The Siegelman Case: Ten Years of Injustice--and Counting

Don Siegelman

In April 2001, former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman hired a lawyer after articles in statewide newspapers indicated a federal grand jury was focusing on his administration.

The hiring of that lawyer, the late David Cromwell Johnson of Birmingham, could be seen as the beginning of the Siegelman court battle. Today, 10 years later, the case ranks as perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history. Justice still seems a long way off and, perhaps most alarming, a veteran federal justice official seems intent on making sure the public never discovers what really drove the Siegelman case.

Where is the Siegelman matter headed after a decade of legal wrangling? I met the former governor for breakfast on a recent rainy morning to find out. I've written probably several hundred posts about the Siegelman case, and we had talked via phone a couple of times, but this was the first time we had met. I've followed the case closely since the former governor's conviction in 2006, but I did not realize it had been 10 years since the battle really began--roughly three months after George W. Bush had entered the White House, with the help of GOP electoral guru Karl Rove.

Siegelman looks remarkably fit for a 65-year-old man who has been through 10 years of legal hell. He remains convinced that Rove is behind his prosecution, and he hopes to someday prove it. But for now, he and his lawyers are playing a waiting game.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Siegelman judgment last June and ordered the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case in light of new law regarding honest-services fraud. A three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments in January, and Siegelman expects a ruling in the next two to three weeks. Also pending is a motion for the recusal of trial judge Mark Fuller, a Bush appointee who handled the case in a stunningly corrupt, and pro-prosecution, fashion.

"My expectation is that we will win," Siegelman says. "It's just a question of when."

Siegelman's No. 1 concern at the moment seems to be the U.S. Justice Department's apparent determination, even under a Democratic president, to obscure the truth about his prosecution. Birmingham lawyer John Aaron filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in February 2006, seeking documents related to the recusal of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, site of the Siegelman prosecution. With the DOJ stonewalling on the FOIA request, Aaron filed a lawsuit in May 2009, and that case is pending. Discovery has revealed the existence of more than 1,000 documents related to Canary's recusal, and they have not been turned over. (See a summary of the FOIA case below.)

Who is behind the DOJ's efforts to stonewall on the Siegelman case? The former governor points a finger at David Margolis, an associate deputy attorney general and the most senior career employee in the department. "When you ask if the Siegelman case was handled fairly, Margolis has to say yes because he was the one who approved many of the decisions to pursue the case," Siegelman says. "As long as he's addressing questions about my case, I'll never get a fair shake because he was involved from the outset.

"There is an obvious conflict of interest for him to be ruling about decisions he was involved in. He needs to step down from any involvement with my case."

Ten years after the battle was joined, Don Siegelman clearly is not content to see a wrongful conviction overturned. He wants to know what caused a flawed prosecution to be launched in the first place.


Siegelman FOIA Request

Will Offshore Tax-Evasion Case Ensnare Wealthy Americans?

Republicans have tried to make deficit reduction a major political issue, but they rarely discuss one reason the United States struggles to balance its books: Wealthy Americans get away with hiding huge amounts of taxable income in offshore accounts.

That might be about to change. A client of the British banking giant HSBC has pleaded guilty to conspiring to conceal accounts in India. Vaibhav Dahake, a native of India who now lives in Somerset, New Jersey, admitted to his role in a scheme that could wind up making some deep-pocketed Americans extremely uncomfortable.

We would not be surprised if this story winds up having Alabama connections. Bradley Arant, which claims to be our state's largest law firm, has represented HSBC affiliates.

With many Americans focusing on events in Wisconsin and a possible government shutdown, the feds'  investigation of offshore accounts has floated under many radars. But it could become a story with widespread impact. It first surfaced in late January when Dahake was indicted on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States by hiding bank accounts in India and the British Virgin Islands.

How far might the story go? Reports The New York Times:

The defendant, Vaibhav Dahake, admitted in United States District Court in New Jersey to conspiring to conceal accounts in India.

Mr. Dahake is an Indian native who became an American citizen in 2006 and now lives in Somerset, N.J.

The plea comes days after federal prosecutors said that an HSBC unit in India potentially helped thousands of Americans to dodge taxes. Prosecutors are expanding the government’s inquiry of offshore tax evaders and their banks.

“HSBC does not condone tax evasion and is cooperating with law enforcement in this matter,” an HSBC spokeswoman, Juanita Gutierrez, said.

Could HSBC wind up revealing the names of wealthy Americans who have defrauded their own country? The answer appears to be yes:

Government lawyers cited Mr. Dahake in their request last week for permission to get information from HSBC about American residents who may be using HSBC India accounts to evade federal taxes.

“Dahake is not an isolated incident,” the government said in a court filing last week, which detailed solicitations by several HSBC bankers to clients with the promise of secrecy.

The government is requesting authority to serve a “John Doe” summons on the bank to obtain the names of an unknown number of individuals who may have engaged in tax fraud.

What about possible Alabama connections in this story? It's too early to say what might develop in Birmingham and other Alabama cities. But we know that Bradley Arant lawyer George R. Parker represented several HSBC entities in a 2008 case styled George D. McCarley v. KPMG International, et al. And we know that Bradley Arant has strong ties to our state's corporate elites and the Alabama Republican Party, especially the administration of former Governor Bob Riley.

Is it possible that some wealthy Alabama conservatives, who are quick to wave the flag and claim patriotic fervor, have been cheating their own government? What about wealthy Americans in other states? Could this be a sign that the Obama Justice Department finally is waking from its slumber and actually holding some bad actors accountable?

We might discover some interesting answers to those questions in the weeks and months ahead.

Gun Violence Ranges From Comic to Tragic

Shooting in The Netherlands

Two people were injured over the weekend when a gun accidentally discharged at a gun show in Evansville, Indiana. Gee, we didn't see that one coming.

We learned about this story, and other gun-related mayhem, at a new blog called mikeb302000. The blog plans to cover the wide array of insanity that ensues when we fail to control guns--and the individuals who possess them.

It was a busy weekend for gun violence, "highlighted" by a shooting that left five dead and 17 wounded at a shopping mall in The Netherlands. A Reuters story on the Netherlands rampage included a passage that should be sobering to all Americans:

A gunman's deadly rampage through a shopping mall was met on Sunday with disbelief by residents of a quiet Dutch town who once thought such carnage couldn't happen in their country.

Dressed in camouflage trousers and a bomber jacket, Tristan van der Vlis opened fire in a parking lot on Saturday and walked calmly into Ridderhof mall, where he killed five people, most of them elderly. He wounded 17 others, one of whom died later.

