The South long has been America's most exotic region, the place where the dark pages of our history intersect with the bright possibilities for our future.
So I should not have been surprised when a post I wrote last week--"Why Isn't the Deep South the Most Liberal Region in the U.S.?"--drew probably more response than anything I've written at Legal Schnauzer. The post asked this question: Why doesn't the South's love of college football--a "team first, me second" activity--translate into support for the community-oriented ideas offered by liberal/progressive political candidates?
I cross post quite a bit of my work at Daily Kos, and this diary drew 266 comments, which I'm pretty sure is a record for me. The post also drew the attention of the Jeff Farias Show, a progressive radio program based in Phoenix, Arizona. I appeared on the Farias show last Thursday, about an hour before two Southern teams, Alabama and Texas, kicked off in the BCS national championship game.
You can check out the comments at Daily Kos here. Many of them are very thoughtful, some written by people who apparently have studied Southern history in a serious way. It was heartening to take part in an intelligent conversation about our region. And I was glad to see that many people remain hopeful about the South; for all of our shortcomings, we have not been written off.
You can hear the Jeff Farias Show interview here. Just click on the free podcast, and my interview begins at about the 56:20 mark.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
University of Alabama Football: The Rest of the Story
The University of Alabama is the toast of college football this morning. The Crimson Tide throttled the University of Texas last night in Pasadena, California, to win the BCS National Championship game.
Alabama's victory is splashed on sports pages across the country today, and the Crimson Tide players and coaches deserve their shining moment; they clearly were the superior team last night.
But an ugly story with connections to Alabama football is going unreported. It involves a man named Paul W. Bryant Jr., the football program's best-known financial booster and a member of the university's board of trustees. He also is the son of Paul W. "Bear" Bryant, the school's late hall-of-fame coach.
One of Bryant Jr.'s companies, Alabama Reassurance, was directly connected to a massive insurance fraud case in Pennsylvania several years ago. A prosecution resulted in a 15-year prison sentence for a Philadelphia lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart. Bryant Jr. and his company managed to escape with little scrutiny and no punishment.
The Alabama Reassurance story is about the sometimes unsavory business activities of those who support big-time college football. It also is about the double standard that can exist in the U.S. justice system. Is your company more likely to get away with unlawful activity if you have a famous name--not to mention money and power? The Paul Bryant Jr. story indicates the answer to that question is yes.
Paul Bryant Jr.'s connections to insurance fraud have gone unreported in the mainstream press. They have not gone unreported in our little corner of the blogosphere. And over the next few days, we will be presenting evidence that proves that the University of Alabama's best-known football booster has ties to an insurance fraud that totaled in the neighborhood of $15 million.
This has not required any Jack Anderson-like reporting on our part. Documents are available on the Web that show Alabama Reassurance's prominent role in the Allen W. Stewart case.
Perhaps the most troubling part of Paul Bryant Jr.'s connections to insurance fraud are that someone in the U.S. Justice Department apparently took steps to cover them up. This was in the late 1990s, when the DOJ was overseen by the Bill Clinton administration. Consider this, from one of our earlier posts:
Who, indeed, cut Paul Bryant Jr. a gigantic break? Our research indicates the path runs awfully close to the doorstep of Birmingham lawyer Doug Jones, who at one point led Don Siegelman's defense team while also suing Siegelman's codefendant, former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Before becoming Alabama's "King of Conflicts," Jones served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama in the late 1990s. And we have noted the footprints he has left behind in curious places:
You can rest assured that Paul Bryant Jr. and his buddies at Alabama Reassurance are riding high this morning, breathing in the rarefied air generated by Alabama's glory on the football field. Meanwhile, Allen W. Stewart resides in a federal prison because of a crime with direct ties to Alabama Reassurance. Is that how our justice system is supposed to work?
Consider the landscape in Alabama today. A former governor (Don Siegelman) and CEO (Richard Scrushy) have been convicted of a "crime" they clearly did not commit. Former educator and Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) is headed for federal prison for a "crime" that Harper's Scott Horton describes as "teacher underperforms lesson plan." And former Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford is headed to prison after being convicted on fraud charges that amounted to accepting $236,000 in cash and gifts.
We don't mean to soft pedal the actions that led to Langford's conviction. But even if you factor in the value of business Langford steered to an investment banker, the fraud was less than $8 million.
Public documents indicate that Paul Bryant Jr.'s company was involved in a fraud that totaled $15 million. And the employees of Alabama Reassurance probably haven't been headed anywhere lately--except to the national-championship game last night.
In terms of football, here is a question that University of Texas fans might want to ponder. It's unclear how much money Paul Bryant Jr. contributes to the Alabama football program, but the sum figures to be substantial. What if Alabama Reassurance had imploded under the weight of a federal investigation several years ago and some of its employees wound up in federal prison? Would the University of Alabama still have been able to hire superstar coach Nick Saban? Would the Crimson Tide have been as powerful as it was last night at the Rose Bowl Stadium? Would the Crimson Tide have even come anywhere near making the national-championship game?
Can a booster's connections to criminal activity help lead to football success?
The University of Alabama is basking this morning in the glow of a national championship. But there is an ugly story behind the glory. And we will be providing the details here at Legal Schnauzer.
Alabama's victory is splashed on sports pages across the country today, and the Crimson Tide players and coaches deserve their shining moment; they clearly were the superior team last night.
But an ugly story with connections to Alabama football is going unreported. It involves a man named Paul W. Bryant Jr., the football program's best-known financial booster and a member of the university's board of trustees. He also is the son of Paul W. "Bear" Bryant, the school's late hall-of-fame coach.
One of Bryant Jr.'s companies, Alabama Reassurance, was directly connected to a massive insurance fraud case in Pennsylvania several years ago. A prosecution resulted in a 15-year prison sentence for a Philadelphia lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart. Bryant Jr. and his company managed to escape with little scrutiny and no punishment.
The Alabama Reassurance story is about the sometimes unsavory business activities of those who support big-time college football. It also is about the double standard that can exist in the U.S. justice system. Is your company more likely to get away with unlawful activity if you have a famous name--not to mention money and power? The Paul Bryant Jr. story indicates the answer to that question is yes.
Paul Bryant Jr.'s connections to insurance fraud have gone unreported in the mainstream press. They have not gone unreported in our little corner of the blogosphere. And over the next few days, we will be presenting evidence that proves that the University of Alabama's best-known football booster has ties to an insurance fraud that totaled in the neighborhood of $15 million.
