Suspicious Deaths are Piling Up on the Political Front in Alabama

Ralph Stacy

A senior vice president at the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) died last week from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound, marking at least three people with ties to our state's ruling conservatives who have died under unusual circumstances in the past six months.

Ralph Stacy was in charge of strategic communications and was a chief lieutenant to BCA president Bill Canary. Montgomery police have released few details about Stacy's death, except to say they responded last Tuesday to a report of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at BCA headquarters. Stacy's funeral was on Friday.

We have described Alabama as Ground Zero for justice-related sleaze during the George W. Bush administration, and the state's political environment has been toxic for years. Republican Governor Bob Riley has documented ties to the Jack Abramoff scandal. And for about a year, Riley has been leading a crusade against gambling in Alabama, apparently to help protect the market share of his Choctaw gaming supporters in neighboring Mississippi.

A federal investigation is ongoing into gambling-related activities in the Alabama Legislature. And we reported 12 days ago that Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, might be planning indictments of 10 or more prominent Democrats as an "October Surprise" designed to have an impact on the November elections. Among Canary's possible targets are Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ron Sparks, a proponent of an education lottery, and gambling magnate Milton McGregor.

Leura Canary, a Bush appointee who still has not been replaced by the Obama administration, is married to Bill Canary, and the couple have been longtime Riley allies. But now one of Bill Canary's closest associates has turned up dead under mysterious circumstances--and he is not the first person with connections to the Riley administration to meet an untimely demise.

As Riley's two terms are winding down, bodies are piling up. Is that coincidence? Or has Alabama's political environment gone from toxic to deadly? And if so, what is driving it?

Ralph Stacy certainly did not seem like a prime suspect to commit suicide. He was 53, with a wife, Angel,  and a daughter, Savannah. Friends and colleagues described him as a jovial man who was a popular speaker and didn't mind poking fun at himself. The Montgomery Advertiser wrote:

Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange said Stacy's personality made him stand out in any group.

"He was just so gregarious and so friendly," Strange said.

Randy George, president of the Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce, noted Stacy's long commitment to chamber interests. That career also included a stint leading the Greenville Chamber of Commerce.

"He did a magnificent job," George said. "Ralph was one of those people who was truly bigger than life."

Stacy was a hefty man with a large smile who was just as likely to joke about his baldness as any other subject. That made him popular on the speaker circuit.

"He was a really dynamic and entertaining guy," George said.

Stacy had become an advocate for business as a young man in south Alabama. Wrote the Greenville Advocate:

Stacy, a native of Georgiana, was a well-known figure in Alabama through his work with the state’s 120 Chambers of Commerce. He was a popular emcee and guest speaker in Greenville and the surrounding area for events such as the annual Relay for Life and the Achiever Award program. His columns were published in The Greenville Advocate, where he worked as a reporter prior to serving as executive director of the Greenville Chamber.

Is Stacy's death part of a disturbing pattern? It's hard to tell, but we know of at least two (and maybe three) other cases that raise questions:

* Major Bashinsky--The 63-year-old son of one of the state's best-known businessmen was reported missing in early March. About two weeks later, his body was found floating in a golf-course pond on Birmingham's Southside, and his death was ruled a suicide. His father, the late Sloan Bashinsky Sr., was the CEO of Golden Enterprises, the maker of Golden Flake potato chips and snack foods. In the months leading up to Major Bashinsky's disappearance, the Estate of Sloan Bashinsky was involved in a lawsuit with W&H Investments of Birmingham, seeking an accounting of some $37 million the elder Bashinsky had invested with the firm--mostly in oil wells. A settlement was approved in the lawsuit on March 1, two days before Major Bashinsky was reported missing. One of the partners in W&H Investments is William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, who once had a campaign contribution to Bob Riley returned when it was discovered that Hazelrig was a founding partner of a company called Paragon Gaming. Both Hazelrig and Rob Riley, the governor's son, had ties to a company called Crimsonica, which is based in Tuscaloosa and run by a man named Robert Sigler.

* Zoa White--A former Riley campaign worker, the 69-year-old White was found dead in her midtown Mobile home on June 28. News reports have said she was beaten to death with a hammer. White had worked in the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) under Bill Johnson, who went from being a member of the Riley administration to one of the governor's harshest critics. Johnson was so close to White and her family that he helped notify friends about funeral arrangements. Mobile police recently made an arrest in White's murder, but they have said little about evidence found in the case. The prosecution will be led by Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson, who is commander of Riley's anti-gambling task force. Suspect Carlos Edward Kennedy has been denied bond in the case and is represented by a court-appointed lawyer.

What about that other possible curious death we mentioned earlier? Suzanne (Pilkerton) Bashinsky-Ash, age 57, died in mid June in Birmingham. She was Major Bashinsky's stepsister and the biological daughter of Joann Bashinsky, who was Sloan Bashinsky Sr.'s second wife and now is director of Golden Enterprises. Associates of Joann Bashinsky were heavily involved in the lawsuit against W&H Investments. The only reporting on Suzanne Bashinsky-Ash's death has been a standard obituary, and we've seen nothing to indicate it was anything other than a natural death. But she was adopted by Sloan Bashinsky Sr., meaning two of his four children died between March and July of this year, within roughly four months of settlement in the W&H Investments lawsuit. The surviving children are Elisabeth Burford Bashinsky and Sloan Bashinsky Jr., a lawyer who lives in Key West, Florida, and has written extensively about Major Bashinsky's disappearance and death at the blog goodmorningfloridakeys.com.

As for Ralph Stacy, many questions remain about his death--and the Montgomery press corps seems to be in no hurry to answer them. Stacy's body reportedly was found at BCA headquarters. Where exactly was it found--inside the building, in his office, in a restroom, outside in a parking lot or deck? Who discovered the body? Did anyone witness the shooting? Did coworkers hear a gunshot? Does forensic evidence point to suicide? Did family members or friends see any signs that the outgoing Mr. Stacy was suicidal?

Perhaps most curious to us is the fact that Ralph Stacy died at work. It's almost as if someone was trying to send a message by having the death take place at the BCA headquarters. Was it Ralph Stacy--or someone else? And what message were they sending?

Bob Riley Caves Rather Than Give Testimony Under Oath

What can make an arrogant Republican crumble in fear? The thought of having to testify under oath about his corrupt actions.

That's the lesson to take from reports that Alabama Governor Bob Riley has agreed to settle a lawsuit, in the face of a tight deadline for his deposition. A state judge had refused to dismiss the lawsuit and given both sides until September 20 to complete depositions--and opposing counsel had indicated that Riley would be among those questioned under oath.