The 24-year-old gun club member then shot and killed himself.

"This is something you usually see in America, not in the Netherlands," said local resident Martin van der Ploeg as he fixed his motorbike near the mall in Alphen aan den Rijn, 46 km (29 miles) south of Amsterdam

Thankfully, there was more comedy than carnage at the Indiana gun show:

Police say a man who'd been drinking accidentally fired his .45 caliber handgun at a gun and knife show inside the Evansville National Guard Armory, slightly injuring a 72-year-old man and 16-year-old boy.

It happened Saturday at the Tri-State Gun and Knife Show.

The Evansville Courier and Press says 30-year-old Joshua Wilkinson of Boonville is charged with criminal recklessness.

Police say he removed a round from the gun and applied a flex tie before entering. Show organizer Tom Allman says despite a sign banning loaded weapons, Wilkinson cut off the band and inserted a clip.

Police say Wilkinson had a 0.05 percent blood alcohol level. Indiana sets the level for drunkenness at 0.08 percent.

Looks like the Mike B blog won't be running out of material soon. For April 11, 2011, his blog had five posts about gun-related violence around the globe. It's hard to keep up with it all. Here is a video about the accidental shooting in Evansville, Indiana:

Debt Collectors Are Going After Kids' Lunch Money

We have reported on a number of low-down debt collectors, including some that we have encountered personally. But we might have a new leading candidate for our Lowest of the Low Award in the debt-collection industry.

Commercial Acceptance Co. of Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania, has made a proposal to collect delinquent lunch-money accounts for the Hazelton Area School District. The plan is so slimy that even an industry blog is squirming about it.

All is not dark, however, on the debt-collection front. Another debt-collection firm made a proposal that might actually assist low-income families in the Hazelton district. And on the national scene, a number of recent news items indicate the public might be getting fed up with rapacious debt collectors.

What is going on with one Pennsylvania school board and delinquent lunch-money accounts? Here is how the Hazelton Standard Speaker reported it:

The board entertained a proposal last month from Commercial Acceptance Co. of Shiremanstown, which would pursue collections from the top 35 accounts with the highest unpaid amounts. District food service director Barbara Farley said lunch money delinquencies total more than $3,000. The collection agency would keep 30 percent of any amount collected and return 70 percent to the district food service department.

The board postponed action on the proposal in favor of scheduling a question-and-answer session with a representative of the company.

Even the folks at industry blog insideARM.com seemed almost appalled by the proposal. ARM, by the way, stands for accounts receivable management--a polite term for "we're coming after your money, whether we can prove you owe it or not." The lunch-money proposal in Pennsylvania called for an "introspective moment," says insideARM. Gee, even these clod heads can see a public-relations train wreck in the making:

The Hazelton, Pa.-area school district currently has about $3,000 in unpaid lunch fees. To recoup this money, the Hazelton school board is testing the waters with several collection agencies.

This is one of those situations where reality – there are few school districts that can afford not to pursue three grand – brushes up uncomfortably against perceived reality: collection agencies are going after kids for their lunch money. Regardless of how much we may want to shift the conversation, this one is ripe for shifting back by those who only have negative things to say about the accounts receivable management industry.

What does it take to turn the debt-collection industry's stomach? A plan to go after kids' lunch money apparently will do it. Writes insideARM:

Most of the agencies chomping at the bit for this account are suggesting a 70/30 profit split, with the school district taking the bulk of the collected monies home. The current debt of $3,000 seems like a small amount – and any agency’s cut will only run somewhere in the $900 range. However, it’s likely that this is a slow-and-steady sort of arrangement, where a firm that successfully wins this collections bid would have a guaranteed account.

Adding a different spin to this program is what amounts to a bit of case management required by any collection agency selected for this proposal. Hazelton’s school board is hoping that the collection agency will be able to identify those families who should be receiving free or reduced-price lunches, and funneling those accounts to the appropriate authority.

It’s a tightrope walk, though; collection agencies and kids can be a PR nightmare if things aren’t handled entirely appropriately. However this could also be another example of the ARM industry working with communities to strengthen them.

In fact, it appears at least one agency has developed a conscience in all of this. Reports the Hazelton newspaper:

Efforts to collect on delinquent lunch money accounts may lead Hazleton Area School District officials to a kinder, gentler way to get free and reduced-price meals to the students who qualify.

School board discussions last month on hiring a collection agency to recoup the unpaid lunch money prompted a proposal from an alternate agency that could bypass the parental application process and get free or low-cost meals to eligible students on administrative approval. . . .

In the meantime, Farley said at this month's board committee meeting, the district received a proposal from another collection agency that would evaluate the top 35 delinquent accounts and determine whether the household qualifies for free or reduced-price meals. If the household qualifies, Farley said the agency would refer the account to district administrators, who can "sign off" on the parental application process and authorize free or low-cost lunch and breakfast for the eligible student.

Looks like the Pennsylvania story could have a happy ending. A few other recent debt-collection stories have had happy endings--at least for consumers:

* Appellate Court Upholds Large Jury Verdict in Debt-Collection Case--A federal appeals court has upheld a $311,000 jury verdict in favor of a Montana man who sued a North Dakota-based firm over its debt-collections practices. We reported on the Timothy McCollough case back in August 2009, and we are pleased to report that the jury award has held up.

* Debt-Collector Faces Charges Over "Robo-Signed" Affidavits--Lori Swanson, attorney general of Minnesota, already was a champion for a consumers. Now she is accusing a large debt-buying firm of using "false and deceptive robo-signed affidavits" to help collect debts. San Diego-based Encore Capital Group, Inc. is the debt buyer in the cross hairs.

* Courthouse Debt Collector Gets Nailed--A company that collects debts for district attorney's offices must pay a $741,000 judgment for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). What charming techniques has District Attorney Technical Services been using? Reports Courthouse News Service:

District Attorney Technical Services contracted with prosecutors that established "bad check restitution and prosecution programs" to collect debts on behalf of merchants that received bad checks.

In 2005, lead plaintiff Kristy Schwarm filed a class action against the company and its founder, Henry Craighead, for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The defendants' demand letters to debtors claimed that the district attorney was investigating a criminal complaint, and the consumer might be arrested if he did not pay various fees, according to Schwarm's complaint.

Ah yes, threatening an alleged debtor with arrest is a classic chestnut from the debt-collection game. Another is threatening to sell your "house on the courthouse steps," a technique we experienced in our dealings with NCO and Ingram and Associates.

Even if the Hazelton, Pennsylvania, case has a happy ending, it looks like we will have no shortage of contestants for our Lowest of the Low Award.