This has not required any Jack Anderson-like reporting on our part. Documents are available on the Web that show Alabama Reassurance's prominent role in the Allen W. Stewart case.
Perhaps the most troubling part of Paul Bryant Jr.'s connections to insurance fraud are that someone in the U.S. Justice Department apparently took steps to cover them up. This was in the late 1990s, when the DOJ was overseen by the Bill Clinton administration. Consider this, from one of our earlier posts:
Bryant and his company, Alabama Reassurance, came through the episode virtually unscathed. Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that a full-bore investigation of Alabama Re was to commence once the Stewart conviction was secured. In fact, Caryl Privett--then U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and now a Jefferson County Circuit judge--reportedly had promised investigators that they could go after Alabama Re once the Stewart trial was over.
By then, however, Privett was out of office, and someone in the U.S. Department of Justice called off the Alabama Re investigation. One can only wonder if Bryant's company has forsaken the fraudulent business practices that were revealed in the Stewart trial. One can also wonder who cut Bryant and his company a break--and why.
Who, indeed, cut Paul Bryant Jr. a gigantic break? Our research indicates the path runs awfully close to the doorstep of Birmingham lawyer Doug Jones, who at one point led Don Siegelman's defense team while also suing Siegelman's codefendant, former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Before becoming Alabama's "King of Conflicts," Jones served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama in the late 1990s. And we have noted the footprints he has left behind in curious places:
Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that the investigation into Alabama Reassurance was called off after Privett's successor took office. And who was her successor? None other than Doug Jones.
Isn't that interesting? Did Doug Jones help cover up fraud connected to Paul Bryant Jr. while riding a white charger in the Richard Scrushy case?
You can rest assured that Paul Bryant Jr. and his buddies at Alabama Reassurance are riding high this morning, breathing in the rarefied air generated by Alabama's glory on the football field. Meanwhile, Allen W. Stewart resides in a federal prison because of a crime with direct ties to Alabama Reassurance. Is that how our justice system is supposed to work?
Consider the landscape in Alabama today. A former governor (Don Siegelman) and CEO (Richard Scrushy) have been convicted of a "crime" they clearly did not commit. Former educator and Alabama Rep. Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) is headed for federal prison for a "crime" that Harper's Scott Horton describes as "teacher underperforms lesson plan." And former Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford is headed to prison after being convicted on fraud charges that amounted to accepting $236,000 in cash and gifts.
We don't mean to soft pedal the actions that led to Langford's conviction. But even if you factor in the value of business Langford steered to an investment banker, the fraud was less than $8 million.
Public documents indicate that Paul Bryant Jr.'s company was involved in a fraud that totaled $15 million. And the employees of Alabama Reassurance probably haven't been headed anywhere lately--except to the national-championship game last night.
In terms of football, here is a question that University of Texas fans might want to ponder. It's unclear how much money Paul Bryant Jr. contributes to the Alabama football program, but the sum figures to be substantial. What if Alabama Reassurance had imploded under the weight of a federal investigation several years ago and some of its employees wound up in federal prison? Would the University of Alabama still have been able to hire superstar coach Nick Saban? Would the Crimson Tide have been as powerful as it was last night at the Rose Bowl Stadium? Would the Crimson Tide have even come anywhere near making the national-championship game?
Can a booster's connections to criminal activity help lead to football success?
The University of Alabama is basking this morning in the glow of a national championship. But there is an ugly story behind the glory. And we will be providing the details here at Legal Schnauzer.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Is Obama About to Make a Terrible Nomination in Alabama?
A lawyer who represented the key prosecution witness in the Don Siegelman case now is the leading candidate to be nominated as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.
Mainjustice.com, in an article titled "Morass in Alabama's Middle District," says Montgomery lawyer George Beck Jr. now is the leading candidate to fill the post, which still is held by controversial Bush appointee Leura Canary.
Any effort to nominate Beck is sure to draw a major fight from progressives, led by north Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson. Beck served as a lawyer for Nick Bailey, a key government witness in the Siegelman case who was sentenced to 18 months in prison on bribery-related charges.
A combination of caution from the Obama administration, objections from Republican U.S. senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, and objections from progressives have scuttled three possible nominees--Joseph Van Heest, Michel Nicrosi, and Tamarra Matthews Johnson. Reports Mainjustice.com:
The fourth candidate is Beck. And Simpson has stated, in so many words, that a Beck nomination will happen over her dead body.
Why does Simpson object to Beck? Let us count the ways:
So Beck's firm has ties to Karl Rove. And Simpson is just getting warmed up. Beck's actions, or lack thereof, indicate he did everything possible to help the government earn a bogus conviction in the Siegelman case. Says Simpson:
Simpson even has a serious personal beef with Beck:
When Beck's name first was floated in early November, Simpson vowed to fight it "24/7." And she provided specific reasons why she was against it.
And yet, Beck's name still is floating in the air. Why? Simpson says its because Artur Davis is trying to gain support from the Business Council of Alabama for his gubernatorial campaign.
Jill Simpson is not going to let a Beck nomination pass quietly. And Alabama progressives should be joining her in the fight.
Mainjustice.com, in an article titled "Morass in Alabama's Middle District," says Montgomery lawyer George Beck Jr. now is the leading candidate to fill the post, which still is held by controversial Bush appointee Leura Canary.
Any effort to nominate Beck is sure to draw a major fight from progressives, led by north Alabama attorney and Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson. Beck served as a lawyer for Nick Bailey, a key government witness in the Siegelman case who was sentenced to 18 months in prison on bribery-related charges.
A combination of caution from the Obama administration, objections from Republican U.S. senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, and objections from progressives have scuttled three possible nominees--Joseph Van Heest, Michel Nicrosi, and Tamarra Matthews Johnson. Reports Mainjustice.com:
Both Republicans and Democrats have objected to different candidates, and the White House has been unwilling to cross the state’s powerful GOP senators, according to a Democrat who has spoken to administration officials about the matter. The result has been the continued service of Canary, a bête noire of Alabama Democrats for her prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), while the administration now considers a fourth candidate.
The fourth candidate is Beck. And Simpson has stated, in so many words, that a Beck nomination will happen over her dead body.
Why does Simpson object to Beck? Let us count the ways:
Mr. Beck works at Capell & Howard, a law firm that represents Leura Canary's husband and the Alabama Business Council--and is the office used by Karl Rove when he holds meetings in Alabama.