Knowing that depositions can be wide ranging--and this one could have covered issues related to campaign finance, no-bid contracts, and other uncomfortable matters--Riley decided it would be a good idea to pay up.

Reports the Associated Press:

Gov. Bob Riley has agreed for the state to pay the legal fees of a law firm that a legislative committee hired to sue the governor over an unbid computer contract, officials said Wednesday.

Tommy Gallion, an attorney who represented the law firm, said the governor agreed to pay the $78,000 sought by Thomas, Means, Gillis and Seay. Riley also agreed to a payment of about $15,000 to Gallion. The Montgomery law firm had originally in February asked the state to pay $26,740 for its work representing the Legislature's Contract Review Committee.

You can always count on a Riley spokesperson to make a cartoonish attempt to explain away the governor's problems, and Jeff Emerson doesn't disappoint this time. Reports AP:

Riley's communications director, Jeff Emerson, confirmed the governor had agreed to settle the case to avoid costly, drawn-out litigation.

The settlement came after Jefferson County Circuit Judge Tom King last month denied a motion by Riley and state Comptroller Thomas White to dismiss the lawsuit. Emerson said King's ruling made it apparent he would eventually order the state to pay the legal fees.

"We believe the judge would not have changed his mind at trial and the state would have been forced to appeal, which would have added to the cost," Emerson said. "Unlike the plaintiffs, we don't want to waste taxpayer money on this political battle against the governor."

Emerson is so full of horse feces, the stuff must be oozing from his eye sockets. The facts indicate that Riley's decision to settle had nothing to do with his concern for taxpayers.

Riley could have given a deposition and still saved the taxpayers money by resolving the case shortly thereafter. In fact, if the governor really wanted to make sure the public knew the truth at no cost, he could have paid the deposition expenses out of his own pocket.

But he chose to settle matters now--before the September 20 deadline--because he did not want to have to give a deposition. Specifically, he did not want to face the possibility of having to testify under oath about the campaign support he received from Mississippi gambling interests--laundered through Jack Abramoff--and the huge gobs of state dollars he has shipped to family members and their associates.

What else can we learn from the lawsuit settlement? It appears that "Big Boss" Bob Riley might be in a weakened state. Is it possible that some folks don't fear the governor anymore?

Consider Jefferson County Circuit Judge Tom King, who was assigned to the Thomas Means case after Montgomery County judges recused themselves. First, would the Montgomery judges have recused themselves from such a case just a year or two ago, when Riley seemed invincible? We doubt it. And what about King, the guy who refused to dismiss the lawsuit and then put Riley under a tight deadline for a deposition? Is he an unusually ethical and fearless judge? It's possible, but we doubt it. If the Thomas Means case had come before him a year or two ago, we suspect King would have let the governor off the hook.

Have conditions changed for perhaps the most corrupt governor in Alabama history? Well, Riley is a lame-duck governor who will leave office in January 2011. His hand-picked successor, Bradley Byrne, got thrashed in the Republican Party primary. And even Riley's trusted friends on the Alabama Supreme Court seem reluctant to help at the moment, given that they are under investigation for possible misconduct connected to gambling-related rulings that went in the governor's favor.

We felt certain that Riley would avoid a deposition in the Thomas Means lawsuit by filing an emergency motion with the Alabama Supreme Court. But Justice Glenn Murdock, a strong Riley ally who has written numerous favorable rulings for the governor, is facing scrutiny for failing to disclose conflicts of interest-- so that easy path might be closed for now.

If Alabama Democrats were smart, they would pounce now and make Riley pay dearly for visiting untold sleaze upon our state over the past eight years. But Alabama Democrats have proven time and again that they are not so sharp. And with the Obama administration seemingly incapable of appointing a real U.S. attorney in Montgomery, the feds aren't likely to do anything about it.

Our guess is that Bob Riley will eventually walk away scot free, and his family members and cronies will continue to hose Alabama citizens for years.

But to watch the governor squirm when faced with having to give a deposition? It was maybe our favorite political moment of 2010--and it was fun while it lasted.

Are HR People and In-House Lawyers Completely Worthless?

Being cheated out of your job in the worst economy since the Great Depression does not come with many moments of hilarity.

But my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) did come with one slice of comedy. And it raises these questions: Are human resources (HR) departments a total waste of carbon? Can the same be said for in-house lawyers?

My comic moment came on May 29, 2008, when I opened my e-mail and found a missive from Anita Bonasera, UAB's director of employee relations. This was 10 days after I had been "fired," and the e-mail contained a copy of my termination letter as an attachment. Here is the body of the message:

From: Anita L Bonasera
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:59 AM
To: Dale G Turnbough; Pamela Powell; Kristi Lamont Ellis
Subject: draft letter


I have attached draft for your review. Cheryl, John and Lisa have reviewed and I would appreciate your input. Thanks. /Anita

You will note that it was sent to the original recipients at 8:59 a.m. on May 19. The recipients were Pam Powell (my boss), Dale Turnbough (Powell's superior), and Kristi Lamont Ellis (who held some title--not sure what it was--in Public Relations and Marketing). Later that day, in a meeting with Bonasera and Turnbough, I would receive my very own personal copy of the termination letter, along with notification that my 19 years of service at UAB were over.

Ten days later, Bonasera would forward this e-mail . . . to me. I can only assume she did it by mistake. In addition to giving me a much-needed belly laugh, it provided names of the folks in UAB's chain of command who signed off on my termination.

The e-mail tells us that "Cheryl," "John," and "Lisa" have reviewed the letter. That would be Cheryl E.H. Locke, then director of human resources who since has left for Wake Forest University; John Daniel, director of the UAB Office of Counsel; and Lisa Huggins, a lawyer in the Office of Counsel.

What else does the e-mail tell us? For one, my termination letter was signed by Dale Turnbough. But we learn that she didn't even write it. Based on the e-mail, it appears that Bonasera wrote it and forwarded it to Turnbough for review. Turnbough had almost zero knowledge about my job duties and performance--and Bonasera had even less.

I had never met Bonasera until I was called into a meeting on May 7, 2008, that ended with me being placed on administrative leave. I had thought it strange that I was fired not by my supervisor, but by a third party (Turnbough). Through this e-mail I learned I was fired by roughly a 12,535th party (Bonasera). We had cockroaches in our office that knew more about my job performance than the person who wrote my termination letter.