[Image: portfolio.com]

Two Corrupt Judges Get Outed in the Deep South

Jack Camp

What is the most under-reported crime in the United States? My guess would be judicial corruption. The mainstream media tends to ignore the issue, except when the FBI launches an investigation. And FBI scrutiny of a corrupt judge is a rarity.

So imagine our shock to learn of two judges--one state and one federal--getting nailed recently in Georgia. Both cases present signs that justice might not truly have been achieved. But could these cases at least be baby steps toward cleaning up bad actors on the bench? Could they be enough to cause some judges to think twice before violating their oath to uphold the law? We can only hope.

Former U.S. District Judge Jack Camp has surrendered his law license, and the Georgia Supreme Court disbarred former state circuit judge Brooks E. Blitch III. How did Camp and Blitch step in deep doo-doo? Here is how the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explains it:

Camp pleaded guilty in November to aiding and abetting a felon's possession of cocaine when he bought drugs for a stripper. He also pleaded guilty to possession of illegal drugs and illegally giving the stripper his government-issued laptop.

Camp stepped down from the bench and agreed to cooperate with authorities looking into cases he handled while he was being investigated.

In 2009, Blitch pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge and was sentenced to three years on probation and a fine of $100,000. He resigned after Georgia's Judicial Qualifications Commission brought charges against him.

They sound like a couple of swell guys, don't they? Based on my experience, I'd say they have plenty of bad company on the bench, spread around the country.

The Camp story has received national attention--largely because of the involvement of a stripper--and we've reported on it several times here at Legal Schnauzer. Here is a link to one of our stories about Camp:


Will Federal Judge Get Off Easy for Snorting Coke With a Stripper?

Trust me, you can't go wrong with a headline that includes the words "federal judge," "snorting coke," and "stripper." If that doesn't draw readers, nothing will. But that headline doesn't even capture the ugliest part of the Camp case.

This one does:

Did Drug Abuse and Racism Affect a Federal Judge's Rulings

Ample evidence suggests that Camp displayed favoritism on the bench, often based on racial animus. The U.S. Department of Justice reportedly is investigating Camp's rulings for signs that parties were mistreated.  No word on the findings, so far.

What about the question raised above: Did Camp get off easy? You probably will not be surprised to learn the answer is yes. He will receive all of 30 days in prison. How could that be? Well, it helps that federal prosecutors dropped weapons charges. Without that, Camp would have been exposed to a more severe sentence.

Brooks Blitch

As for Blitch, he sounds exactly like some of the arrogant pricks I've encountered wearing robes. Check out this description of his behavior, from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The ethics charges facing Judge Brooks E. Blitch III include collecting money from criminal defendants and using that money to make illegal payments to county employees, and ordering the early release of six imprisoned felons. . . .

Blitch is also accused of "improper decorum" and "inappropriate judicial temperament" during legal proceedings, and giving "preferential treatment" to the son of Life of the South Corp. founder Norman George Houston III, a personal friend of Blitch.

During a 2005 pretrial hearing in which Houston's son, "Bo" Houston, was facing felony charges including burglary, Blitch allegedly stated: "You know 'Bo' is my best friend's son. I'll tell you right now, I am not sending him to prison."

An investigation launched by the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) included employees in the county where Blitch served. In fact, this sounds very much like the kind of sleaze I suspect is present in Shelby County, Alabama, where I live. From the Fulton County Daily Report:

The JQC’s action follows an investigation that began earlier this year when revelations surfaced at a Clinch County Commission meeting about a secret bank account. Commissioners were told that Blitch had issued a series of orders authorizing Clinch County court clerk Daniel V. Leccese Sr. to levy a $10 court fee on defendants in criminal cases and deposit the money in a secret bank account.

At Blitch’s direction, Leccese had paid more than $60,000 in supplemental wages to himself, his deputy clerk and a deputy sheriff, county commission vice chairman Barry Hart told the Daily Report in July. Those fees were paid for administering a county program that had been outsourced to a private business in 2001, Hart said.

Hart told the Daily Report in July that Blitch has routinely withheld funds from traffic fines, some of which should have flowed into county coffers, and doled those funds out to courthouse offices.

The feds wound up nailing several public employees in the case. From an FBI press release:

In prosecutions connected with this matter one sheriff, a court clerk, and a Clinch CountyState/Juvenile Court Judge, in addition to other individuals, have pled guilty to criminal charges, as well.

We do have one concern about the Blitch case. The prosecution was initiated by a Bush-appointed U.S. attorney, and Blitch is a member of a prominent Democratic family. That raises the specter of a prosecution that was politically motivated--and that is unlawful.

As we have written previously, judicial corruption is not a partisan issue limited only to Republicans. I've witnessed sleazy Democrats on the bench myself.

The Justice Department should be investigating all Bush-era prosecutions that had political overtones, to make sure they were conducted properly. Based on what we know so far, it appears that citizens are better off without Jack Camp and Brooks Blitch on the bench.

[Photos: ticklethewire.com; lawlessamerica.com]

Obama Nominee Should Be Rejected for Key Justice Department Post

George Beck

The U.S. Senate should thoroughly grill and then reject the Obama administration's nominee for a controversial U.S. attorney position, according to a report out this morning from the Justice Integrity Project (JIP).

Andrew Kreig, executive director of JIP, writes that George Beck should be rejected as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama because of conflicts of interests related to the Don Siegelman case--and any possible spinoff public-corruption investigations. This morning's piece is the first of a three-part series Kreig has written about the Beck nomination. The remaining parts are due for release this afternoon and tomorrow at justice-integrity.org.

Beck is "tainted," Kreig writes, and then provides plenty of evidence to back up that assertion. If confirmed, Beck would replace George W. Bush appointee Leura Canary, who oversaw the Siegelman prosecution and inexplicably has been allowed to serve for more than two years of the Obama administration. But Kreig states that Beck should not be confirmed--and the Senate Judiciary Committee should call witnesses to bring out relevant facts about the Siegelman case, in which Beck played a prominent role.

Writes Kreig:

Despite an impressive career overall, Beck is a horrible choice because he was a compliant defense attorney in the notorious prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, the state’s leading Democrat. Beck’s role in that travesty further destroys public confidence in that long-troubled DOJ office. At the minimum if confirmed, Beck must recuse himself and all of the most prominent staff at DOJ's Montgomery offices from the Siegelman case and every spin-off public corruption probe.