So Beck's firm has ties to Karl Rove. And Simpson is just getting warmed up. Beck's actions, or lack thereof, indicate he did everything possible to help the government earn a bogus conviction in the Siegelman case. Says Simpson:
Mr. Beck is the gentleman who represented Nick Bailey and let him be questioned 70 times and be bullied by Leura Canary's team of lawyers. And George never saw a conflict here even though his firm represents Mr. Canary who was causing (the Siegelman case to be brought).
Simpson even has a serious personal beef with Beck:
George Beck is the gentlemen who went with the lawyer who ran off with $50,000 on my tax case and told tall tales on me this past year to the Alabama bar. He said I was a drug dealer, a member of the "Dixie Mafia," an arsonist, a tax evader, a baby buyer. He said I could have people seriously hurt. And when asked by the Alabama bar to put this in writing, he refused and bailed on Steve Glassroth, who was then suspended from practicing law for what he did to me.
When Beck's name first was floated in early November, Simpson vowed to fight it "24/7." And she provided specific reasons why she was against it.
And yet, Beck's name still is floating in the air. Why? Simpson says its because Artur Davis is trying to gain support from the Business Council of Alabama for his gubernatorial campaign.
Jill Simpson is not going to let a Beck nomination pass quietly. And Alabama progressives should be joining her in the fight.
Is Alabama's Governor a Pathological Liar?
Two news stories have broken in recent days indicating that Alabama Governor Bob Riley has a stunning disconnect with the truth.
One story has to do with electronic bingo at the new Country Crossing development in Dothan. The other is about the multimillion-dollar contract Riley awarded to Paragon Source, a Virginia-based company that doesn't even have a business address.
We are not qualified to determine whether someone's inability to tell the truth has reached the pathological stage. But you have to wonder about the current occupant of Alabama's governor's mansion. And here is perhaps the most alarming aspect of the story: Because Riley is a white, "pro business" Republican, many Alabamians don't seem to bat an eye when the governor takes a trip down Liar's Lane.
Consider the Country Crossing story. Last October, Riley said he was "one hundred percent behind Country Crossing." So why did Riley sign off on a raid of the electronic-bingo pavilion at Country Crossing, an event that was halted only because a judge issued a restraining order in the wee hours of Wednesday morning?
In essence, Riley showed support for Country Crossing by siccing his Anti-Gambling Task Force on the facility. Riley's press secretary called Country Crossing a "criminal enterprise."
Most rational people would say that's a strange way of supporting a new development that is expected to provide a major economic jolt for Southwest Alabama.
Riley, of course, is pointing to a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision that established a six-point test for determining if electronic-bingo machines are legal. But the governor seems to have a problem understanding what the Supreme Court decision actually did. Even his own attorney general, Troy King, says so:
Multiple reports have indicated that Riley won the governor's race in 2002 with the help of Mississippi Choctaw gaming funds, laundered through disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Is Riley so beholden to Mississippi gaming interests that he has become irrational, unable to tell fact from fiction? Sure looks that way.
On the Paragon Source story, consider this report from Bob Lowry of The Huntsville Times:
Riley claims that Paragon Source is the only company that could perform the work, granting it a "sole source" contract. But a technology expert says more than 100 companies in one Alabama city alone could have done the work.
Who is out of touch with reality here?
How big a phony is Bob Riley? Consider this passage from The Huntsville Times:
Riley's staff also seems to be out of touch with reality. Consider this quote from Press Secretary Todd Stacy:
Stacy seems to have forgotten that Bill Johnson, a former Riley insider, is calling for a criminal investigation of the governor and his administration.
On a personal note, I informed Riley's staff several years ago about criminal conduct by various Republican judges in Shelby County and Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, the father of former Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek. Riley's staff apparently ignored the complaint, so I know from firsthand experience that Toddy Stacy is full of it.
Let's summarize:
* Bob Riley said he opposed no-bid contracts, but he has awarded twice the amount handed out by his Democratic predecessor--and Riley still has a year left in his term;
* Riley says he opposes gambling, but the evidence is overwhelming that he rode into the governor's office in Alabama with support from out-of-state gambling interests:
* Riley says he supports "a hundred percent" a new development in Dothan and then proceeds to raid the place in an effort to shut it down.
Does the term "pathological" fit those actions? Alabamians should think seriously about that question.
One story has to do with electronic bingo at the new Country Crossing development in Dothan. The other is about the multimillion-dollar contract Riley awarded to Paragon Source, a Virginia-based company that doesn't even have a business address.
We are not qualified to determine whether someone's inability to tell the truth has reached the pathological stage. But you have to wonder about the current occupant of Alabama's governor's mansion. And here is perhaps the most alarming aspect of the story: Because Riley is a white, "pro business" Republican, many Alabamians don't seem to bat an eye when the governor takes a trip down Liar's Lane.
Consider the Country Crossing story. Last October, Riley said he was "one hundred percent behind Country Crossing." So why did Riley sign off on a raid of the electronic-bingo pavilion at Country Crossing, an event that was halted only because a judge issued a restraining order in the wee hours of Wednesday morning?
In essence, Riley showed support for Country Crossing by siccing his Anti-Gambling Task Force on the facility. Riley's press secretary called Country Crossing a "criminal enterprise."
Most rational people would say that's a strange way of supporting a new development that is expected to provide a major economic jolt for Southwest Alabama.
Riley, of course, is pointing to a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision that established a six-point test for determining if electronic-bingo machines are legal. But the governor seems to have a problem understanding what the Supreme Court decision actually did. Even his own attorney general, Troy King, says so:
Now the governor is apparently acting on a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court that is not yet final and which, contrary to his public statements, does not say that all electronic bingo machines are illegal. I can only offer the governor my advice, which I have done. I cannot force him to take it.
Multiple reports have indicated that Riley won the governor's race in 2002 with the help of Mississippi Choctaw gaming funds, laundered through disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Is Riley so beholden to Mississippi gaming interests that he has become irrational, unable to tell fact from fiction? Sure looks that way.
On the Paragon Source story, consider this report from Bob Lowry of The Huntsville Times:
A consultant Wednesday identified 115 Huntsville computer software companies that he said could have done the work on a $7.5 million no-bid computer contract awarded by the state to a Virginia firm.
Jyles Machen, a Huntsville consultant and political action committee organizer who is retired from NASA, said he is forming the Alabama Works Coalition to support legislation to ban no-bid contracts in state government
Riley claims that Paragon Source is the only company that could perform the work, granting it a "sole source" contract. But a technology expert says more than 100 companies in one Alabama city alone could have done the work.