What else do we learn? UAB's personnel in HR and the Office of Counsel must be the most clueless or spineless (or both) individuals on the planet. They signed off on this termination, even though it raised enough red flags to choke a bullfighter.

To fully appreciate the inanity of the UAB crowd, let's imagine how a competent HR director might have handled this situation. We will call him H.R. Jones, and let's imagine him meeting with Dale Turnbough, the person whose name is on the termination letter. (You can read the termination letter at the end of this post.)

HR: I've checked Mr. Shuler's record, and he's worked here 19 years, with no disciplinary record under university policy. I assume you must have an awfully good reason for wanting to fire him.

DT: Uhhh . . . yeah.

HR: Now, let's take a look at the termination letter you wrote . . .

DT: Uhh, I didn't exactly write it.

HR: Well, who did?

DT: Umm, Anita Bonasera, in Employee Relations.

HR: And how much time did Ms. Bonasera spend observing the incidents raised in this termination letter?

DT: Well . . . probably none.

HR: Are you familiar with the term "hearsay"? Well, it sounds like your letter is hearsay to the nth degree.

DT: Hearsay is such an . . . ugly word.

HR: Let's look closer at the letter you didn't write.

DT: OK

HR: You tell Mr. Shuler that he was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation of "several serious policy violations" stemming from his "misuse of UAB equipment." What specific policies did Mr. Shuler violate?

DT: Well . . . uh . . . can I get back to you on that?

HR: Don't you think it would be a good idea to be specific about these policy violations?

DT: Probably so.

HR: What kind of UAB equipment did Mr. Shuler misuse?

DT: Computer equipment.

HR: So you're saying Mr. Shuler violated the UAB Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)?

DT: Yes . . . well, no . . . to tell you the truth, I've never heard of that policy.

HR: It governs the use of UAB computers, networks, printers, and associated equipment. You want to fire someone over alleged misuse of computers, and you've never heard of the AUP?

DT: We sure do have a lot of policies around here. Kind of hard to keep up with everything.

HR: You say Mr. Shuler spent several hours a day on his computer doing things unrelated to his work, and you say he used the departmental printer to print non-work related documents. Who made the determination that these were non-work activities?

DT: Pam Powell, his supervisor, told me.

HR: Is this the same Pam Powell against whom Mr. Shuler filed a grievance a few weeks ago, claiming she was harassing him due to his age?

DT: Umm . . . yes.

HR: And Mr. Shuler filed that grievance on the same day that he had met with you to complain about age discrimination?

DT: Umm . . . yes.

HR: Are you aware that UAB policy states that an employee is to use the grievance process without fear of reprisal?

DT: It says that?

HR: Yes, it does. And it means we need to be real careful about how we treat an employee who has filed a grievance in human resources.

DT: I'll be darned.

HR: You go on to allege that Mr. Shuler failed to seek authorization for time off and failed to document work time on the billing system.

DT: Oh, yes . . . that was a big problem.

HR: It was? The guy worked here 19 years and didn't know how to fill out a vacation-request form or a time sheet? If it was such a big problem, why did you let it go for so many years?

DT: Uhh . . . can I get back to you on that one, too?

HR: You say Mr. Shuler displayed belligerent and threatening behavior in a counseling session over these issues. How do you know he displayed such behavior?

DT: His supervisor told me.

HR: The same one he's filed a grievance against?

DT: Uhh . . . yes.

HR: Are you familiar with a legal term called "retaliation"?

DT: I think I've heard of it . . . yeah.

HR: It generally refers to employers who receive a genuine complaint from an employee and then turn around and take improper actions against that employee. They "retaliate" against him. It's against the law. It's not a good thing.

DT: Hmmm . . .

HR: Do you see how a reasonable jury could view Pam Powell's actions as retaliation?

DT: Gee . . . retaliation is such an . . . ugly word.

HR: You say Mr. Shuler had been warned in staff meetings not to engage in activities associated with his personal blog at work. How do you know that? Oh wait, I'm guessing Pam Powell told you!

DT: Uhh . . . yeah.

HR: Did you witness those warnings firsthand?

DT: No.

HR: Does the department have any documentation regarding those warnings?

DT: No.

HR: You say you personally instructed Mr. Shuler not to do work with his personal blog during work hours? What made you think he was doing that?

DT: I didn't.

HR: You had no evidence that he was working on his personal blog at work?

DT: No.

HR: Then, why did you warn him about something he wasn't doing in the first place?

DT: Gee . . . you've sort of stumped me with that one.

HR: You know, my life would be so much easier if UAB managers would actually read our policies.

DT: It would?

HR: Yes, and here is why. You've alleged that Mr. Shuler violated the Acceptable Use Policy. And that policy clearly states that we will deal with such offenses using Progressive Discipline. You've heard of that?

DT: It sounds familiar.

HR: Well, here's how it works: Short of serious offenses that merit immediate discharge--stealing, fighting, stuff like that--we use Progressive Discipline. That means if we have reason to believe an employee has violated a UAB policy, we discuss it with them, issue an oral warning, and document that. If the problem continues, we issue a written warning and document that. If that doesn't solve the problem, it could lead to termination. In other words, the level of discipline progresses. That's why we call it Progressive Discipline.

DT: Neat name.

HR: You see, university policy requires us to warn employees about offenses we have reason to believe they have actually committed. Managers are not to issue "prospective warnings" about an offense the employee apparently hasn't even committed. We try to deal in a world of reality, not managerial fantasy.

DT: We do?

HR: Yes. And here's another thing. Your letter says Mr. Shuler's "serious policy violations" warrant "immediate dismissal." But I see no evidence of that. You don't note any specific policy violations, you didn't use Progressive Discipline, you apparently didn't document anything, and you didn't even write this letter.

DT: Would you like to see my soft-shoe routine? It's very good.

HR: In fact, your failure to follow Progressive Discipline and document it, indicates that--according to our own records--Mr. Shuler did not violate any policies at all.

DT: But Pam Powell said . . .

HR: Well, Pam Powell apparently harassed Mr. Shuler severely enough that he filed a formal grievance against her--the only one he had filed here in 19 years. When she then, after the fact, says, "Mr. Shuler did this and Mr. Shuler did that," well, it smells real strongly of retaliation. You remember that ugly word?

DT: Yes.

HR: And it makes Ms. Powell a real poor witness for our side of things.

DT: A witness? We have to worry about witnesses?