In other words, a Beck appointment could be a legal and logistical nightmare, in an office that desperately needs to be cleansed. Writes Kreig:

Our Justice Integrity Project, among many others, has documented how the Bush Justice Department framed Siegelman via the current Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Leura Canary and her subordinates. The prosecutors did this in part by pressuring Beck’s client Nick Bailey, whose tormented and coerced testimony were enabled by a biased Republican trial judge, Mark E. Fuller. Fuller hated Siegelman, according to our research. We documented this in a 2009 investigatory story that the Huffington Post front-paged, entitled, "Siegelman Deserves New Trial Because of Judge's Grudge, Evidence Shows." Fuller himself had no response when we asked him for comment, which helps underscore why the Justice Department and Senate need to have inquiries above suspicion.

Key questions involve Fuller's curious ties to the military-industrial complex, issues that Beck might not be equipped to handle:

Even if Fuller continues to refuse to recuse himself because of his animosity to the defendant, the judge was compromised also by his secret contracts on the side bringing in $300 million from 2006 to 2009 for Doss Aviation, Inc., the judge’s privately held company. Doss primarily serves the Air Force. This Air Force tie-in leads to a host of necessary Senate confirmation questions for Beck, the Justice Department and others regarding Air Force involvement in the Siegelman prosecution and in the recent $35 billion Air Force acquisition of a next-generation of mid-air tankers. Powerful interests wanted these tankers to be built by a European-led consortium at a reassembly plant in Alabama instead of by a U.S. prime contractor.

Beck declined to be interviewed for Kreig's article. But Beck already has indicated he is not willing to examine Fuller's myriad conflicts in the Siegelman matter. Reports Kreig:

{Beck} revealed a number of troubling perspectives when he spoke to reporters on Alabama’s statewide television on June 29, 2007, during a half-hour interview about the Siegelman sentencing. Asked, for example, whether there was evidence of judicial bias by Fuller during the trial, Beck responded emphatically, “None whatsoever.” That was two months after a defense filing showing that the judge was being enriched with Air Force contracts through the company he controlled with up to 44% ownership. Beck showed also a remarkable level of ignorance about basic facts involving two of his biggest cases of the past two decades, that of Bailey (who he had represented since 2001) and former Alabama Gov. Guy Hunt, a Republican convicted of ethics charges in misappropriating some $200,000 and then pardoned.

Are the Obama administration and the Alabama legal establishment strongly behind Beck? Well, their words say one thing and their actions say another. Writes Kreig:

To be sure, Beck has strong defenders in Alabama. But state party leaders and the White House declined to respond to our requests for comment on specifics, aside from their press releases.

The Beck nomination, Kreig writes, seems to be the ugly end product of massive weakness within the Democratic Party, both in Alabama and nationwide:

Democratic cowardice and confusion in replacing even a prosecutor so disgraced as Canary is no reason to recruit Beck. His conflict is so serious that the Senate Judiciary Committee must grill him expertly at his confirmation hearing – in ways far beyond the committee's usual rubber-stamp process for Alabama personnel – about his role in the Siegelman-Scrushy case, referenced below for brevity as the Siegelman case since all of Scrushy's convictions and seven-year prison term were caused solely by what he's described as innocent donations to an education non-profit at Siegelman's request. The Siegelman prosecution remains a human rights scandal of the worldwide infamy. Even if Beck survives thorough hearings to win confirmation he and all his office’s most senior career holdovers must recuse themselves from the Siegelman case and its important spin-offs. That means Beck’s recusal not simply from formal filings, but also from related personnel decisions such as pay raises and promotions that would make his job as a supervisor almost impractical.

Birmingham lawyer G. Douglas Jones, a former U.S. attorney in the Clinton years, has been one of Beck's most vocal supporters. Maybe that's because Jones, like Beck, also played a role in the Siegelman case,  even though he had major conflicts of interest.

In in his upcoming installments, Kreig will report on Jones' support for George Beck. We will follow with our own examination of Doug Jones' actions in an Alabama system that seems to feature a bipartisan effort to protect elites while dispensing little that remotely resembles justice.

Doug Jones seems to have found a way to make himself a kingmaker in Alabama. We see ample evidence indicating that is not a good sign for progressive interests, either here or beyond our borders.

Will Lawyer Get Away With Making False Statements Under Oath in Divorce Case?

Experience has taught us that lawyers can lie in most any setting--in a courtroom, during a deposition, over lunch--and almost always get away with it. In fact, we personally have witnessed numerous examples of lawyers making statements that either are clearly lies or don't meet the initial smell test--only to see the legal establishment help them get away with it.

So we were not surprised to learn that an Alabama lawyer has admitted to making a false statement under oath--and he apparently will not be held accountable. For good measure, it involves a case that we have reported on here at Legal Schnauzer.

The lawyer in question is Kile Turner, a partner at the Birmingham firm of Norman Wood Kendrick and Turner (NWKT). Angela Turner Drees, also an attorney, filed a federal lawsuit against former Jefferson County Judge R.A. "Sonny" Ferguson over his handling of her divorce from Kile Turner.

During the divorce/child custody proceedings, Kile Turner stated under oath that Dr. Hajo Drees, Angela Turner Drees' current husband, had been convicted on two felony counts of domestic violence--one involving his ex wife and one involving his son. Those statements apparently played a key role in Turner receiving custody of the three children, triplets, that he had with Angela Turner Drees.

Kile Turner, in a proceeding before the Alabama State Bar, reportedly acknowledged that those statements were not true. But Angela Turner Drees has not been allowed to have contact with her children for more than two years. And we've seen no signs that Kile Turner will be sanctioned for making false statements before a court, statements that helped him benefit in the course of litigation.

This information comes to light through a press release that Hajo Drees issued on March 7. (See the full press release below.) Drees, a former international economic-development executive for the State of Alabama, was forced out of his job not long after allegations surfaced against him in the Turner divorce case. Drees has returned to his native Germany, partly to obtain work that was comparable to what he had in Alabama.

Drees said he issued the press release to set the record straight, clear his name and call attention to the legal profession's tendency to protect its members, rather than sanction them, for admitted misconduct. The press release includes contact information for NWKT, the Alabama State Bar, and the Defense Research Institute (DRI), along with Hajo Drees. All of the parties received copies of the press release before it was made public.

We reported on the Turner divorce in a pair of posts from June 2009:

Domestic-Relations Court: Another Alabama Cesspool

Domestic-Relations Post Strikes Some Serious Nerves

From reporting on the Turner divorce, and following its aftermath, its easy to understand why Hajo Drees' press release is dripping with thinly veiled sarcasm. Consider this:

Mr. Turner clarifies that even though his testimony that Dr. Hajo Drees was convicted of domestic violence was repeated multiple times and in multiple court filings in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, he meant to cause no harm. He did not lie--he made an honest mistake. He simply did not know the difference between a criminal conviction and a civil hearing.