Who is out of touch with reality here?
How big a phony is Bob Riley? Consider this passage from The Huntsville Times:
Riley ran for governor on the platform of opposing the no-bid contracts handed out then-Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman. But at a Dec. 8 news conference, Democratic senators said the Riley administration's record $2.6 billion in no-bid contracts have already doubled the amount handed out by Siegelman.
Riley's staff also seems to be out of touch with reality. Consider this quote from Press Secretary Todd Stacy:
"Governor Riley will not tolerate criminal activity from anyone--no matter how powerful or politically connected they may be," Stacy said.
Stacy seems to have forgotten that Bill Johnson, a former Riley insider, is calling for a criminal investigation of the governor and his administration.
On a personal note, I informed Riley's staff several years ago about criminal conduct by various Republican judges in Shelby County and Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, the father of former Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek. Riley's staff apparently ignored the complaint, so I know from firsthand experience that Toddy Stacy is full of it.
Let's summarize:
* Bob Riley said he opposed no-bid contracts, but he has awarded twice the amount handed out by his Democratic predecessor--and Riley still has a year left in his term;
* Riley says he opposes gambling, but the evidence is overwhelming that he rode into the governor's office in Alabama with support from out-of-state gambling interests:
* Riley says he supports "a hundred percent" a new development in Dothan and then proceeds to raid the place in an effort to shut it down.
Does the term "pathological" fit those actions? Alabamians should think seriously about that question.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Governor's Effort to Raid Dothan Development Draws Restraining Order
A judge in southwest Alabama issued a restraining order early this morning, thwarting an effort by Governor Bob Riley's anti-gambling task force to raid the Country Crossing development in Dothan.
Circuit Judge P.B. McLauchlin signed the order at 1:30 a.m., about two hours before a raid from the Governor's Task Force on Illegal Gambling was to begin at Country Crossing's electronic-bingo pavilion. A hearing on the restraining order is set for January 20 in Houston County.
Country Crossing closed its doors on Tuesday evening in anticipation of the raid. Reports the Dothan Eagle:
Riley has been an ardent opponent of legalized gambling, even though numerous reports have stated that he received campaign funds from Mississippi Choctaw gaming interests, laundered through disgraced Republican Party lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Riley's hypocrisy on gambling issues has not gone unnoticed by Country Crossing supporters. Reports the Dothan Eagle:
Jay Walker, a spokesman for Country Crossing, called Riley's actions purely political:
Attorney General Troy King issued a statement indicating he is in Country Crossing's corner. Said King:
Circuit Judge P.B. McLauchlin signed the order at 1:30 a.m., about two hours before a raid from the Governor's Task Force on Illegal Gambling was to begin at Country Crossing's electronic-bingo pavilion. A hearing on the restraining order is set for January 20 in Houston County.
Country Crossing closed its doors on Tuesday evening in anticipation of the raid. Reports the Dothan Eagle:
Country Crossing officials shut the doors on the $87 million project Tuesday night, hours before the governor’s Anti-Gambling Task Force was to conduct a raid on the facility, expected to result in the confiscation of 1,710 electronic bingo machines on the premises.
Sources told county officials Tuesday that the raid was coming at about 4 a.m. Wednesday, with as many as 100 officers from the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, Alabama State Troopers and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board who were convening at a rest stop just south of Ozark on U.S. 231 around 3 a.m.
Houston County officials called a 10 p.m. press conference to report the move, saying they requested the closure of the bingo pavilion and restaurants in the name of public safety to avoid any encounters during what County Commission Chairman Mark Culver called “a clandestine, armed illegal raid.”
Riley has been an ardent opponent of legalized gambling, even though numerous reports have stated that he received campaign funds from Mississippi Choctaw gaming interests, laundered through disgraced Republican Party lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Riley's hypocrisy on gambling issues has not gone unnoticed by Country Crossing supporters. Reports the Dothan Eagle:
Country Crossing developer Ronnie Gilley, who has been adamant in his belief in both the legality of the project and the governor’s political motives to stop it, said Tuesday night he is not deterred.
“We will encounter these obstacles just as we have every other obstacle over the last two years – and we will prevail in the end,” Gilley said. “We have followed the letter of the law to a T. We are abiding by the law. This is a malicious abuse by our governor.”
Jay Walker, a spokesman for Country Crossing, called Riley's actions purely political:
“Tonight the governor began his plan to eliminate private bingo facilities,” Walker said. “This is not about being legal or illegal. This is political.”
The Gilley camp has maintained Riley’s move is a payback for campaign contributions he received from the Choctaw Indians in Mississippi, meant to keep gaming out of Alabama to cut down on Indian competition. Riley has denied that.
“We are here to fight as hard as we can,” Walker said, “for the people who have a job here and for those who have fought so hard to make it happen. We will continue to fight.”
Attorney General Troy King issued a statement indicating he is in Country Crossing's corner. Said King:
This morning’s news reports brought with them increasing concerns about the actions of the governor’s task force. I was invited to join the task force on Nov. 16, 2009. I responded and asked the governor to “provide me with the investigative materials you have collected and upon which you intend to base further actions,“ so I could make informed decisions about my involvement.
I also asked the governor to consult and coordinate with law enforcement, district attorneys, and my office. Regrettably, I never received a response from the governor or Mr. (Special Prosecutor David) Barber.
Now the governor is apparently acting on a decision of the Alabama Supreme Court that is not yet final and which, contrary to his public statements, does not say that all electronic bingo machines are illegal. I can only offer the governor my advice, which I have done. I cannot force him to take it.
Will Prosecutors Soon Have to Answer for Their Misdeeds?
The most important story of 2010, so far, was reported yesterday, noting the weakening of a legal doctrine that has contributed to significant injustice in the United States.
Now we are left with these big questions: Will that legal notion, the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, be overturned completely? And will it be joined by its ugly cousin, the doctrine of judicial immunity?
Our hope is that the answer to both of these questions proves to be a resounding yes. We personally have suffered from the evils created by judicial immunity. And our guess is that the Don Siegelman case and other Bush-era abuses never would have happened without the protections offered by prosecutorial immunity.
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an Iowa-based case, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington, after the parties announced they had reached a settlement. The ABA Journal reports that the county agreed to pay $12 million to settle the case.