HR: Well, here's the thing, Ms. Turnbough. We have policies, such as Progressive Discipline, so that we can treat employees fairly and equally under federal law. If we use Progressive Discipline with one employee and not with another, that leads to something called "discrimination." And discrimination, if it involves an employee in a protected class, can lead to these things called "lawsuits." Do you see what I'm getting at?

DT: Lawsuit is such . . . an ugly word.

HR: I agree with you there. And my life is so much more pleasant without them. That's why I would suggest you give a second thought to firing Mr. Shuler.

DT: Second thought? Heck, I haven't given it a first thought yet! Hah! That's a joke.

HR: Very funny.

Here is the full termination letter:

UAB Termination

Does Hunting Club Breed Corruption in Alabama Divorce Courts?

A hunting club in rural Alabama provides the setting for Alabama judges and lawyers to fix divorce cases, according to two lawsuits filed in U.S. district court. Public documents indicate the club also might be involved in fixing criminal cases.

The allegations do not come from a regular citizen; they come from a legal insider--attorney Joseph W. Blackburn, who teaches tax law at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law.

Both lawsuits claim that a hunting club--which sources tell Legal Schnauzer is in Lowndes County, near Hayneville--served as the base for a criminal enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Included as defendants in the lawsuits are Birmingham attorneys Charles Gorham, George Richard Fernambucq and L. Stephen Wright--in combination with "unknown defendants"--who hunted and fished together as controlling members of the hunting club. Judge John C. Calhoun, who lost his re-election bid in 2006, and Judge R. A. "Sonny" Ferguson, who remains on the domestic-relations bench, also are defendants.

In the first lawsuit, filed in 2007, Blackburn was a plaintiff, claiming he was injured by the corrupt actions of lawyers and judges during his divorce from Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, a federal judge. In the second lawsuit, filed in August 2009, Blackburn serves as attorney for plaintiffs claiming they were victimized in Jefferson County domestic-relations court.

According to court documents, Blackburn accuses the judges and lawyers of conspiring to run "a 'good ole white boys' club,' aimed at ensuring that only white males, to the exclusion of everyone else, would run the Jefferson County, Alabama circuit-court system."

The hunting club is at the heart of the illegal activity, Blackburn alleges, and it involves substantial sums of money. Why was the club formed? Court documents provide the answer, stating that "RICO enterprise" aims were to:

(a) stream illegal benefits to any "club" judges; 

(b) inflate attorney fee awards--at the expense of hapless litigants--to club lawyers; and 

(c) defraud the public, specifically women and minorities, by keeping the club secret from them while insiders benefited from favorable judicial treatment.

A RICO lawsuit requires at least two distinct but related "predicate acts" that are violations of criminal statutes. Blackburn lays out a stream of criminal acts in court documents. The following paragraph provides the guts of the RICO allegations:

Ferguson and Calhoun bargained for and accepted, and said Defendant attorneys paid Ferguson and Calhoun, a quid pro quo share of such illegal Enterprise profits. In making and accepting such payments, Ferguson, Calhoun and said Defendant attorneys engaged in predicate acts of Hobbs Act violations, Travel Act violations, money laundering, monetary transactions violations, and mail and wire fraud.

The scheme dates to at least 1993, Blackburn claims, when Calhoun was appointed an Alabama state-court judge. For many years before that, Calhoun had hunted and fished with Gorham, Fernambucq, Wright--and other unknown attorneys--as controlling members of the hunting club.

For some time, the club operated in a legitimate fashion. But that changed when Calhoun became a judge and failed to disclose his conflicts of interest. According to court documents:

It was improper, Blackburn says, for Calhoun to continue as a member of that club while serving as a judge in these attorneys' domestic relations cases.

The hunting club's influence might not have been limited to domestic-relations cases. It also apparently was involved in Jefferson County criminal cases. Court documents state that at least one criminal-court judge and several attorneys associated with him hunted together at the club. The judge and the lawyers "were personal friends and practiced criminal law in that court's circuit."

How deep does the hunting-club enterprise go? Blackburn states that it grew to include "law firms, law partners, members, shareholders, and support staff . . . and it may include corporate entities or other legally recognized entities such as partnerships or LLCs, through which such persons are engaged in the practice of law."

Blackburn paints a picture of a Birmingham legal community that is riddled with corruption. Among the law firms named in the complaints are Gorham and Cason; Najjar Denaburg; and Boyd Fernambucq and Vincent. And that does not include any number of unknown law firms and attorneys.

These law firms' activities, as described by Blackburn, sound an awful lot like organized crime. But the mainstream Alabama press has been largely silent on the issue. We will not be silent here at Legal Schnauzer.

Our blog has reported before on corruption in domestic-relations court. But the hunting-club revelations, as reported by a member of the legal community, take the sleaze to a whole new level.

We would not be surprised if similar outfits are operating in other parts of the country, corrupting the judicial process and harming thousands of mothers, fathers, and children.

(To be continued)

Alabama Lawsuit Shines Light on Christian Coalition's Ties to Abramoff Scandal

Ralph Reed

An Alabama lawsuit that was quickly settled about a month after it was filed in 2007 provides a road map of the Christian Coalition's connections to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Dr. Randy Brinson, the current chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, filed the lawsuit against the group's former director, John Giles, and Alabama Republican operative Dax Swatek. Brinson claims the defendants unlawfully seized the organization's Web site and member lists and interfered with its business relations.

The lawsuit provides a vivid outline of the corruption that enveloped the Deep South, and much of the country, during the George W. Bush administration. And it describes the atmosphere that helped lead to the investigation and conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in the nation's history.

Giles was chairman of the Christian Coalition of Alabama for about eight years until he was forced to resign in August 2006. Brinson became the new chairman, and Giles went on to form a group called Christian Action Alabama. Giles has stated that the split came because of a dispute over distribution of voter guides. But Brinson, in the lawsuit, says that gambling and the Abramoff scandal really drove the acrimonious split.

Before Brinson took over, the Christian Coalition had opposed all forms of gambling on the grounds that they were immoral. The lawsuit, however, indicates something much darker was going on:

The coalition has attempted to destroy legalized gambling, which operates under statutory and legislative authority and has been approved by the voters of Alabama. The Coalition also openly supported any candidate who took an anti-gambling stance. However, the shameful irony behind the stance taken by  the Coalition and certain legislators is that, based on information and belief, that very stance has often been the result of lobbying efforts by competing gambling interests and casino operators in Mississippi.

