Assisting the wounded in Orlando. (From patheos,com)
Last night's massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida--leaving 50 people dead, at least 53 wounded, and now standing as the worst mass shooting in U.S. history--has a roundabout connection to our Legal Schnauzer story. I'm not gay, and I've never lived in Florida, but an experience roughly a year ago gives me a long-distance connection to the victims at the Pulse club. I think I have at least a slight understanding of the terror they must have felt.
My experience of learning about the Pulse shooting probably was like that of many Americans. I saw a bulletin late last night before turning into bed. I've come so conditioned to reading about mass shootings that I didn't think much about the ramifications. My main thought was something like this: "That's curious that a shooter would target a gay night club. I wonder if this was some kind of protest against U.S. federal-court decisions legalizing gay marriage. Let's hope someone was able to subdue the shooter before he could do too much damage."
Apparently, I was off on all counts. Suspect Omar Mateen had pledged allegiance to ISIS and apparently was disgusted at the sight of two men kissing in Miami recently. The incident is being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism. Unfortunately, I was way off about the damage the shooter was able to do. When I awoke this morning to read updated accounts, I was stunned at the number of casualties, that the shooting had become an act of historic and horrible proportions.
How could one shooter have inflicted so much damage? And then, this passage in a CNN report stopped me cold:
Mateen carried an assault rifle and a pistol into the packed Pulse club about 2 a.m. Friday and started shooting, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53, police said. After a standoff of about three hours, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and killed Mateen.
I had provided notice to every attorney involved in the case--including my brother, David Shuler--and hoped they had the good sense to follow black-letter law. But I was dense to think that would happen.
A swarm of deputies--at least six to 10, including Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott--burst through the front door of our apartment, and while I was sitting in a chair with my hands folded, I experienced a feeling I never thought would come my way. An officer--we now know his name is Scott Harrison--was pointing an assault rifle right between my eyes. Carol had been trying to look out the peephole in our door to see what the commotion was about, when officers threw open the door and slammed her face first against the wall. I suspect she suffered a concussion then, or later when the officer who broke her arm slammed her to the ground outside.
We've never been sure how many guns were on the scene that day. I was so fixated on the assault rifle pointed at me that I could not pay much attention to anything else, but I'm pretty sure five or six other officers were brandishing handguns. Carol thinks she saw an officer with a second assault weapon once she was handcuffed and taken outside.
Even though I've had an assault rifle pointed at me, I've never been able to imagine the destructive force such a weapon can unleash. That one man using the same kinds of weapons employed against us could kill or wound more than 100 people . . . well, it takes your breath away. It also makes you wonder about the management of a sheriff's office that would allow at least one, and maybe two, assault rifles to be used in an eviction that could not be lawfully carried out in the first place.
In the coming days, we will have the usual rhetoric that spews forth every time we have a mass shooting in this country. President Obama will try to comfort and talk sense to the American people. (See video at the end of this post.) Meanwhile, NRA types will claim the whole thing could have been avoided if several individuals in the gay nightclub had been armed. "Leaders" in our Republican-controlled Congress will do nothing. And within two or three months--maybe less time--we will have another mass shooting, perhaps one that will break Orlando's grisly record.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Schnauzer and I can only wonder what it would have been like if one or two of the deputies last September had an itchy finger--or mistakenly pulled a trigger that would have unleashed a hail of bullets in our direction. I guess we would have looked like Sonny Corleone (James Caan) in the famous toll-bridge scene from The Godfather. (See video below.)
That's a horrifying thought. But we know from first-hand experience that it's part of post-modern American life. We grieve for the victims in Orlando, knowing there will be many more victims to come.
Mike Hubbard holds his head in despair
as he waits to pay bail at the Lee County
Jail last night in Opelika.
(From oanow.com)
For roughly the past 22 years, a disturbing number of conservative politicians in the Deep South have acted as if they could get away with anything. No one embodied that spirit more than Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard.
It's little wonder that Hubbard and others in the GOP took on such arrogance. Since Karl Rove, Bill Canary, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined hands to steal . . . I mean, buy . . . the 1994 Alabama chief justice race for Perry Hooper, pro-business forces have taken over state courts across the South--touting "tort reform" as a way to attack large verdicts for plaintiffs, which came to entail "jackpot justice." If you tried to seek justice in federal courts, you would find benches stuffed with Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II appointees.
