing.ru/, which I believe is based in Russia.
Wherever it came from, it sends an important message. It's graphic, gory, and disturbing--and it should be watched by everyone who drives.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Obama Justice Department Hangs Siegelman Whistleblower Out to Dry
Has President Barack Obama improved the U.S. Department of Justice since inheriting a dysfunctional mess from George W. Bush almost 10 months ago?
If you were to pose that question to Tamarah Grimes, a former paralegal in the DOJ's Middle District of Alabama, she almost certainly would reply, "Heck, no!"
Grimes blew the whistle on prosecutorial misconduct in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which took place under the Bush regime. But much of the abuse Grimes has suffered as a result has happened on Obama's watch.
Joan Brunwasser shines unflattering light on the Obama DOJ in a compelling two-part interview with Grimes at OpEd News. You can check out the full interview here and here.
What conclusions can we draw from Brunwasser's splendid piece? Failure to address abuses in the justice system is the great shame of the Obama presidency. And if the situation does not improve quickly--if Obama does not show some Alan Grayson-like guts on the matter--his presidency might be at risk.
As Grimes and Brunwasser make clear, it no longer is a matter of "looking back" at abuses under the Bush administration. The abuses are happening right now--under Obama. And there is little sign that they are going to be addressed anytime soon.
How long are progressives, who put Obama in the White House, going to tolerate an administration that turns a blind eye to grotesque abuses in the justice system.
How grotesque are the abuses? Consider that Grimes wrote a letter on June 1, 2009, to Eric Holder--Obama's attorney general--and eight days later, she was fired from her job. (See the complete letter to Holder below.)
It's hard to imagine a more clearcut case of unlawful retaliation. But the Obama Justice Department now is trying to ensure that Grimes does not receive unemployment benefits, and she has been denied health-care insurance--and she has a special-needs child! A hearing regarding Grimes' benefits was held on October 7, and a final decision has not been reached.
Is that change we can believe in? Is this the administration that is pushing for health-care reform? Sheez. Here is Grimes, from Brunwasser's story:
This is how the Obama administration rewards whistleblowers. And this comes after the Middle District of Alabama, led by Bush appointee Leura Canary (who still is on the job), had heaped abuse on Grimes:
Did this make a lick of sense? Nope:
Then Grimes had to watch the DOJ's Office of Special Counsel, reporting to Obama, issue a report stating her allegations were "unsubstantiated." Never mind that she had presented e-mails that proved Canary had not recused herself from the Siegelman case as she had claimed:
Grimes also has had to endure insults from federal prosecutors, who now theoretically answer to Holder and Obama, claiming she had not made her allegations under oath. What is the truth about that matter?
Why is madness still going on in the Middle District of Alabama? Why has Team Obama been so reluctant to clean up the cesspool? Grimes offers a possible answer. And it points a finger directly at U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL):
Grimes Letter to Holder
If you were to pose that question to Tamarah Grimes, a former paralegal in the DOJ's Middle District of Alabama, she almost certainly would reply, "Heck, no!"
Grimes blew the whistle on prosecutorial misconduct in the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, which took place under the Bush regime. But much of the abuse Grimes has suffered as a result has happened on Obama's watch.
Joan Brunwasser shines unflattering light on the Obama DOJ in a compelling two-part interview with Grimes at OpEd News. You can check out the full interview here and here.
What conclusions can we draw from Brunwasser's splendid piece? Failure to address abuses in the justice system is the great shame of the Obama presidency. And if the situation does not improve quickly--if Obama does not show some Alan Grayson-like guts on the matter--his presidency might be at risk.
As Grimes and Brunwasser make clear, it no longer is a matter of "looking back" at abuses under the Bush administration. The abuses are happening right now--under Obama. And there is little sign that they are going to be addressed anytime soon.
How long are progressives, who put Obama in the White House, going to tolerate an administration that turns a blind eye to grotesque abuses in the justice system.
How grotesque are the abuses? Consider that Grimes wrote a letter on June 1, 2009, to Eric Holder--Obama's attorney general--and eight days later, she was fired from her job. (See the complete letter to Holder below.)
It's hard to imagine a more clearcut case of unlawful retaliation. But the Obama Justice Department now is trying to ensure that Grimes does not receive unemployment benefits, and she has been denied health-care insurance--and she has a special-needs child! A hearing regarding Grimes' benefits was held on October 7, and a final decision has not been reached.