That's where Abramoff and Ralph Reed, then chairman of the Christian Coalition of America, come in. Brinson states:

In 1999, the Mississippi Choctaw tribe hired Abramoff, who then enlisted Ralph Reed Jr. and the then Christian Coalition of Alabama to help defeat a bill in the Alabama Legislature (that) would allow certain kinds of skill-dependent games at dog racing tracks, as well as defeating a proposed state lottery, both of which would have resulted in competition for the Mississippi casinos.

The lottery, of course, was supported by Siegelman, then Alabama's governor. The lawsuit continues:

Reed was fully cognizant that he had been hired to further the wishes of the Mississippi Choctaws. . . . Reed told Abramoff he could access "3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households in Alabama. . . . Because Reed was uncomfortable being paid directly by gambling interests to oppose gambling, Abramoff structured payments to Reed via the lobbying firm of Preston Gates. Later Abramoff suggested that the tribe use Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax nonprofit organization headed by conservative activist Grover Norquist, to launder the money to Reed, which the tribe did. By May 10, 1999, the Choctaw had paid Reed $1.3 million through the Preston Gates firm. 

A report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs provided more specifics, Brinson states:

The Senate report indicates that by 2000 at least $575,000 was laundered from the Choctaw casinos through Americans for Tax Reform to the Alabama Christian Coalition. 

Giles has denied connections to the Abramoff scandal. But the facts do not appear to support his story. States Brinson:

Giles has emphatically denied on the Coalition's Web site that the Coalition accepted any money from Indian casinos to combat gambling and refers to the multitudinous suggestions of impropriety leveled at the Christian Coalition as mere "sloppy and undocumented journalism. . . . " Nevertheless, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, told The Boston Globe newspaper in May of 2005 that his organization gave $850,000 to the Alabama Christian Coalition and that the money came from an Indian  casino in Mississippi. 

Brinson has taken the Christian Coalition of Alabama in a different direction on gambling issues. He states in the lawsuit that he supported a bill in the Alabama House of Representatives that would tax and regulate gambling and help fund Medicaid.

Siegelman would lose his bid for re-election in 2002 when votes for him mysteriously disappeared overnight due to a computer "glitch" in heavily Republican Baldwin County, Alabama. That gave the election to former Congressman Bob Riley, who will wrap up his two terms in January 2011.

Riley has been a staunch opponent of gambling, and the Brinson lawsuit provides considerable insight into the governor's hypocrisy on the subject. As we reported earlier, Brinson has received threats from Riley associates because of his support for taxed and regulated gambling.

Below is the full text of the Randy Brinson lawsuit.

(To be continued)


Christian Coalition Lawsuit

Stench Becomes Overwhelming in U.S. Justice System

Chris Christie

We long have described Alabama as "Ground Zero" for Bush-era corruption in the U.S. justice system, with Mississippi a close second.

But we now know that the rot did not end when George W. Bush left office, and it certainly is not limited to the Deep South. In fact, recent reporting from Andrew Kreig of the Justice Integrity Project tells us that decay is present in two states--New Jersey and Minnesota--that we long have considered relatively progressive.

In New Jersey, the sleaze involves Republican Governor Chris Christie, who has become a darling in conservative circles for his "common-sense" ideas regarding fiscal issues.  In Minnesota, it involves governmental abuse of victims in a fraud case that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

David Broder, veteran columnist for The Washington Post, has touted Christie as a role model for conservatives hoping to be elected this fall. But Kreig's reporting raises this question: Has David Broder, at age 81, lost his ability to think critically?

Christie has become a national figure since being elected governor in January 2010. Before that, he was a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney. And Kreig says Christie's actions then, and his rhetoric now, do not add up:

Far from limiting government, Christie, right, wasted vast amounts of taxpayer funds to help himself and his cronies. Look no farther than his scheme as U.S. attorney to connive with Solomon Dwek, a big-time bank swindler and brothel operator, to crush political opponents with criminal charges timed to explode at the beginning of the 2009 Christie campaign.

It turns out that, at one point during his U.S. attorney reign, Christie was considered not sufficiently aggressive on political prosecutions. And that kind of thing could get you in trouble with the Bush administration:

During 2006, Christie was placed on a preliminary list of those slated for firing for insufficient political loyalty, according to subsequent testimony. His actions after that included:

* Pre-election subpoenas tarnishing New Jersey's Democratic Senate candidate Robert Menendez 61 days prior to election. The subpoenas never resulted in charges but prompted many headlines suggesting corruption by Menendez before he narrowly won reelection. Christie, not surprisingly, survived the political purge just after the election that cost eight of his peers nationally their jobs and sent a powerful message to all remaining prosecutors.

* No-bid contracts for tens of millions of dollars to prominent Republican former Justice Department officials to monitor settlement agreements with corporate criminal defendants. One contract valued at $28 million to $52 million went to former Republican U.S. Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, below, Christie's former boss, to monitor a kick-back scheme by Zimmer Holdings to induce surgeons to use its medical devices. A similar no-bid deal went to former New Jersey U.S. Attorney Herbert Stern, Christie's mentor.

But that's not all:

Christie's biggest step in scoring points in his inner-party circles as a loyal apparatchik was a plan to empower bank swindler Dwek with federal funds to set up defendants in "Bid Rig III" (a code term devised by law enforcement) in a sting operation.

Earlier, Dwek bilked banks out of $50 million and ran a cruise ship brothel in the Caribbean, according to court testimony this year and last. Christie' DOJ filed criminal charges and worked out a deal for him to help create new cases. As part of this, the feds provided Dwek with funds to donate to local campaigns. He and his associates then gathered evidence that recipients were responding in a fashion that could prompt bribery and honest-services types of criminal charges.

Before leaving office in December 2008, Christie made sure that two of his loyalists--Ralph Marra and Michele Brown--were in key positions. What impact did that have?

The Loyal Christies in an Obama-led Justice Department orchestrated their July 2009 press conference to showcase one of the largest indictments in New Jersey history just as the 2009 election season was heating up.

Roughly half of the 44 suspects were local political figures, with the other suspects in such non-political crimes as money-laundering. All but one of the political suspects were Democrats, according to defense sources. His successor Marra worked with Dwek to grab headlines with one of the largest corruption cases in the state history.

Harper's columnist Scott Horton saw the case immediately as part of an ongoing nationwide scandal of Bush DOJ political prosecutions that he'd been tracking elsewhere. His column, "Manure for the Garden State" 13 months ago, argued that the prosecution was highly suspect.