In short, both state and federal courts were stacked in the GOP's favor. Republican politicos knew they could step way over the boundary into unlawful territory and likely never be investigated, much less prosecuted. If they did somehow get indicted, they probably could lie under oath enough to escape punishment. After all, they were likely to go before GOP judges and majority-white juries who reflexively tend to pull levers for Republicans at election time.
A jury in Lee County, Alabama--with the help of Judge Jakob Walker's stern hand--might have signaled last night that era is starting to crumble by convicting Hubbard on 12 of 23 charges that he violated state ethics laws. The convictions automatically remove Hubbard from office; he was convicted on counts 5-6, 10, 11-14, 16-19, and 23. (See indictment at the end of this post.)
Hubbard took the stand in his own defense, but if he thought he could get away with spinning an elaborate web of lies, the Lee County jury had other ideas. In fact, the last day of testimony might have been the most devastating for Hubbard.
In March 2014, Hubbard had signed a proffer, which is an agreement between prosecutors and an individual about his knowledge of possible crimes. The individual's words are not to be used against him at trial, but if his future testimony contradicts information in the proffer, the prosecution can use that to impeach him.
Hubbard made numerous statements on the stand that differed with what he had agreed to in the proffer. So prosecutor Matt Hart received permission from the court to use the proffer in an effort to impeach Hubbard. Here is how Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter, described part of that process:
The trial began with Lead Prosecutor, Matt Hart, cross examining Hubbard, using a proffer Hubbard signed in March, 2014. The Prosecution was able to impeach Hubbard on several points in his testimony before the court. During the trial, evidence showed Josh Blades had initiated the calls to help Bobby Abrams’ company with a much needed patent, and it was Blades who did most of the work…on State time. However, in 2014, Hubbard told Hart and others in a sworn statement, that only he had made calls concerning the patent.
In his proffer, Hubbard stated that he knew about the language that was inserted in the Medicaid portion of the General Fund Budget, that benefited his client APCI. But, in court this week, he said he didn’t know anything about it.
In short, Hubbard got caught lying under oath about Robert Abrams and his company, CV Holdings, and about a deal that would have given APCI a monopoly on Medicaid prescriptions in Alabama. If you look at the jury verdict, Hubbard was found guilty on Counts 5-6 (regarding APCI) and Counts 11-14 (regarding CV Holdings).
We don't know what went on behind the closed doors of the jury room. But we do know that six of the 12 guilty verdicts came on counts where Hubbard was proven to have lied under oath--either in his proffer or in his testimony before the jury.
Many Republican politicians have risen to power in the South on giant truckloads of horse feces. They claim to be Christian, while their behavior suggests they have never opened a Bible. They claim to be "pro family" while cheating on their spouses. They claim to support the middle class, while their votes almost always favor the business class. They claim to be "strict constructionists," while their actions show zero respect for the rule of law.
Mike Hubbard dumped copious amounts of horse feces in the Lee County Courthouse--and there is little doubt his corporate and political "friends" did also--but jurors from Hubbard's home county were not falling for it.
In the end, Hubbard walked away smelling like manure--while the jurors and Judge Walker helped usher in a scent that smelled (at least a little) like justice might be coming to the South.
On the surface, it looks like Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard took the stand in his own defense because he and his lawyers thought Hubbard could convince jurors of his innocence by addressing them directly. In reality, it appears Hubbard took the stand because Judge Jakob Walker rejected two other witnesses--leaving the defense with, well, no one but Hubbard.
Could the strategy work in the long run anyway? A seasoned Alabama attorney says it is extremely unlikely, especially since Hubbard has opened himself up to cross examination from prosecutor Matt Hart. Attorney Donald Watkins says putting Hubbard on the stand is like throwing a desperation "Hail, Mary" pass at the end of a football game--and Hart is likely to bat it down.
According to a report from Bill Britt at Alabama Political Reporter (APR), the defense's plan was to call former governor Bob Riley back to the stand, along with Kitty Brown, a partner at the White Arnold Dowd firm that originally represented Hubbard.
Riley, under questioning from defense counsel Bill Baxley, was to discuss his opinion of the Alabama Ethics Law. But Judge Walker wasn't having it. At least three times, the defense tried to get Riley's testimony about the ethics law; three times, the prosecution objected; and three times, Walker sustained the objection. Ultimately, Riley left the stand without providing much help to the defense--at least on the subject of the ethics law.