Here's how The Law Blog describes the issues in Pottawattamie County:
The settlement means the U.S. Supreme Court will not take up the issue for now, and prosecutorial immunity remains in place. But The Los Angeles Times reports that the Iowa county probably was moved to settle because several justices seemed inclined to weaken the absolute immunity that prosecutors currently enjoy for their official actions. Reports the Times' David G. Savage:
How did specific justices react during oral arguments? Reports Savage:
Will the U.S. Supreme Court soon hear another prosecutorial-immunity case, providing a new opportunity to remove the protection that wayward prosecutors currently enjoy? It seems likely that another case will step into the breach.
Here's a thought: If the convictions in the cases of Don Siegelman (Alabama) and Paul Minor (Mississippi) ever are fully overturned, as they should be under the law, the defendants probably would have ample grounds for lawsuits against prosecutors. Wouldn't that be interesting? (For an excellent update on the Minor case, see here.)
As for judicial immunity, that isn't on the table for now. If it ever is, the powerful judicial lobby surely will howl and scream at the thought of being held accountable for intentional violations of parties' civil rights.
And that's what this argument boils down to. As it stands now, prosecutors and judges can willingly and knowingly violate your due process rights and get away with it. Essentially, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means nothing when it comes to judges and prosecutors.
How did we get to this point? Here is some background on judicial immunity from an earlier post at Legal Schnauzer:
How did we ever provide a free pass for judges and prosecutors to intentionally act unlawfully? We didn't. The idea came from lawyers, in order to protect other lawyers.
Why did this happen? The fear, of course, is that the courts will be flooded with lawsuits from parties claiming that judges and prosecutors violated their civil rights. But there seems to be a growing sense that, at least in the case of prosecutors, some bright lines need to be drawn to punish egregious behavior.
Focusing on the Iowa case, here is some background from The U.S. Constitution Blog:
We would argue that similar checks need to be put on judges who engage in constitutional misconduct. The whole reason this blog exists is because my wife and I were repeatedly cheated by multiple Alabama state judges. And we are convinced that never would have happened without the protection judges enjoy because they are immune from most lawsuits.
Does the Iowa case mean immunity is crumbling, at least a little? We sure hope so. And in our view, it can't happen too soon.
Now we are left with these big questions: Will that legal notion, the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, be overturned completely? And will it be joined by its ugly cousin, the doctrine of judicial immunity?
Our hope is that the answer to both of these questions proves to be a resounding yes. We personally have suffered from the evils created by judicial immunity. And our guess is that the Don Siegelman case and other Bush-era abuses never would have happened without the protections offered by prosecutorial immunity.
The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an Iowa-based case, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington, after the parties announced they had reached a settlement. The ABA Journal reports that the county agreed to pay $12 million to settle the case.
Here's how The Law Blog describes the issues in Pottawattamie County:
The case, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington, was brought by Curtis McGhee Jr. and Terry Harrington, who had been found guilty in the 1977 murder of John Schweer, a retired police officer in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The two, who spent 25 years in prison before being freed in 2003, sued Iowa prosecutors for violating their civil rights by falsifying evidence used against them before arrest and at trial. They were released after being able to document the actions taken by prosecutors to doctor evidence and influence testimony to point the finger at them, even though there was another suspect.
The settlement means the U.S. Supreme Court will not take up the issue for now, and prosecutorial immunity remains in place. But The Los Angeles Times reports that the Iowa county probably was moved to settle because several justices seemed inclined to weaken the absolute immunity that prosecutors currently enjoy for their official actions. Reports the Times' David G. Savage:
In the past, the high court had said prosecutors could not be sued for doing their jobs, even if they sometimes convicted the wrong defendant. And in November, an Obama administration lawyer argued on behalf of Pottawattamie County, asserting that there is no constitutional "right not to be framed."
But several justices said they found that argument appalling. They signaled they were not prepared to shield prosecutors who knowingly fabricated a case against a suspect.
How did specific justices react during oral arguments? Reports Savage:
In the Supreme Court, a lawyer for the prosecutors agreed that police could be sued for fabricating evidence, but not prosecutors, even if they worked together.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that was "a strange proposition."
Justice John Paul Stevens called it "perverse."
Facing a likely loss in the high court, the county moved to settle the case.
Will the U.S. Supreme Court soon hear another prosecutorial-immunity case, providing a new opportunity to remove the protection that wayward prosecutors currently enjoy? It seems likely that another case will step into the breach.
Here's a thought: If the convictions in the cases of Don Siegelman (Alabama) and Paul Minor (Mississippi) ever are fully overturned, as they should be under the law, the defendants probably would have ample grounds for lawsuits against prosecutors. Wouldn't that be interesting? (For an excellent update on the Minor case, see here.)
As for judicial immunity, that isn't on the table for now. If it ever is, the powerful judicial lobby surely will howl and scream at the thought of being held accountable for intentional violations of parties' civil rights.
And that's what this argument boils down to. As it stands now, prosecutors and judges can willingly and knowingly violate your due process rights and get away with it. Essentially, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means nothing when it comes to judges and prosecutors.
How did we get to this point? Here is some background on judicial immunity from an earlier post at Legal Schnauzer:
Most Americans have no idea that a noxious concept such as judicial immunity even exists. And they know even less about the monumental effort judicial groups put up to make sure that state judges could cheat parties with impunity.
A 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case called Pulliam v. Allen put a major gash in the armor of judicial immunity. It allowed for prospective injunctive relief against state judges who clearly were ruling outside the law and violating rights to due process and equal protection. It even said that wayward judges could wind up paying the winning parties' attorney fees and costs. The late Harry Blackmun probably was best known as the author of Roe v. Wade, but he also was the author of Pulliam.
How much did Blackmun's fellow "jurists" hate Pulliam? You can get an idea by clicking here. The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996(FCIA) essentially overruled Pulliam and gave state judges a virtual license to cheat.
Most Americans have no idea what they lost with passage of the FCIA. It means that a corrupt state judge can violate your constitutional rights--and if your state appellate courts are corrupt (as they are in Alabama) and let him get away with it--you probably have no recourse. FCIA is almost certainly the single biggest reason so many state courts are riddled with corruption.
How did we ever provide a free pass for judges and prosecutors to intentionally act unlawfully? We didn't. The idea came from lawyers, in order to protect other lawyers.
Why did this happen? The fear, of course, is that the courts will be flooded with lawsuits from parties claiming that judges and prosecutors violated their civil rights. But there seems to be a growing sense that, at least in the case of prosecutors, some bright lines need to be drawn to punish egregious behavior.