Dr. Dress apparently finds it hard to believe that a partner in a major law firm does not know the difference between a criminal conviction and a civil hearing We share that disbelief. Here's more from the press release:

Birmingham law firm Norman, Wood, Kendrick and Turner acknowledges that Kile Turner admits and confesses that he made a mistake when he did not state the truth under oath. Mistakes are human and even lawyers make mistakes in court, especially when it concerns their private matters that have significant financial repercussions. Kile Turner now wishes to correct the record and let it reflect that Dr. Hajo Drees was never convicted of any felony crime, noting that even though making this false statement to the court benefited him at the time, it was made in error--a harmless mistake that was certainly not intended to mislead the court into ruling in his favor.

Drees, it seems, has learned a lesson that we, too, have learned the hard way: Lawyers make "mistakes" in court, and such "mistakes" are especially likely to occur when the case has "significant financial repercussions" for the lawyer. In other words, if you are about to hit a lawyer in his wallet, you'd better be on the lookout for a "mistake." In Turner's case, considerable funds involving child support were at stake--not to mention child custody.

Does Drees consider Turner's false statements to be a "harmless mistake"? Apparently not, given that Drees' wife has not seen her children in two-plus years--and Drees himself has seen his professional life upended.

Where does the Alabama State Bar stand in this matter? Hajo Drees seems to hold special contempt for an organization that is supposed to keep wayward lawyers in line. From the press release:

The Alabama State Bar Association certifies that Alabama licensed attorney Kile Turner did not lie under oath. (Case #, ASB 08-176 (A)) In fact, it ruled that Mr. Turner is absolved of all consequences from making the mistake of giving false factual statements to multiple courts under oath to win his case. The Alabama Bar further states that it has and will punish anyone who states that Kile Turner lied while he was under oath in an Alabama Court. The Alabama Bar acknowledges that Kile Turner made a mistake when he presented totally false and manufactured evidence but recognizes that he meant no harm to anyone, especially to Dr. Hajo Drees and his family by convicting him of a felony crime that entered the public record and illegally found him guilty of domestic violence for the past three and one half years--even though this mistake was pointed out to him over fifteen times.

According to Hajo Drees, the Alabama State Bar has shown that it is willing to go after anyone who would dare question Kile Turner's integrity--while showing little interest in the integrity of the judicial process in Alabama.

Are we surprised to see that the Alabama State Bar, so far, has taken no serious action against Kile Turner? Not at all. We've seen lawyers make statements, in official settings, that range from "blatantly false" to "outrageously fishy." And we've yet to see one held accountable. Want some examples of how lawyers can "bust a move" when trying to wriggle out of a jam? Try these:

* The Bill Swatek Shuffle--Pelham, Alabama-based William E. Swatek is Exhibit A here at Legal Schnauzer for all things involving the words "legal" and "sleaze." Swatek filed a bogus lawsuit on behalf of our criminally inclined neighbor Mike McGarity, launching our legal headaches. We've outlined Swatek's sleazy tactics in a seriees of posts. But here is one of our "favorites":

During the course of litigation, Swatek filed a Motion to Clarify, seeking to join three additional neighbors in the lawsuit against me. The motion claimed that the three additional neighbors had viewed photographs of property belonging to them and wanted to assert conversion claims against me. There was only one problem with Swatek's motion: It was filled with lies. One of the neighbors, Eric Hallmark, told me in a phone conversion that he was not familiar with the motion and had no intention of joining a lawsuit against me. At a deposition of his client, Swatek stated that prior to filing his Motion to Clarify, he had a meeting with the additional neighbors in his office. Swatek further stated that he was “positive” the motion was drafted with their permission. Swatek was not under oath in the deposition, but clearly was lying in an official proceeding regarding Hallmark's statements, which I have on tape. And the motion Swatek crafted amounts to fraud on the court, and since he used the U.S. mail to send it to me, it probably constitutes a federal crime. I reported it to the Alabama Bar State--and the matter was not even investigated.

* The Angie Ingram Boogie--Angie Ingram is the chief lawyer at Ingram and Associates, a Birmingham debt-collection firm that joined forces with NCO to repeatedly violate the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) in an effort to collect an alleged debt involving your humble blogger and an American Express card. Mrs. Schnauzer and I filed a federal lawsuit, which is ongoing, alleging FDCPA violations and other claims. In the course of the litigation, Ingram admitted that they had no documents from American Express that showed I even had an AMEX card, much less that I owed a debt on one. I tape recorded conversations with Ingram representatives, providing irrefutable proof of FDCPA violations, fraud, and other wrongs. But Ingram/NCO, with the help of Birmingham lawyers Wayne Morse and Laura Nettles, have pulled all sorts of shenanigans in an effort to beat a case that can't be beaten--at least under the actual law, with an ethical judge. Here is just one example:

Under the FDCPA, debt collectors are required to send written notice, letting an alleged debtor know about his rights under the law--including the right to receive details about the debt in question. Failure to send such a document--known as a "mini Miranda" notice in the debt-collection trade--is a violation of the FDCPA. In answers to interrogatories in our case, Angie Ingram stated under oath that her firm sent me a "mini Miranda" notice on July 9, 2007, two days before they talked via phone with my wife and three days before they talked with me.

There's a slight problem with Ingram's sworn statement: It almost certainly is not true. I tape recorded my conversations with the two Ingram representatives on July 12, 2007, and neither of them mentioned having sent the "mini Miranda" notice. In fact, they never mentioned the written-notification requirement at all. That's why I sound baffled at times during the recordings; I was being told I owed a sizable debt, but I had received nothing to that effect in writing. The first time I had heard about the alleged problem was in these phone calls. Under the law, that's not how it's supposed to work. (By the way, we soon will be presenting these recordings here at Legal Schnauzer, so readers can get an up-close sense of the unlawful stunts some debt collectors will pull.)

We did not tape record my wife's conversation with an Ingram representative on July 11, mainly because we weren't expecting the call and we had received nothing in the mail indicating we had an issue over an AMEX card. But Mrs Schnauzer later testified in a deposition about her conversation with Ingram representative Tracy Mize. Here is what Mrs. S. said, under oath, when asked to describe the call:

Well, let's see. I was trying to think. She did say that it was a courtesy call, that it had been recently forwarded from American Express to their office. And she admitted, she said, 'We haven't sent a letter out yet.' We're going to--we're going to do that, is what she said, you know, from them, something in writing.