Baxley then tried to introduce a memo from Brown, allegedly showing that Hubbard had informed the Alabama Ethics Commission of his contract with American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc. (APCI) before voting on a budget that would have given his client a monopoly on Medicaid prescriptions. The memo, however, did not include the date when Hubbard allegedly first contacted ethics commissioner Jim Sumner. With the jury in recess, Walker denied the defense's request to enter the memo and Brown's testimony.
Where did that leave the defense? Here is how Britt reports it:
In his testimony, Sumner stated Hubbard called him after the vote and said he wanted to speak to him. He thought his Chief of Staff, Josh Blades, may have done something wrong. Judge Walker denied the Defense’s request to introduce the memo and Brown’s testimony.
Apparently, over the lunch break, Hubbard’s defense team had filed a motion to have Riley recalled to the witness stand, to give his opinion on the Ethics Laws. Eventually, Judge Walker ruled that he would not allow Riley back on the stand. The reason that Hubbard took the stand after lunch? Judge Walker did not allow Baxley’s first two witnesses, Brown and Riley. With the jury reconvened, Baxley attempted, yet again, to have Riley called as a witness. The Judge told Baxley to call his next witness, which was Hubbard.
Was it a wise move to put Hubbard on the stand? No, says Donald Watkins, who called the move "unthinkable":
Donald Watkins
Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard did the unthinkable yesterday. He took the witness stand in his own defense on 23 felony counts of ethics violations. Nobody saw this move coming. I certainly didn’t.
I have been a litigator for 43 years. During my career, I have handled scores of high profile, complex criminal cases. I hold the record in American jurisprudence for winning the largest number of criminal counts against a single defendant in the federal criminal case of former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. In November 2003, Scrushy was indicted on 85 counts of conspiracy, fraud and money laundering. He faced up to 650 years in prison. On June 28, 2005, Scrushy won an acquittal on the 36 counts that actually made it to a jury trial.
Hubbard’s decision to take the witness stand in his own case shocked me. As a defense attorney, I have never put the weight of winning a criminal case on the shoulders of the accused. Winning the case was my job, and I did it well. All of my clients in criminal cases walked out of the courtroom as free men and women.
What is the key downside to all of this for Hubbard? Watkins explains:
Testifying in his own defense is a high-risk move for Hubbard. He faces up to 20 years in prison on each of his 23 counts. Matt Hart, the lead prosecutor in this case, is a seasoned pit bull with plenty of courtroom experience. Hubbard’s decision to take the witness stand has placed him squarely inside the Lee County backyard of a pit bull that has prepared for this defensive play for nearly two years.
Now I understand why Hubbard turned down an attractive plea deal that had been worked out for him by some of his friends. Hubbard actually thinks he can talk his way out of a guilty verdict on all 23 counts. The chances of this happening are slim to none.
Does that mean Hubbard is toast? Not in my view. We've already had reports of witnesses possibly being threatened. I have no doubt Hubbard's well-heeled "friends" have the resources to buy off a juror or two, resulting in acquittals or, at worst, a mistrial. Heck, some jurors might eyeball Susan Hubbard, the Speaker's comely wife, and say, "I don't want to throw her husband in prison, no matter how big a crook he is." (Have you noticed that, in all photos of Hubbard taken outside the courtroom, Susan Hubbard always is in the frame, right next to Hubby? What message is being sent? "She's white, she's blonde, she's easy on the eyes, she's produced two white kids, we mustn't burden her by throwing her louse of a husband in the slammer.")
Assuming the case isn't rigged, things don't look good for Hubbard, Watkins says:
I do not believe Hubbard’s lawyers recommended that he take the witness stand in his own defense. No highly skilled criminal defense attorney would willingly allow a vulnerable politician to square off against a known pit bull prosecutor in this “let’s clean up public corruption” ethics reform environment. I think Mike Hubbard made this ill-advised tactical decision all by himself. Hubbard apparently felt the need to “lawyer” his way out of this mess by testifying in his own defense.
This unexpected move signals to me that Hubbard’s trial is not going well for the defense. Hubbard’s act of taking the witness stand is the courtroom equivalent of a “Hail Mary” pass in the waning days of his trial. There is very little upside for Hubbard in testifying in his own defense. The trail of damning emails and the documented flow of millions of dollars to Hubbard from an unsavory den of so-called “friends” (i.e., the new definition for “influence peddlers”) have already killed him.