Focusing on the Iowa case, here is some background from The U.S. Constitution Blog:
As we’ve discussed, the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity is both difficult to apply and contrary to constitutional text and history; thus, the settlement and dismissal of this case means the Court will not have the opportunity, at least not this Term, to clarify its immunity jurisprudence – or, more important, to recognize the error of absolute immunity.
However, the parties’ decision to drop the case does leave in place the 8th Circuit’s decision in favor of Harrington and McGhee, which held that in this instance, the prosecutors did not have absolute immunity because the misconduct at issue occurred when the prosecutors were acting as investigators, rather than performing “prosecutorial functions.” The press release issued by Harrington’s counsel presents an eloquent depiction of the injustices wrought by flagrant prosecutorial misconduct and the need for the Supreme Court to modify its jurisprudence so that more prosecutors will be held to account for constitutional misconduct.
We would argue that similar checks need to be put on judges who engage in constitutional misconduct. The whole reason this blog exists is because my wife and I were repeatedly cheated by multiple Alabama state judges. And we are convinced that never would have happened without the protection judges enjoy because they are immune from most lawsuits.
Does the Iowa case mean immunity is crumbling, at least a little? We sure hope so. And in our view, it can't happen too soon.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Why Isn't the Deep South the Most Liberal Region in the U.S.?
By far the biggest story in Birmingham these days is the University of Alabama's quest for a national championship in college football. The Crimson Tide meets the University of Texas on Thursday night in Pasadena, California, in the BCS national championship game.
How big is the story in Birmingham? Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson could be caught living, breathing, and having lunch together at a downtown eatery--and I'm not sure it would make page one. After all, Coach Nick Saban might have a bout of acid indigestion that would require wall-to-wall coverage.
Having grown up in the Midwest, I'm not a fan of either Alabama or its cross-state rival, Auburn University. But I am a sports fan--as evidenced by my previous life as a sportswriter--so I keep up with the big-game coverage. And a major side story in Alabama's blessed season caused me to ponder this question: Why isn't the South a bastion of liberalism in the United States?
That might seem like a ridiculous question to ask about a region that has become known for its staunch conservatism and blood-red political leanings. But consider an undercurrent that ran through almost every story about Alabama running back Mark Ingram and the recent announcement that he had received the 2009 Heisman Trophy as the best player in college football.
The University of Alabama is a bona fide football factory, one of the nation's most storied programs, but Mark Ingram was the first Crimson Tider to win the sport's best-known individual award. Almost every story written about Ingram and the trophy noted that UA fans long have taken a peculiar pride in the fact that no Tide player ever had won the Heisman. After all, iconic coach Paul "Bear" Bryant had preached the value of team play, of submerging the self for the betterment of the larger whole.
It's pretty much undisputed that college football is more popular in the South than in any other region of the country. And across the South, fans applaud the Bryant credo of putting team before self.
College football is not the only activity where Southerners believe strongly in communal activity, where putting the group ahead of the individual is valued.
Surveys consistently show that support for the military and organized religion are particularly strong in the South. And what is at the heart of religious activities and military duties? A willingness to put individual goals and desires second to the greater good.
At the heart of most major religions is the so-called "Golden Rule," the notion that you are to treat your brother or sister as you would like to be treated. In other words, a truly religious individual is called to think seriously about how his actions affect others.
As for the military, men and women in uniform have similar attire and hairstyles for a reason. It's a sign that you must check your individuality at the door.
Which of our political philosophies emphasizes communities over individuals, the greater good over selfish desires? Why, it's liberalism, of course.
So why do white Southerners--the ones who proclaim their love of church, the military, and college football (not necessarily in that order)--consistently vote conservative? You know about conservatism, that doctrine that extols the virtues of the "rugged individual."
Southerners surely don't vote conservative because they care about the needs of investors, managers, bankers, and corporate titans--the "rugged individuals" who benefit most from conservative policies.
We can only conclude that white Southerners, the ones drawn to communal, team-first activities, vote against their own interests and beliefs because of fears about race. The Republican Party, home to modern conservatism, has expertly played the race-based fear card for 40-plus years now.
Southerners are hardly alone in falling for it. Great swatches of the Midwest, Southwest, and Mountain West also have succumbed to it.
Here's the ironic thing: Southerners tend to proclaim their patriotism more than folks from other regions. And the most patriotic action many Southerners could take would be to vote in a liberal or progressive fashion. After all, progressive thinking leads to strong college-football teams, and it would lead to a healthier, stronger, more united America--the very thing Southerners seem to want.
Here's the sad thing: A liberal/progressive revolution needs to sweep this country. And the South, based on the "we, not me" activities it clearly adores, is the perfect place to launch it. But we let our race-based fears hold us back.
As you watch two major Southern universities battle for the national championship of college football on Thursday night, you might keep this thought in mind: Inside the heart of most Southern conservatives--at least the ones who love football, church, and the military--is a liberal, dying to get out. And our country would be a much better place if Southerners would take their passion for "we first" activities and apply it to politics.
How big is the story in Birmingham? Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson could be caught living, breathing, and having lunch together at a downtown eatery--and I'm not sure it would make page one. After all, Coach Nick Saban might have a bout of acid indigestion that would require wall-to-wall coverage.
Having grown up in the Midwest, I'm not a fan of either Alabama or its cross-state rival, Auburn University. But I am a sports fan--as evidenced by my previous life as a sportswriter--so I keep up with the big-game coverage. And a major side story in Alabama's blessed season caused me to ponder this question: Why isn't the South a bastion of liberalism in the United States?
That might seem like a ridiculous question to ask about a region that has become known for its staunch conservatism and blood-red political leanings. But consider an undercurrent that ran through almost every story about Alabama running back Mark Ingram and the recent announcement that he had received the 2009 Heisman Trophy as the best player in college football.
The University of Alabama is a bona fide football factory, one of the nation's most storied programs, but Mark Ingram was the first Crimson Tider to win the sport's best-known individual award. Almost every story written about Ingram and the trophy noted that UA fans long have taken a peculiar pride in the fact that no Tide player ever had won the Heisman. After all, iconic coach Paul "Bear" Bryant had preached the value of team play, of submerging the self for the betterment of the larger whole.
It's pretty much undisputed that college football is more popular in the South than in any other region of the country. And across the South, fans applaud the Bryant credo of putting team before self.
College football is not the only activity where Southerners believe strongly in communal activity, where putting the group ahead of the individual is valued.