Both my wife and I testified that we never received the "mini Miranda" notice. But the law only requires that the notice be sent, not that it be received. At the deposition, Angie Ingram produced a copy of a letter, dated July 9, 2007, that she said had been sent to us on that date. Was she telling the truth?

Well, clearly anyone at her firm could have produced the letter after the fact and dated it to come before the phone calls to us. A review of computer files at the Ingram law firm would reveal when the letter actually was written, but we have been consistently stonewalled on discovery so far.

What about other evidence? In conversations with me on July 12, two different Ingram representatives never mentioned that a "mini Miranda" notice had been prepared or sent. In a conversation on July 11, according to uncontroverted sworn testimony from my wife, Ingram representative Tracy Mize said such a notice had not been sent.

The "preponderance of evidence," to borrow a popular phrase in the law, indicates that Angie Ingram's story does not add up. We fully intend to file a bar complaint against Ms. Ingram, and perhaps someone will be able to check her computer files to determine if she made an "honest mistake" that was "harmless"--much like the mistake Kile Turner made, which helped to smear Hajo Drees and cost Angela Drees custody of her children.

In addition to the Bill Swatek Shuffle and the Angie Ingram Boogie, we now have the Kile Turner Tap Dance.

We will be writing much more about the Turner/Drees case, about some lawyers' tendency to make "mistakes" under oath, and about the Alabama State Bar's utter failure to hold its members accountable for gross misconduct.

(To be continued)

Below is the full press release regarding Kile Turner. We should note that it has twice been removed from the Scribd document-hosting site--and I have received no notification from Scribd that it removed the release. I've received no notice that the press release violates the Scribd terms of service. But it has disappeared twice. It appears someone has broken into Scribd for the purposes of keeping this document from public view. For now, the document is not on Scribd, but it is on Legal Schnauzer, in its entirety:

Press Release March 7. 2011


For immediate release:



Dr. Hajo Drees is not convicted and guilty of domestic violence. Alabama lawyer Kile T. Turner, a partner at N.W.K.T Norman, Wood, Kendrick and Turner of Birmingham, Alabama did not lie under oath to a Jefferson County, Alabama Circuit Court in 2007 when he testified and stated in public documents that Dr. Hajo Drees was convicted of two felony crimes, one against his former wife and one against his son. Both statements by Mr. Turner are false and the record is hereby being set straight. (DR 2005-0354.01 RAF – now retired)

Mr. Turner clarifies that even though his testimony that Dr. Hajo Drees was convicted of domestic violence was repeated multiple times and in multiple court filings in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, he meant to cause no harm. He did not lie – he made an honest mistake. He simply did not know the difference between a criminal conviction and a civil hearing.

Birmingham law firm Norman, Wood, Kendrick and Turner acknowledges that Kile Turner admits and confesses that he made a mistake when he did not state the truth under oath. Mistakes are human and even lawyers make mistakes in court, especially when it concerns their private matters that have significant financial repercussions. Kile Turner now wishes to correct the record and let it reflect that Dr. Hajo Drees was never convicted of any felony crime, noting that even though making this false statement to the court benefited him at the time, it was made in error – a harmless mistake that was certainly not intended to mislead the court into ruling in his favor.

The Alabama State Bar Association certifies that Alabama licensed attorney Kile Turner did not lie under oath. (Case #, ASB 08-176 (A)) In fact, it ruled that Mr. Turner is absolved of all consequences from making the mistake of giving false factual statements to multiple courts under oath to win his case. The Alabama Bar further states that it has and will punish anyone who states that Kile Turner lied while he was under oath in an Alabama Court. The Alabama Bar acknowledges that Kile Turner made a mistake when he presented totally false and manufactured evidence but recognizes that he meant no harm to anyone, especially to Dr. Hajo Drees and his family by convicting him of a felony crime that entered the public record and illegally found him guilty of domestic violence for the past three and one half years – even though this mistake was pointed out to him over fifteen times.

As a partner at N.W.K.T, Mr. Turner is pleased to have his record corrected. Certainly after three years of being confronted with his innocent mistake and his false statements of fact under oath, he is pleased to be absolved from any wrongdoing in this matter. Mr. Turner is looking forward to finally putting this matter of lying under oath to a Circuit Judge to win his case behind him and concentrate on his duties at work as an honorable lawyer with high morals, ethics and standards of integrity.

Mr. Turner clearly embodies the undeniable and convincing drive that defense trial lawyers must exhibit in order to win cases for their clients – and winning by all means necessary.

As an active member and Steering Committee leader of the Defense Research Institute, (DRI), Mr. Turner is certainly concerned about ethical behavior in his profession. The DRI has been made aware of this matter and supports Mr. Turner completely as they do all their members when they make honest mistakes and do not tell the truth to judges.

For more information please contact:

NWKT
Financial Center, Suite 1600
505 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 328-6643
Tom Kendrick: tkendrick@nwkt.com


Alabama State Bar
415 Dexter Ave.
Montgomery, AL 36104
(334) 269-1515
Tony McLain: tony.mclain@alabar.org


DRI
55 W. Monroe, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 795-1101
Ms. Massaron Ross: mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com


Dr. Hajo Drees, MBA
+49(0)1706462156
Mr. Drees: hajodrees@yahoo.com

Conservative Bomb Thrower Has a Bomb Explode in His Lap

John Archibald

One of the South's most nauseating right-wing media puppets recently had someone return fire. The puppet howled in pain when the buckshot found its target--right in his white, doughy flanks. We're still struggling to wipe the smile from our face.

John Archibald, a columnist for The Birmingham News, consistently has trumpeted the Karl Rove agenda in Alabama over the past 10 years or so. Anything GOP Governor Bob Riley did was pure and honorable. Anyone pursued by Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary was guilty. Official "corruption"--if it involved a Democrat, person of color, or individual who refused to testify falsely against Don Siegelman--was public enemy No. 1.

Archibald specializes in clucking at the misfortune of others--whether they have committed wrongdoing or not. So imagine our delight in learning Archibald has some untidiness in his own closet. When confronted about his personal mess, Archibald first lied about it, claimed ignorance, and then essentially blamed his wife. What a guy!

This all came to light thanks to a new blog called The Birmingham Skews, which apparently is dedicated to uncovering the foibles of the folks who produce Alabama's largest newspaper. Our hats are off to the producers of The Birmingham Skews, and our only regret is that we weren't involved in the effort to unmask John Archibald as a massive hypocrite.