Of all the political filth unearthed at the Mike Hubbard trial, perhaps this is the most disturbing: According to a report at The New Republic (TNR), Hubbard planned to shift $10 million to the state court system, run by Chief Justice Roy Moore. Hubbard, according to testimony at the trial, was under grand-jury investigation and hoped Moore might be able to do him a favor down the road. Was Hubbard hoping the $10 million would convince Moore and his colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court to overturn a possible conviction in the House Speaker's ethics trial?
We don't have an answer to that question at the moment. But if such a plan was in the making--and it still could be in place right now--it points to criminality of a shockingly vile nature. It points to the possibility that Alabama's "justice" system is for sale--especially for those who are connected and moneyed enough to afford favors.
In part four of the series, Miller gives Legal Schnauzer credit for breaking the story of Bentley's affair with advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason--a fact the Alabama mainstream media (MSM) consistently ignores. Miller also notes the efforts of attorney Donald Watkins and I to expose the Bentley scandal in summer/fall 2015, long before the MSM was willing to take a serious look.
On the down side, Miller misspelled my name as "Robert Schuler" in the first version of his article. But he is trying to get that corrected, and all in all, I have to call myself a big Joe Miller fan. Also, I think TNR is doing a major public service by showing what can happen when so-called conservative interests and their corporate supporters take over all three branches of state government and have unfettered access to the public piggy bank.
The revelations about Hubbard and Moore can be found in part three of the TNR series. The issue arose during testimony about plans to give Alabama Pharmacy Cooperative Inc. (APCI), a client for Hubbard and several Republican lobbyists, a monopoly on the state's Medicaid prescriptions. Lobbyists Ferrell Patrick and John Ross were pushing for the plan in spring 2013 and scheduled a meeting with the Speaker and others to discuss it. From Miller's TNR report:
Patrick told them that he and Ross represented American Pharmacy Cooperative Inc., or APCI, an Alabama-based company that represents independent pharmacies across the state and country. Though APCI and its affiliates opposed the idea of privatizing the prescription drug program, Patrick said, they would change their position if they could receive the contract to run it.
The company had no experience running such a program, and Patrick told Hubbard and the others that they wouldn’t be able to save $20 million a year, which is what the governor’s office was hoping for with their plan. But they could probably save $10 million.
According to court testimony, everyone in the meeting was in favor of the plan. But Hubbard had multiple reasons for favoring it. Writes Miller:
Hubbard had his own reasons for saving $10 million that went beyond closing holes in the budget. According to testimony, he was hoping to carve off $10 million that he could shift to the state’s court system, which was run by Roy Moore. (Moore is currently under suspension for ordering court officials statewide to disobey a mandate from the federal courts to grant marriage license to same-sex couples.) Hubbard—who at the time was the subject of a grand jury investigation—reportedly believed that if he could help Moore, Moore might be of help to him at some point in the future. The parties involved were on board with this plan, too.
So Hubbard, and his "conservative" brethren in the meeting, were OK with shifting money to Roy Moore--for no apparent reason than that Moore possibly could do a favor for Hubbard in the future. With the Speaker under a state grand-jury investigation, it seems pretty clear what that hoped-for favor might be.
Did the $10 million actually make it to the court system that Roy Moore controls? Did it come with a "quid pro quo" attached?
Roy Moore
(From csmonitor.com)
It seems clear that Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange and his staff are not capable of investigating such a scheme--and it probably invokes federal law, anyway.
Just one more reason that the Hubbard trial, regardless of its outcome, should not be an ending. It should be just the beginning of an effort, led by federal investigators, to unearth the unspeakable graft that has turned Alabama government into a sewer.
The feds reportedly are already targeting Bentley and Mason, so perhaps they can add Hubbard, Moore, and former governor Bob Riley to their list. Joe Miller focuses on the Bentley scandal in part four of his TNR series, titled "The Most Shameless Sex Scandal in American Politics." It was published on Monday:
Mrs. Bentley, for her part, tried to keep up appearances. She tweeted on July 24, the couple’s anniversary: “God has blessed us w/ 50 years of marriage. I thank him for health, family, faith and most of all His love and grace.” But a month later, she’d had enough. On August 28, she filed for divorce.
Almost immediately, the first reports of the governor’s affair appeared, on the blog Legal Schnauzer and in a series of Facebook posts penned by Birmingham attorney Donald Watkins. Bentley vehemently denied the allegations and went after Watkins and Legal Schnauzer author Roger Shuler by having his staff investigate them through state and federal criminal databases, according to Alabama Political Reporter. But the state’s legitimate news agencies, while acknowledging the “rumors,” held off on the story, and Bentley and Mason went on having a good time. Throughout the fall and early winter of 2015, the two traveled by state plane to Eva, Jacksonville, Decatur, Haleyville, Mobile, Fort Payne, Andalusia, and Birmingham. They took two trips to Gulf Shores, and one to Las Vegas, an Al.com investigation later revealed.