Surveys consistently show that support for the military and organized religion are particularly strong in the South. And what is at the heart of religious activities and military duties? A willingness to put individual goals and desires second to the greater good.
At the heart of most major religions is the so-called "Golden Rule," the notion that you are to treat your brother or sister as you would like to be treated. In other words, a truly religious individual is called to think seriously about how his actions affect others.
As for the military, men and women in uniform have similar attire and hairstyles for a reason. It's a sign that you must check your individuality at the door.
Which of our political philosophies emphasizes communities over individuals, the greater good over selfish desires? Why, it's liberalism, of course.
So why do white Southerners--the ones who proclaim their love of church, the military, and college football (not necessarily in that order)--consistently vote conservative? You know about conservatism, that doctrine that extols the virtues of the "rugged individual."
Southerners surely don't vote conservative because they care about the needs of investors, managers, bankers, and corporate titans--the "rugged individuals" who benefit most from conservative policies.
We can only conclude that white Southerners, the ones drawn to communal, team-first activities, vote against their own interests and beliefs because of fears about race. The Republican Party, home to modern conservatism, has expertly played the race-based fear card for 40-plus years now.
Southerners are hardly alone in falling for it. Great swatches of the Midwest, Southwest, and Mountain West also have succumbed to it.
Here's the ironic thing: Southerners tend to proclaim their patriotism more than folks from other regions. And the most patriotic action many Southerners could take would be to vote in a liberal or progressive fashion. After all, progressive thinking leads to strong college-football teams, and it would lead to a healthier, stronger, more united America--the very thing Southerners seem to want.
Here's the sad thing: A liberal/progressive revolution needs to sweep this country. And the South, based on the "we, not me" activities it clearly adores, is the perfect place to launch it. But we let our race-based fears hold us back.
As you watch two major Southern universities battle for the national championship of college football on Thursday night, you might keep this thought in mind: Inside the heart of most Southern conservatives--at least the ones who love football, church, and the military--is a liberal, dying to get out. And our country would be a much better place if Southerners would take their passion for "we first" activities and apply it to politics.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Alabama Has Three of the Nation's "Least Valuable Democrats"
Political analyst Nate Silver has a background as a baseball statistician. And December is the month when baseball announces most of its top awards--Most Valuable Player, Cy Young Award, Rookie of the Year, etc.
So it makes sense that Silver recently came up with a ranking of the most and least valuable Democrats in Congress. It also makes sense that Alabama would have three representatives on Silver's "least valuable" team, including No. 1 (Artur Davis) and No. 3 (Parker Griffith).
Griffith, of course, no longer is a Democrat, and his defection to the Republican Party helped inspire Silver's ranking.
How does Silver come up with his rankings? He explains:
Then, as statisticians are prone to do, Silver crunches some numbers:
How bad have Alabama's Democrats been, in terms of their party's values? Silver spotlights them on his "least valuable" list:
Maybe this should be our new state motto--"Alabama: We Have the Most Worthless Democrats in the Country."
So it makes sense that Silver recently came up with a ranking of the most and least valuable Democrats in Congress. It also makes sense that Alabama would have three representatives on Silver's "least valuable" team, including No. 1 (Artur Davis) and No. 3 (Parker Griffith).
Griffith, of course, no longer is a Democrat, and his defection to the Republican Party helped inspire Silver's ranking.
How does Silver come up with his rankings? He explains:
I have, therefore, compiled roll call votes on ten key pieces of legislation--in my opinion, the ten most important pieces of legislation--that came before the House of Representatives this year. These items are: the stimulus package, the FY 2010 budget, the health care bill, the Stupak Amendment to the health care bill, the jobs bill, the financial regulation package, the cap-and-trade bill, the Fair Pay Act, the Guantanamo detainee transfer vote, and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was attached to a defense appropriations bill. This is a little heavy on economic policy versus social policy or foreign policy, but that's how the House's agenda been this year. The Democrats won each of these votes in the House, except for the Stupak Amendment, although several of the policies have yet to pass the Senate.
Then, as statisticians are prone to do, Silver crunches some numbers:
What I then did was to run a logistic regression for each vote, comparing each representative's vote to his predicted vote based on his district's PVI. For example, a congressman in a district with a PVI of R+6 had a .37 likelihood (37% chance) of voting for the stimulus package. A congressman from such a district who voted for the stimulus package would be rated positively for his vote: specifically he'd receive a score of 1 less .37, or +.63. If the congressman voted against the stimulus package, on the other hand, he'd receive a score of -.37. I then added up each representative's score across all 10 votes.
How bad have Alabama's Democrats been, in terms of their party's values? Silver spotlights them on his "least valuable" list:
Topping the list is Artur Davis of Alabama, who comes from a D+18 district but yet has voted against his party on health care, detainees, cap-and-trade and Stupak. Fortunately, Democrats won't have to primary him--he's quitting the Congress to run for governor--but he's doing a fair amount of damage in the meantime. Following Davis is John Barrow of Georgia, who has been the subject of a primary challenge before. Then there's our good friend Parker Griffith, who voted against the Democrats on all ten bills--fellow Alabaman Bobby Bright (who I'd give 60/40 odds of also joining the Republicans) was the only other Democrat to have done so.
Maybe this should be our new state motto--"Alabama: We Have the Most Worthless Democrats in the Country."
Alabama's Economy is Imploding Under Bob Riley
When Republican Bob Riley ran against Don Siegelman for governor of Alabama in 2002, he repeatedly bashed the Democratic incumbent on two issues: no-bid contracts and the state's stumbling economy.
We've already learned that Riley is a two-faced phony on no-bid contracts, dishing out a $13-million sweetheart deal to a company that doesn't even have a business address. Now we learn that Riley is a lousy steward of the economy, too. In fact, Alabama's economic woes are far worse than they ever were under Siegelman, who had to wrestle with the bursting of the dot.com bubble in 2001-02.
A recent report shows that Birmingham's jobless rate for October 2009 took the fifth highest jump in the nation among metro areas of 1 million or more people. Only Riverside, California; Las Vegas, San Jose, and Detroit were worse.
At the state level, Alabama's jobless rate had the third highest increase in the nation. Only Nevada and Michigan were worse.
In short, Bob Riley is presiding over the worst Alabama economy since the Great Depression. To be fair to Riley, a governor can only do so much when the national economy tanks--as it did under President George W. Bush. But Riley was one of Bush's most staunch supporters, hitching his box car to an economic train that went wildly off the rails.