How did Archibald step in doo-doo? It started with the usual clucking sounds and one of his favorite topics--the financial difficulties of the Jefferson County Commission. In a column dated March 18, 2011, Archibald noted with barely restrained glee that the commission might be moving closer to bankruptcy, and he took it as an opportunity to make fun of public figures (especially black ones) who have experienced bankruptcies. Among his targets were the late actor Gary Coleman, boxer Mike Tyson, actor Sherman Hemsley, and musician M.C. Hammer. The over-the-mountain, white suburbanites who make up Archibald's target audience must have been rolling on the floor in laughter. Archibald threw in a few white folks in an apparent effort to conceal the racism that tends to permeate his newspaper's pages.

In the comments to the Archibald column, an alert reader going by the name "The Truth," raised an intriguing issue--public records show that Archibald himself has gone through bankruptcy. That apparently caused some serious shuffling in chairs at News headquarters.

Is there anything inherently bad about having experienced a bankruptcy? Of course not. It's a common legal remedy to problems that occur in our capitalistic system. But when one skewers others over their financial troubles, only to have had such troubles of his own, it raises the big "h word"--hypocrisy.

The Truth fired his first shot at 7:54 a.m. on March 18, with this comment:

Pot, say hello to kettle!!! It is my memory that John Archibald filed for bankruptcy sometime in his past!

About five hours later, Archibald resorted to his natural instincts--he lied, posting this comment:

Wrong John Archibald, unTruth. Check yourself.

He walked right into The Truth's trap. The Truth, it turns out, was armed with public documents, the thing corrupt individuals and their apologists hate most:

John Boy, check case number 03-09402-TOM13 in the US Bankruptcy Court Northern District of Alabama. I think you will find the bankruptcy files for Alecia S. and John A. Archibald.

Archibald apparently realized he couldn't squirm out of this one, and it took him about two hours to come up with this response:

Dang, it appears my family did file for reorganization in 2003. I apologize. I should pay more attention to what goes on in my household.

Notice how Archibald tries to avoid responsibility. It's his "family" that had to file for "reorganization". (Others have bankruptcies; John has a reorganization.) And by pointing to his "family" and claiming personal ignorance, Archibald seems to be blaming his wife.

I guess you get that kind of disingenuous response when a right-wing media blowhard is caught in the perfect sting. The Birmingham Skews, which had entered the blogosphere on March 3, was ready with a post titled "The Flim Flam Man: John Archibald" on March 19.

What could Archibald do? Not much, other than to respond with a pathetic column last Friday titled "They Want John Archibald Fired." Get a load of his explanation:

I've been intentionally detached from my family's finances for a long time. I left that chore to others and am guilty, frankly, of not wanting to know.

There's no excuse for that.

Then two weeks ago, with the county in financial crisis, I wrote a light-hearted column on celebrities (nine white and five black, for those counting) who lived through bankruptcies. An internet commenter demanded to know why I had not listed my own bankruptcy. I fired a denial, believing he had the wrong guy. I checked the record moments later and, well, I was the one who was confused.

I went from indignant to dismayed in a flash. I apologized at once, but of course it was too late. You can't "unsend" something like that. All I can do is apologize again, and tell my story.

My family and I did go through a catastrophic financial collapse. We lost a house. We declared Chapter 13 in 2003. We have since -- I checked the record -- repaid that debt. I'm looking for a financial counselor.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want sympathy. I get what my inattention deserves.

I'm sorry I never paid more attention to money, or cared much about it. I'm sorry I looked the other way and sorry I gave the wrong answer. I'm sorry, most of all, if I've given you reason to lose confidence in me, or this paper.

Memo to Archibald: Very few people have confidence in you or your paper anyway. But how do you plead ignorance of your own bankruptcy, going so far as to deny it happened? The Birmingham Skews reports that Archibald himself signed bankruptcy-related papers in at least three places. Seems the guy who enjoys holding others' feet to the fire sort of loses it when the torch is aimed at his own tootsies.

A number of media folks have weighed in on the Archibald story. The Birmingham Times, which bills itself as "The Southeast's Largest Black Weekly," was quick to point out Archibald's two-faced approach to the news. Good for them.

Kyle Whitmire, who has been a contributor for The New York Times and several local publications, stood up for Archibald. Whitmire apparently went to the "Protect Any Member of the Tribe" school of journalism:

Someone obviously went through a fair amount of trouble to dig up dirt on John Archibald. There are a few groups out there that are practiced at this sort of thing. John’s subsequent column here mentions one of them, perhaps the most notorious. It was John’s subtle way of saying he wouldn’t be bullied or cowed. . . .

The problem remains, though, that there are firms that exist to do this sort of thing. They exploit the secret sins of imperfect people. They are the Donald Segretti’s and G. Gordon Liddy’s of the world who read the Art of War and believe the ends justify the means. Often times their juvenile pranks go further than planned and the pranksters end up in prison, but more often something worse happens. They cause a lot of good people who would otherwise volunteer to serve their communities, their state or country to shirk away, for fear of embarrassing themselves or hurting their families. They’re a big part of what’s wrong with politics and public service.

Gee, would it be possible for Whitmire to be a more overwrought? I don't think so. He says someone "went to a fair amount of trouble" to "dig up dirt" on Archibald and exploit "secret sins." Actually, it isn't a fair amount of trouble to look up bankruptcy records; I've done it several times, and it's a breeze. All you have to do is look up a public record, the kind of thing real journalists are supposed to do on a regular basis. John Archibald's bankruptcy file is not "dirt" and it's not "secret." It only became an issue because of Archibald's colossal phoniness.

Whitmire compares a blogger/Internet commenter to Richard Nixon's henchmen? Good grief. And since when is it a "juvenile prank" to bring public records to light? Again, that's what journalists do.

Archibald and Whitmire seem to be blaming The Truth's revelations on Matrix LLC, a Montgomery-based public-relations/lobbying firm, and they are particularly alarmed that the inside scoop on Archibald is coming from anonymous sources.

My response: So what? Obviously, I believe in transparency because I write every word of this blog under my own name. But I've also experienced the downside of transparency; as regular readers know, I was cheated out of my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) because of my coverage on the Don Siegelman case and other matters. That's not a guess on my part; I've got audiotaped evidence that proves it:

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

So I can understand why the author of The Birmingham Skews wishes to remain anonymous. Archibald and company probably want his name so they can go after his job--the way someone went after mine.

Archibald and his buddy, Whitmire, seem to be engaging in an effort to "flip" the story--a common tactic when conservatives get caught with their pants down. literally or figuratively. Notice how Archibald/Whitmire try to twist the story so it is not about the revelation of a public record--and Archibald's effort to cover it up. Instead, they want the story to be about the writer's anonymity--as if there is something wrong with that.