As for the Hubbard scandal, consider this: If Roy Moore, in fact, sold his office to Mike Hubbard. that makes Moore's problems related to gay marriage seem quaint by comparison.
If nothing else is accomplished in the trial of Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, the public will at least know this: Defense attorney Bill Baxley is a bumbling, sleazy old con man. But Legal Schnauzer readers already knew that.
Consider the testimony of former Governor Bob Riley last Friday and yesterday. Prosecutor Matt Hart repeatedly placed e-mails between Hubbard and Riley on a large screen, providing easy viewing for everyone in the Lee County courtroom. Time and again, the e-mails showed that Riley and Hubbard used "the mantle of the speaker's office" to make money, much of it for Riley and his well-heeled lobbying clients.
It's hard to imagine a more blatant violation of the Alabama Ethics Law. In fact, the e-mails strongly suggest the kind of "quid pro quo" that might entail a violation of federal bribery law. We are left with two glaring questions: (1) Where have the feds been during all of this? and (2) Why hasn't Bob Riley been indicted?
Despite the damning evidence, which all non-sleeping, semi-sentient jurors should have seen, there was Bill Baxley telling us this was all about "friendship"--that Riley was doing this only because he "loves Hubbard like a brother."
We've seen this kind of skulduggery from Baxley before. After all, he represented Jessica Medeiros Garrison, GOP operative and former campaign manager for AG Luther Strange, in her lawsuit claiming that my reports about her extramarital affair with Strange were false and defamatory.
Let's consider some of the stunts Baxley pulled in that one:
* In a pre-suit letter to me, Baxley alleged that I was engaging in "harassing communications" against his client -- I had sent Jessica Garrison two e-mails, seeking interviews or comments about her relationship with Luther Strange and associated issues. As director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and Strange's former campaign manager, Garrison had been quoted in the press many times. She unquestionably was a newsworthy figure, and likely a public figure under the law. My e-mails were designed to seek her responses to questions on issues of clear public concern. Harassing communications, under Alabama law, can only enter the picture if the communications is "intended to harass or alarm another person." My e-mails to Jessica Garrison didn't come close to reaching that threshold--but Bill Baxley is a con man. He tried to con me into thinking I was going to be investigated, or prosecuted, for a crime I had not remotely committed. Baxley is pulling a similar con game with the Hubbard jury, trying to provide cover for Riley and Hubbard, who engaged in an actual crime.
* In a second pre-suit letter, Baxley accused me of "stalking" his client -- This is another example of Baxley not letting the law get in the way of a dramatic threat. Baxley's second letter ended with this: "Cease stalking my client. Do not contact her again." Now, alleging that someone has engaged in stalking is a serious matter. Stalking is a felony that is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. It's a good idea to know the meaning of the word before throwing it around against someone else. Alabama's stalking statute reads, in part: "A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking." I never followed or harassed Ms. Garrison, I never remotely threatened her, and I never did anything to cause her reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm; I sent her two e-mails asking for interviews or comments on specific subjects. Again, Baxley was pulling a con, very much like the one he's pulling with the Hubbard jury now.
* Baxley conned Dothan blogger Rickey Stokes into writing a defamatory post about me -- Citing two unnamed sources, Stokes criticized my reporting on the Garrison story--calling it "questionable," and saying I had made up "something that wasn't true." A few days later, in a public forum, Stokes admitted that his source was Bill Baxley and that Baxley had not disclosed his representation of Jessica Garrison. Like we said, Baxley is a con artist--and Rikey Stokes fell for his tricks.
Bob Riley, on the stand in Mike Hubbard trial (From alreporter.com)
* Baxley is a long-time associate of Claud Neilson, the "judge" who unlawfully had me kidnapped and thrown in jail -- For the five months I spent in the Shelby County Jail, I spent quite a bit of time asking myself, "Who in the heck is this Claud Neilson, a retired judge who was appointed to the Rob Riley/Liberty Duke case by the Alabama Supreme Court and clearly is acting as someone's rubber stamp?" Not long after my release in late March 2014, I found the likely answer. Neilson and Baxley had been colleagues for a number of years in the Alabama Attorney General's Office. Is it likely that Baxley helped arrange for Neilson to order my kidnapping and incarceration, intending to protect the interests of Riley Inc.--of which Mike Hubbard is a prominent member? The answer in my mind clearly is yes.