Is that change we can believe in? Is this the administration that is pushing for health-care reform? Sheez. Here is Grimes, from Brunwasser's story:
My honesty and integrity have been called into question, which has rendered me virtually unemployable in my field. I am not employed. My family has no income. I was without insurance for a few weeks while the government processed the conversion to COBRA benefits. In July, I applied for and received unemployment benefits. The Department of Justice has appealed on the premise that my termination was the result of misconduct connected with my employment.
If I lose unemployment benefits, I will be forced to repay the benefits I have received. This month I am unable to pay my mortgage. If I am unable to find a job in the very near future, foreclosure of our home is imminent. All of this pain and heartache is the result of my decision to speak out, to tell the truth, to perform my duty as a federal employee and defend the Constitution of the United States.
This is how the Obama administration rewards whistleblowers. And this comes after the Middle District of Alabama, led by Bush appointee Leura Canary (who still is on the job), had heaped abuse on Grimes:
I know firsthand how selective prosecutions are engineered in the Middle District of Alabama because it almost happened to me. When Leura Canary learned of my complaints, she summoned me to her office to attempt to threaten and intimidate me. According to her own sworn statement, on November 1, 2007, Canary socialized for several hours at the bar in the Embassy Suites Hotel with her cousin and colleagues from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys in Washington DC.
During that time, the group discussed my complaints and began to speculate on what I might have done, or could have done. The next day, on the basis of nothing more than this baseless speculation, I was referred for criminal investigation. After two unsuccessful attempts to subject me to selective criminal prosecution in the Middle District of Georgia, I was terminated for my denials that I had done what I was accused of. According to DOJ, my continued assignment posed an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to operational security. I was escorted from the building by security and told not to return.
Did this make a lick of sense? Nope:
I waited three long weeks to learn why. The answer is equally stunning. I was no longer "afforded the opportunity to gain access, to Secret and/or Confidential NSI (National Security Information) or grand jury information." My job in the civil division did not involve Secret or Confidential National Security Information and, as a civil employee, I am precluded by statute from accessing grand jury information. In other words, my employment was terminated because I could no longer access material that I am neither required nor legally entitled to access as part of my job!
Then Grimes had to watch the DOJ's Office of Special Counsel, reporting to Obama, issue a report stating her allegations were "unsubstantiated." Never mind that she had presented e-mails that proved Canary had not recused herself from the Siegelman case as she had claimed:
In reading the Office of Special Counsel report [that dismissed Grimes's claims of prosecutorial misconduct], I am reminded of the famous children's fable The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen. Like the prime minister in the story, Interim Special Counsel William E. Reukauf would have you believe that the actions of the Department of Justice are irrefutable--even in the face of e-mail communications which clearly contradict its position--so much so that only the incompetent and unreasonable fail to recognize its merits.
Like the emperor, I feel duped by the Office of Special Counsel. Federal employees have access to the Office of Special Counsel's whistleblower's website which prominently features its whistleblower duties. Relying upon the information I obtained from the Office of Special Counsel website, I placed my trust, my career, my entire life and the lives of my family in the hands of the Office of Special Counsel on the premise that whistleblowers are protected from retaliation by federal law. Based upon my personal experience, nothing can be further from the truth.
Grimes also has had to endure insults from federal prosecutors, who now theoretically answer to Holder and Obama, claiming she had not made her allegations under oath. What is the truth about that matter?
I have been called a "coward" and a liar by federal prosecutors Louis Franklin, Steve Feaga and J.B. Perrine because I have not given testimony under oath. As these career prosecutors well know, I am prohibited by statute (18 USC 207) from giving testimony under oath to any court or federal official on behalf of any party other than the United States in any matter in which I had substantial participation. This is a lifetime prohibition. I can only surmise that calling me names for not testifying under oath was an attempt to provoke me into breaking the law so that they could attempt a third criminal prosecution against me.
Are these the actions of honest and ethical federal prosecutor who hold themselves to a higher standard as representatives of the Department of Justice--or are these representative of the less-than-honorable conduct these prosecutors have exhibited all along?
Why is madness still going on in the Middle District of Alabama? Why has Team Obama been so reluctant to clean up the cesspool? Grimes offers a possible answer. And it points a finger directly at U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL):
I think the appointment of Sen. Sessions to chair the Judiciary [Committee] is a key factor in the holdovers, especially Leura Canary, who is a Sessions protegé. Sen. Sessions wields a great deal of influence with the Republican minority. The Obama Administration favors diplomacy and appears somewhat hesitant to follow through on some key issues. The Administration certainly has a clear majority to pursue its agenda without Republican support should it choose to do so. I suspect that there have been some concessions made on some issue which allow the holdovers to remain in office.
Grimes Letter to Holder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)