The Minnesota case might be even more unsettling than the one in New Jersey. Before Bernie Madoff came along, the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history ($3.65 billion) involved a St. Cloud businessman named Thomas J. Petters. How are victims being treated in that case? Well, Douglas Kelley, who was Petters' defense attorney, has been named receiver and U.S. trustee. And Kelley was granted judicial immunity, limiting victim oversight of his decisions.

Fraud experts, Kreig reports, say they have never heard of a criminal-defense attorney being appointed receiver. Corporate turnaround expert William Procida originally was named receiver. But that changed:

Minnesota U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery promptly replaced Procida as receiver in 2008. Instead, she selected the regional powerbroker Kelley, who days earlier been hired by Petters to defend his Petters companies from criminal charges. The judge gave Kelley immunity without requiring the kind of freedom from financial conflicts of interests courts normally require of actual judges.

Kelley then embarked on a series of controversial decisions--selling assets at fire-sale prices, vindicating from liability a key Petters employee who helped him, forfeiting $20 million to federal prosecutors, and spending some $30 million (at last count early this year) on fees for his firm and the other bankruptcy professionals he picked to administer the case.

The stench from a broken U.S. justice system is become overwhelming--and widespread. It's not just a "Southern thing" anymore. Does anyone in the Obama administration even notice?

Bob Riley Might Face Tough Questions Under Oath

Alabama Governor Bob Riley might soon face a deposition in a lawsuit that stems from his efforts to land a $13-million, no-bid contract for a Virginia company called Paragon Source.

The Montgomery law firm of Thomas Means Gillis and Seay claims it is owed $78,000 for its work with the Alabama Legislature's Contract Review Committee on the Paragon Source case. Riley has blocked payment to the firm, and it countered with a lawsuit. Riley sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, but a state judge has allowed it to move forward and given both sides until September 20 to conduct depositions.

Attorney Thomas Gallion represents the Thomas Means firm and says he plans to depose four individuals, including Riley, reports Bob Gambacurta of the Montgomery Independent.

Depositions usually allow for wide-ranging questions, so the governor could face some uncomfortable moments. We wouldn't be surprised if the governor turns to his buddies on the Alabama Supreme Court for protection if the questioning veers into touchy territory, such as his campaign funding from out-of-state gambling sources or the actions of his son, Homewood attorney Rob Riley.

The controversy started when members of the Legislative Review Committee objected to the Paragon Source contract after learning the company had no business address, business license, or Web site. Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery), chairman of the committee, claimed the business operated out of the trunk of the owner's car and led the fight to block the contract, using the Thomas Means firm.

As so often happens in Alabama, race became an issue. Reports Gambacurta:

The Thomas Means law firm billed the state for its services and received a partial payment last year. However, the Comptroller's Office refused the pay the $78,000 balance and a spokesman for the governor said since the committee did not have standing to sue, the committee's law firm was not entitled to compensation.

Thomas, Means, Gillis and Seay, a law firm made up almost entirely of black attorneys, then hired Gallion to sue the Comptroller in an effort to collect the balance due of $78,000.

Holmes stated publicly that he had been told that the governor said, "Do not pay that black law firm."

All judges in Montgomery County recused themselves, so the case is being heard by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Tom King. Riley's actions drew concern from the judge. Reports Gambacurta:

On Monday, King ruled in favor of the law firm, by denying the defendant Comptroller's motion to dismiss. In his ruling, Judge King offered a stinging rebuke of Gov. Riley for the appearance of retaliation and racism in this case.

"The days of political retaliation and institutional racism in Alabama should remain only on the silver screens of Hollywood," King wrote. "The Governor of this Great State should treat all races and ethnicities equally be they majority or minority, favored or disfavored. Although this Court truly hopes these allegations prove to be false, only depositions and inquiry into the facts will show the truth."

Gallion says the case boils down to the Riley administration's lack of transparency regarding the Paragon Source contract:

"The reason Gov. Riley is essential in this thing is it's clear that the governor's office is calling the shots on not producing the Paragon Source no-bid contract documents, which is the genesis of this whole matter and why the Legislative Contract Review Committee hired the Thomas Means law firm.

"That's what this whole thing is about: the $13 million Paragon Source no-bid contract. Nobody in the governor's office, the Finance Department or the Comptroller's Office would produce any documents pertaining to this Paragon Source contract.

"What's the governor covering up? Why will he spend taxpayers' money to try to fight something in order just to continue to keep the public from knowing about the no-bid contract? That's the whole bottom line," Gallion said.

Gallion has sought to depose Riley before, in the case of insurance executive John Goff. A judge, however, dropped Riley from the case, so that deposition never took place. It appears the governor will be facing questions under oath this time:

Gallion added: "It's very simple, they're retaliating against and punishing Thomas, Means, Gillis and Seay and the Legislative Oversight Committee for doing their job and trying to get the records for the public to see on Paragon Source. And if that's not the case, it's very simple, under the Alabama Open Records Act, the governor should produce these records, the Finance Department or whoever has them."

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating a complaint from Holmes that the governor refused to pay the legal fees because most of the firm's attorneys are black. Gallion said the discovery and depositions will get to the bottom of that matter.

"Well, that comes from Alvin Holmes' quote, "Don't pay that black law firm." He has information that was said. That's part of the discovery we're going to find out. We'll find that out. If that's it, then it's clearly institutional racism.

"Now I don't care whether they're a black law firm or white law firm, Democrat, Republican or Whig, the Alabama taxpayer deserves to have and view all of the records pertaining to the Paragon Source contract," Gallion said.

Meet The Man Who Is Letting Karl Rove And Other Bushies Off the Hook

Richard Parsons

Richard Parsons, now chairman of Citigroup, is the man Karl Rove and other Bushies should thank for the free pass they have received, according to a new report from D.C.-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen:

According to top Democratic Party sources, some with long years of political experience at the national level and in the highest levels of government, there is one adviser to President Obama who has his ear even more than chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. That man is Richard Parsons, a graduate of the University of Hawaii and the chairman of Citigroup. Until 2007, Parsons also served as chief executive officer of media giant Time Warner.

Parsons has strong ties to Republicans. He also has some serious personal baggage. The New York Daily News reported last year that Parsons, the married father of three, had fathered a child out of wedlock with a model-philanthropist named MacDella Cooper.

All of that, however, has not kept Parsons from having major influence with Obama. Reports Madsen:

In 1991, Nelson Rockefeller's brother, Laurance Rockefeller, recommended that Parsons be appointed to the board of Time Warner. In 2001, Parsons became chief executive officer of AOL Time Warner, after the merger with the Internet firm.