If The Birmingham Skews were printing false information about Archibald, there would be something wrong with that. But that's not what the blog is doing. It's printing the unvarnished truth--on a topic that Archibald raised himself.

No wonder Archibald wants to deflect attention from the real story. The Birmingham Skews has revealed him to be a windbag who enjoys skewering other people, only to lie and cover up when the white, hot light shines on him.

How low a person does that make John Archibald? It's hard to get much lower.

Update: My cross post of this item has made the Rec list at Daily Kos. Quite a few of the commenters are having a field day with our friends Mr. Archibald and Mr. Whitmire. I've taken a few shots in my time from the Daily Kos crowd, so I'm glad to see Archibald and Whitmire join me in the firing ring. You can check out the Daily Kos comments here.


[Photo: al.com]

FBI Harassment Preceded Alabama Official's Suicide

Milton McGregor

Two FBI agents harassed an Alabama deputy attorney general before he committed suicide last November--all because the agents mistakenly thought the deputy AG was trying to help gambling magnate Milton McGregor.

Robert William "Bob" Caviness died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound on November 15, as FBI agents Keith Baker and John H. McEachren III were conducting a harassment campaign against him, according to a report in The Montgomery Independent. Baker and McEachren were involved in an investigation of McGregor, which led to the ongoing prosecution of 11 individuals connected to gambling-related measures in the Alabama Legislature.

We have reported on the Caviness story as one of several mysterious Alabama deaths that seem connected roughly to the last year of Gov. Bob Riley's administration. The most recent such death came just last week, when Birmingham businessman Charles "Bubba" Major reportedly committed suicide in Mountain Brook. Major was a first cousin to prominent attorney Major Bashinsky, whose death in March 2010 was ruled a suicide. Bubba Major had expressed doubts about the official circumstances surrounding his cousin's death, which came just days after the settlement in a lawsuit the Bashinsky family brought against an investment firm with ties to the Riley family and the gambling industry.

How did Bob Caviness incur the wrath of the FBI? Bob Martin, editor and publisher of The Montgomery Independent, reports:

The Deputy AG, Robert William “Bob” Caviness, was in the process of conducting a background check on an individual with the last name of McEachern, who lived in the Auburn-Opelika area. It was a matter involving worker’s comp fraud.

The Independent was told by the AG’s office that Agents Baker and McEachern became suspicious when they found out through the state’s computer data base that someone in the Attorney General’s office was conducting the search involving McEachern’s name.

“They went ballistic” according to a source at the AG’s office, “and began harassing Bob and accusing him of trying to help Mr. McGregor,” AG officials told us.

What was the fallout?

An internal investigation was conducted by the AG’s office, which, at that time was under the direction of Atty. Gen. Troy King.

The investigation completely cleared Caviness of doing anything improper.

“He was just doing his job but those idiots at the FBI wouldn’t let him alone. They (the FBI) were bound and determined to tie Bob in with trying to help McGregor,” one AG official told our reporters. Baker and McEachern were the agents who arrested McGregor at his home.

Martin reports that the AG's office confirmed that Caviness' death was a suicide. But a number of questions remain, in our mind. Did the AG's office, now under Luther Strange, provide any documents to support the suicide finding? Did the AG's office conduct an investigation of its own into Caviness' death?
What about Caviness' possible ties to Ralph Stacy, the Business Council of Alabama executive who reportedly committed suicide in his office last September. Multiple sources have told Legal Schnauzer that Stacy and Caviness were friends, that they shared a common faith and were lay ministers.

The question of the moment, however, is this: What do the actions of FBI agents Baker and McEachern tell us about the federal gambling prosecution? Based on their harassment of Bob Caviness, does it sound like they were disinterested truth seekers in the gambling probe? Or does it sound like they were out to get Milton McGregor?

From where we sit, it sure sounds like the latter. That should cast more doubt on a federal prosecution that already seems to be filled with holes.

Obama Proposes a Wretched Nominee for Controversial U.S. Attorney Post

George Beck

Just when you think the Obama administration's performance on justice issues in Alabama can't get any worse . . . it does.

Now we know why Obama waited more than two years to nominate a replacement for Bush appointee Leura Canary in the Middle District of Alabama. He apparently planned to nominate someone who is almost as bad as she is . . . so, why rush it?

George Beck, from the Montgomery firm of Capell and Howard, is the administration's choice, according to a press release issued yesterday. Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that the White House would have needed to strive awfully hard to come up with a worse choice than Beck. The Alabama Democratic Party issued a statement supporting the nomination, which speaks volumes about why Democrats can't win a statewide race in "The Heart of Dixie" to save their souls.

How bad a choice is Beck? Consider a post we wrote on January 7, 2010, which described a possible Beck nomination as a "train wreck."

What do you really need to know about George Beck? Two things:

* His firm has been known as a base of operations for GOP strategist Karl Rove when he comes to Alabama;

* He represented Nick Bailey, the government's star witness in the Don Siegelman case, and allowed prosecutors to browbeat Baily and interview him more than 70 times, including what appears to be blatant coaching.

We outlined the case against Beck in a post from more than a year ago, titled "Is Obama About to Make a Terrible Nomination in Alabama?" Unfortunately, we now know the answer is yes.

We can think of only one explanation for the Beck nomination: Centrist Alabama Democrats, the ones who apparently are in charge of a sinking ship, have decided that Don Siegelman is political kryptonite and they want to distance themselves from him, his case, and his supporters. The centrists seem to be saying, "Hey, maybe the Bush Justice Department was right about Siegelman, so we need to nominate a man whose pathetic representation of a key witness allowed the government to get a conviction."

The White House seems to be saying, "Yeah, that's change we can believe in!"

Never mind that anyone with any knowledge of the facts and the law knows that Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were railroaded. Never mind that Don Siegelman remains an immensely popular figure among progressives, both in Alabama and nationwide. Never mind that numerous respected individuals in the press and the legal field have stated that the prosecution was without merit. Never mind that Don Siegelman is pretty much the only Democrat remaining who has shown he has a clue about  consistently winning statewide races in Alabama.

With George Beck in office, the Republicans who have turned Montgomery, Alabama, into one of the nation's worst political sewers can rest assured that they will never be held accountable. And the Beck nomination represents Alabama Democrats essentially dragging a sharp razor across their own wrists. Death by massive bleeding shouldn't take long.

As for Obama, the Beck nomination might be a warning sign that he is going to have major problems in 2012.

[Photo: rootswire.org]