And how is this for irony? No state has sucked up to (and sold its soul to) the U.S. Chamber of Commerce more than has Alabama. The chamber has bought up our state courts and has one of its acolytes, Riley, leading the executive branch. Only Alabama's legislative branch remains out of chamber control, and Republicans are making a well-publicized bid to take over the legislature in 2010. William Canary, president of the Business Council of Alabama, is a player on the chamber's national stage and a self-appointed kingmaker inside the state. (Just ask Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Artur Davis.)
In other words, business interests have come to dominate Alabama's political landscape. But our economy, in terms of rising unemployment, is one of the worst in the nation. Alabamians have consistently voted conservative for statewide offices since Karl Rove slithered into the state in the 1990s. What do we have to show for it? The worst economy in what is supposed to be the prosperous Sun Belt--the worst economy of any deep-red state.
Dear God, one can only wonder how bad our economy would be if we didn't have such a "pro business" environment in Alabama.
Here's another irony: In the first few months after I started this blog in June 2007, I regularly received anonymous comments from Riley supporters, touting his "stellar" record on the economy and jobs. Sometimes, they would include a line or two about Riley's high ethical standards.
Funny, haven't received any of those comments in quite a while.
We've already learned that Riley is a two-faced phony on no-bid contracts, dishing out a $13-million sweetheart deal to a company that doesn't even have a business address. Now we learn that Riley is a lousy steward of the economy, too. In fact, Alabama's economic woes are far worse than they ever were under Siegelman, who had to wrestle with the bursting of the dot.com bubble in 2001-02.
A recent report shows that Birmingham's jobless rate for October 2009 took the fifth highest jump in the nation among metro areas of 1 million or more people. Only Riverside, California; Las Vegas, San Jose, and Detroit were worse.
At the state level, Alabama's jobless rate had the third highest increase in the nation. Only Nevada and Michigan were worse.
In short, Bob Riley is presiding over the worst Alabama economy since the Great Depression. To be fair to Riley, a governor can only do so much when the national economy tanks--as it did under President George W. Bush. But Riley was one of Bush's most staunch supporters, hitching his box car to an economic train that went wildly off the rails.
And how is this for irony? No state has sucked up to (and sold its soul to) the U.S. Chamber of Commerce more than has Alabama. The chamber has bought up our state courts and has one of its acolytes, Riley, leading the executive branch. Only Alabama's legislative branch remains out of chamber control, and Republicans are making a well-publicized bid to take over the legislature in 2010. William Canary, president of the Business Council of Alabama, is a player on the chamber's national stage and a self-appointed kingmaker inside the state. (Just ask Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Artur Davis.)
In other words, business interests have come to dominate Alabama's political landscape. But our economy, in terms of rising unemployment, is one of the worst in the nation. Alabamians have consistently voted conservative for statewide offices since Karl Rove slithered into the state in the 1990s. What do we have to show for it? The worst economy in what is supposed to be the prosperous Sun Belt--the worst economy of any deep-red state.
Dear God, one can only wonder how bad our economy would be if we didn't have such a "pro business" environment in Alabama.
Here's another irony: In the first few months after I started this blog in June 2007, I regularly received anonymous comments from Riley supporters, touting his "stellar" record on the economy and jobs. Sometimes, they would include a line or two about Riley's high ethical standards.
Funny, haven't received any of those comments in quite a while.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
"60 Minutes" Spotlights Incompetence in the VA
The Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi have shown that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), under George W. Bush, abused the very principles for which it supposedly stands.
Was the DOJ the only U.S. institution to atrophy under Bush and continue sagging, so far, under President Barack Obama? Not exactly.
In a segment that airs tonight, 60 Minutes will focus on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and its failure to process claims effectively. The venerable CBS news program reports that the VA has a massive backlog of claims, leaving many veterans struggling and frustrated.
This comes on the heels of reports about discrimination against VA claims processors, the very people who are supposed to ensure that veterans receive their benefits.
We have reported here at Legal Schnauzer on the case of Jamie Fox and Ann Williams, two claims processors who were fired at the VA's Oakland (CA) Regional Center, in apparent retaliation for complaining about anti-gay bias and a hostile work environment. Both Williams and Fox are U.S. Navy veterans.
We also reported about four women who received a $3.73 million judgment from a federal jury after filing discrimination claims against a VA medical center in Florida.
Williams tells Legal Schnauzer that the 60 Minutes report should shine an uncomfortable spotlight on a VA that is letting down veterans--and the country they serve. Says Williams:
Williams also provides an update on the dismal work conditions she, Fox, and others have experienced at the VA's Oakland center:
Was the DOJ the only U.S. institution to atrophy under Bush and continue sagging, so far, under President Barack Obama? Not exactly.
In a segment that airs tonight, 60 Minutes will focus on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and its failure to process claims effectively. The venerable CBS news program reports that the VA has a massive backlog of claims, leaving many veterans struggling and frustrated.
This comes on the heels of reports about discrimination against VA claims processors, the very people who are supposed to ensure that veterans receive their benefits.
We have reported here at Legal Schnauzer on the case of Jamie Fox and Ann Williams, two claims processors who were fired at the VA's Oakland (CA) Regional Center, in apparent retaliation for complaining about anti-gay bias and a hostile work environment. Both Williams and Fox are U.S. Navy veterans.
We also reported about four women who received a $3.73 million judgment from a federal jury after filing discrimination claims against a VA medical center in Florida.
Williams tells Legal Schnauzer that the 60 Minutes report should shine an uncomfortable spotlight on a VA that is letting down veterans--and the country they serve. Says Williams:
V.A. management is a perfect model of malignant incompetence that continues to thrive and survive, while our military veterans' lives crumble as they wait for the long overdue benefits they desperately need.
Williams also provides an update on the dismal work conditions she, Fox, and others have experienced at the VA's Oakland center:
My EEOC hearing will be Jan. 7th and 11th--finally. During this long process, besides Jamie and me, another co-worker witness was fired, another demoted, another begged to be removed as a witness for fear of job loss (realistic fear). And just a few weeks ago, yet another witness, and current VA employee, begged to be removed from my witness list . . . Two of the managers who lied, which is documented, are no longer at Oakland VA, and the male co-worker who harassed and slandered me mysteriously "resigned" a year ago.
Meanwhile, veterans claims pile up nationwide, and the claims processors (veterans service representatives) work long hours and chug-a-lug Pepto Bismol. Find out why by watching 60 Minutes this Sunday, Jan. 3rd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)