Parsons served as co-chair of President George W. Bush's commission on Social Security reform. He also works closely with David Rockefeller and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Parsons also served on an economic advisory team under President Obama.

Part of the reason why Obama was not critically treated by the media was the fact that Parsons exercised control over a vast array of the corporate media, including CNN, Time magazine, Money, People, and Fortune magazines, and, at the time, AOL.

Parsons even is friends with Karl Rove. And that apparently has helped influence the Obama administration's approach to justice issues:

But more importantly, Parsons, according to Democratic Party sources, has ensured that Obama maintains his policy of looking forward and not back. Parsons, who is a friend of former Bush policy adviser Karl Rove, has convinced Obama that there should be no criminal investigations by the Justice Department of Rove or other top Bush administration officials from everything from political prosecutions of former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman and Rove's involvement in election fraud to the CIA's rendition and torture programs. Parsons was a member of an economic advisory team that met with President-elect Obama just two days after he was elected President in 2008.

What kind of judgment does Richard Parsons possess? Questionable appears to be the best answer. He brought in longtime Washington insider Richard Hohlt at Citigroup. Here is how The New York Times described that move:

Critics say that as a top lobbyist for the savings and loan industry in the 1980s, Mr. Hohlt blocked regulation of these institutions and played a pivotal role helping to prolong dubious industry practices that cost taxpayers $150 billion to clean up.

Want to know more about Richard Hohlt and his connections? Consider this from one blog that has focused on the banking bailout:

Richard Hohlt was recently hired by Citi chairman Richard Parsons as a ”consultant”. Hohlt is a former aide to Richard Lugar. His roster of clients has included, among others, JPMorgan, Washington Mutual, TimeWarner, Philip Morris, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chevron, and the Nuclear Energy Institute. He’s a close associate of Karl Rove and collaborated with Robert Novak in outing Valerie Plame. He was a George Bush “Super Ranger” bagman.

William Black [a banking regulator] called him “infamous” and his hiring “obscene”.

Parsons' influence might soon be felt directly here in Alabama. Reports Madsen:

WMR was told that Parsons represents the interests of the Rockefeller family and the Council on Foreign Relations in his meetings with Obama, described as one-way communications that ensure that Obama is carrying out the wishes of the Rockefellers and their business friends. One of those demands may play out soon in Alabama, where Parsons and fellow African-American, Democratic Alabama Representative Artur Davis, has reportedly prevailed upon Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, to appoint Montgomery attorney George Beck to replace U.S. Attorney Leura Canary as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Canary as part of the Rove operation that targeted Siegelman for prosecution. Beck, who is associated, according to our Alabama political sources, with Alabama Republican Governor Bob Riley, would continue the prosecution of Siegelman and ensure that there is no federal criminal investigation of Rove's past illegal political activities in the state's elections. In addition, Beck was also the attorney for Nick Bailey, one of the chief witnesses against Siegelman. Beck permitted federal investigators to question Bailey some 70 times and he raised no objections to the questioning being conducted in a purely civilian matter at Maxwell Air Force Base, a military compound outside of Montgomery.

What does all of this mean? It means Richard Parsons, who apparently can't even run his own personal life, has a frightening amount of influence on issues of national importance. It means Richard Parsons has been the dispenser of some horrible advice. It means Richard Parsons has been responsible for the biggest mistakes Obama has made as president. And if Democrats take a thumping in November, and Obama goes down in flames after one term, Richard Parsons is the man we can thank for it.

President Obama has not sought advice from us here at Legal Schnauzer, but we will give it anyway: Get Richard Parsons out of your inner circle--now!

Leura Canary Might Be Planning An "October Surprise" in Alabama

Leura Canary

Nothing exemplifies the Obama administration's sorry record on justice issues quite like its mishandling of the U.S. attorney position in the Middle District of Alabama. A source tells Legal Schnauzer that the administration's bungling in Montgomery might be setting up Democrats for an "October surprise" just before the November elections.

The White House is unlikely to appoint a replacement for Bush holdover Leura Canary before the first of the year, according to a report at mainjustice.com. That means Canary will have time to carry out a plan that, according to our source, involves issuing indictments for several prominent Democrats over an investigation of gambling-related measures in the Alabama Legislature.

Our source, who has close ties to the Alabama legal community, says the plan is set to take flight around October 1 and might include an indictment of Ron Sparks, the Democratic candidate for governor. In other words, plans for a political prosecution that is designed to affect the outcome of an election might be taking place right under the Obama administration's nose.

Indictments might be coming down for about a dozen Democrats, our source says, plus Victoryland gambling magnate Milton McGregor. Canary, of course, is infamous for her role in the political prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. Obama apparently plans to let her stay in office almost two full years, perhaps allowing her to pull off one more scam on the citizens of Alabama.

Our source is not the only person talking about possible indictments. Dr. Robert Bentley, Republican candidate for governor, mentioned them at a recent debate with Sparks in Arab, Alabama. Reports television station WSFA of Montgomery:

The federal investigation into alleged vote buying in connection with gambling legislation in the Alabama Legislature surfaced during a gubernatorial debate in Arab Tuesday.

Republican nominee Dr. Robert Bentley suggested some state lawmakers will be indicted.

Dr. Bentley began by discussing the corruption that can stem from gambling.

Then, he talked about the grand jury.

"We're going to have some indictments coming down from a grand jury on some legislators and that's going to be in the near future," said Bentley.

Sparks, understandably, was taken aback. Imagine his shock if he knew that he might be among the indicted. Reports WSFA:

Democratic candidate Ron Sparks said the comment surprised him.

"I'd like to know how he knows. I thought that would be sealed indictments. I don't know. He must have some information I don't know," said Sparks.

Bentley said later, "I know of no specifics. It's just a rumor right now."

We've seen other signs that the plan is more than just rumor. Joe Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, pushed publicly last week for a new U.S. attorney in Montgomery. Was Turnham speaking out because of his concerns about Canary's possible October surprise? We suspect the answer is yes.

If Obama ever gets around to actually appointing a new U.S. attorney in Montgomery, it appears his choice will be a very questionable one. By virtually all accounts that we've heard, the best candidate is Mobile lawyer Michel Nicrosi, but the White House allowed U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions to scuttle her.

Now, it looks like Montgomery lawyer George Beck will get the nod. And many Alabama progressives, including Siegelman-case whistleblower Jill Simpson, have been deeply wary of that choice. Here's how we put it in a previous post titled "Is Obama About to Make a Terrible Nomination in Alabama?"

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).

It's hard to imagine how the White House could screw up the Middle District of Alabama even worse than it already was. But the Obama Department of Justice might have found a way. And Democrats could pay a huge price in a few weeks.

UAB Has a Tortured Relationship With Bloggers and the First Amendment

Does the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply to people who write blogs and work at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB)?

The answer seems to be, "It depends on what you are writing about." That, of course, means the UAB administration has serious problems abiding by the Constitution. And we suspect UAB is not the only organization that has such problems around the country. In fact, we have written before about people who encountered workplace problems because of their blogs--here and here.

Regular readers know that I was unlawfully terminated at UAB, primarily because I write a blog about public corruption in Alabama, especially the Bush Justice Department's political prosecution of former governor Don Siegelman. So imagine my amazement the other day when I discovered that UAB had issued a press release touting one of its employees' personal blog.

Stephanie Rauterkus, an assistant professor in the UAB School of Business, writes a blog called 365 Days on a Budget. What's the blog about? Here is how UAB describes it in a press release:

"I wanted to revisit my family's budget and see how we could improve, and I wanted to keep a written record so that we would have something to look back on in the future," Rauterkus says. "I thought about it some more and the educator in me said 'I'll write about it on a blog so that others can learn what I learn as I go through the process.'"

Rauterkus' blog, 365 Days on a Budget, was started July 5. Every day, the professor, wife and mother of two updates readers on her struggles and successes as she attempts to balance both budget and life. The tagline for the website describes it as a chronicle of the daily challenges and triumphs of a "regular" family as it works to achieve its financial goals by keeping a watchful eye on spending.

It's hard not to notice the similarities between Rauterkus' blog and my blog. Hers, like mine, is truly a personal blog, hosted at Blogspot and not on a UAB server. Hers, like mine, addresses a matter of public concern--personal finance in her case, public corruption in mine. Both of us started our blogs with the desire to help educate the public about important matters. Rauterkus says she started her blog "so that others can learn." The tagline on my blog notes that we will be addressing corruption in the justice system and will provide information on "how you can avoid being cheated."

Stephanie Rauterkus essentially is providing "news you can use" for the general public, and UAB praises her efforts in a press release. I did much the same thing and got fired.

Isn't that interesting?

Here's something we should ponder: Many Americans, including Dr. Laura Schlessinger, do not understand the protections offered by the First Amendment. Many Americans think it means you have the right to say almost anything you please and not suffer consequences for it. Dr. Schlessinger, who recently had sponsors bail out after she used racially offensive language on her radio show, found out that's not what it means.

The First Amendment indeed allows Americans to say all kinds of things that some citizens might find offensive. But it does not preclude those who are offended from responding in a lawful fashion--boycotting your product, dropping sponsorship of your radio show, criticizing you in the press, etc. And if you work for a private employer, one who doesn't like what you've said, you can lose your job over it.

In the employment arena, the First Amendment only protects those who work for government employers--as Stephanie Rauterkus does, as I did. Even then, not all speech is protected. In general, it has to be speech about matters of public concern. Someone who works for the IRS and writes on his blog that he thinks his supervisor is fat, ugly, and stupid might want to update that resume. A court is likely to find that the personal appearance and attributes of an IRS supervisor are not matters of public concern.

Stephanie Rauterkus clearly is writing about matters of public concern, and so was I. And that raises this question: Why does she still work at UAB, while I'm unemployed?

It's pretty easy to figure out, actually. UAB's own grievance committee found that I should not have been terminated. I sat through the entire four-hour hearing, and no evidence was presented that I even should have been disciplined. UAB's own IT expert admitted I never wrote the first word of my blog on my work computer.

The university's claims that I was "researching" my blog at work fall flat, too. Under the UAB Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which governs use of university computers, networks, and associated equipment, any violations of policy are to be handled with progressive discipline. That means a supervisor is to notify an employee of a violation and respond with discipline that progresses in nature--oral warning for first offense, written warning for second offense, and termination if necessary.

UAB never notified me of a violation or instituted progressive discipline--so my supervisors' own actions indicate even they did not believe I was doing anything wrong. And yet, I'm out of a job.

From a legal standpoint, my situation appears to involve a number of factors--age and gender discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and more. But evidence strongly indicates that the biggest difference between Stephanie Rauterkus and me is in the content of our blogs.

The number of anonymous threats I've received on this blog, including one threatening my job about a month before I was fired, indicates political figures were unhappy with my truthful reporting about the state of our justice system in Alabama. Words straight from the mouth of one UAB official--Director of Employee Relations Anita Bonasera--indicate I was targeted because of my reporting on the Siegelman case.

I tape recorded the conversation, and you can listen to the three-minute segment here. For about the first 1:40, Bonasera and I discuss the nature of my job duties. At about 1:50, she admits my job issues are related to my blog. And at roughly the 2:08 mark, she admits I was targeted because of the Siegelman content on my blog:

Audio: UAB and the Cost of Blogging About the Siegelman Case

UAB officials admitted in my grievance hearing that they monitored my computer usage for roughly a month, even though they had not notified me of any alleged violations of the AUP--as required by university policy. And what did UAB learn from its investigation of my computer? That I had not written the first word on my blog while at work.

I wonder if the university will be conducting a similar investigation of Stephanie Rauterkus' computer usage. I wonder if it has, or will, conduct such investigations for the probably hundreds of UAB employees who write blogs or have Facebook pages--some of whom almost certainly are producing them while on the clock.

Somehow I doubt it. That's because overwhelming evidence indicates UAB does not mind if its employees blog--even when they are at work. They just don't want them to write a blog that tells the truth about the sorry state of our justice system--and causes one or more politicos to get their panties bunched.

Stephanie Rauterkus might feel secure in her blogging at the moment. But imagine this scenario: While writing her blog on personal finance, Dr. Rauterkus discovers that someone at a local bank is stealing from her family's account. She writes about the incident and provides tips to help her readers avoid being scammed. Imagine that the bank has higher ups who sit on UAB boards or give to the university--perhaps with the money they stole from Dr. Rauterkus and her family.

What would happen then? History tells us that UAB would launch an "investigation" of Dr. Rauterkus' blogging habits. And instead of producing a press release about her blog, they probably would hand her a pink slip.

At UAB, the First Amendment provides protection only as long as you don't step on some important toes.