As for the Hubbard trial, how illuminating was evidence presented while Bob Riley was on the stand? Consider this report from Bill Britt, of Alabama Political Reporter:
Emails entered into evidence during former Gov. Bob Riley’s testimony on day nine, was a matrix of deals that benefited both Riley and Hubbard. Lead Prosecutor, Matt Hart, in email after email revealed a disturbing pattern where Riley would ask something from Hubbard, receive it, and vice versa, in a quid pro quo style transaction. Under the Ethics Laws that Hubbard and Riley championed and passed, just one such action would result in a felony charge. These two men repeated the scheme numerous times.
Want more specifics? Here they are:
In emails concerning the Paris Air Show, the prosecution displayed how Riley arranged for Hubbard and his daughter, Minda Riley Campbell, to meet his billionaire client, Singapore Industries, at their palatial chalet at the air show. He expressed to his client that Hubbard was there as Speaker of the House, and that he would be speaking on behalf of the State, to show appreciation for the company’s investment in Alabama. In return, emails show that Riley solicited partners at Singapore Industries to visit the Abbeville site, to aid Hubbard with his SEAGD business. Other emails showed that Hubbard passed legislation that provided tax credits on shipping material for Singapore Industries in Mobile. He wrote to Riley saying his legal advisor, Jason Isbell, had placed the bill in the jacket, and that Riley’s client would be pleased. He even attached the language to the bill which Riley forwarded to the President of Singapore Industries. The bill Riley wanted for his client was passed by the State Legislature.
What became apparent, is that Riley and Hubbard were working in concert to aide each other financially. This was further evidenced by Hubbard’s weekly meetings with BCA’s chief lobbyist, Billy Canary.
If you feel the need to take an industrial-strength shower after reading that, join the crowd. This is politics at its most greed-driven, back-scratching low point--at its most criminal. But Bill Baxley will continue telling the public, and jurors, that this is all good fun among friends--making the crimes exempt from Alabama's ethics law.
Folks have fallen for Baxley's con games before. Will it happen again?
The first two weeks of the Mike Hubbard trial have been rich with irony, the kind that might not be readily apparent to the general public.
Here is what we mean: The trial, to a great extent, revolves around Hubbard's actions after his "job situation" became a cause of grave concern for the Alabama House Speaker. The job situation arose when IMG bought broadcasting rights to Auburn athletics in 2010 and fired Hubbard in the aftermath.
What is the irony in this? Well, Hubbard is perhaps the most high-profile member of Riley Inc. who is not named Riley. "Riley Inc.," of course, is the term detractors use to reference the political machine built by former Governor Bob Riley and his lawyer children, Rob Riley and Minda Riley Campbell.
Hubbard started desperately trying to raise $1.5 million to make up for his lost IMG income, ignoring state ethics laws that he had helped put into place. The recklessness and desperation Hubbard felt from loss of his job could essentially earn him a life sentence in state prison if he is convicted on at least a majority of the counts.
That is deeply ironic because Riley Inc. specializes in cheating its perceived enemies out of their jobs. My family unit knows about this tactic first hand.
I lost my job at UAB, where I had worked for 20 years, after reporting accurately on this blog about the monstrous cheat job dumped on former Democratic governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. How do I know my reporting on the Siegelman case, done on my own time and with my own resources, cost me my job? Well, a member of UAB's human-resources department admitted to me that I was targeted for that, and I captured the conversation on audiotape. (See video of conversation with Anita Bonasera at the end of this post.)
Who likely would be unhappy with my reporting on the Siegelman case? That would be Bob Riley, Siegelman's chief political foe. Who served as ex oficio president of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, which oversees UAB, at the time of my firing? That would be Bob Riley.
Rob and Bob Riley
(From al.com)
Is there any doubt that Bob Riley or someone close to him (Rob Riley?) cheated me out of my job? There is zero doubt in my mind.
My wife, Carol, went through a similar experience in 2009 at Infinity Insurance Company. She was fired for allegedly being tardy when she was told to move her start time back to 9:30 a.m.--to assist with the company's large customer base in California, with its two-hour time difference from Alabama--and did exactly as she was told. Drayton Nabors, former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice and prominent member of Riley Inc., just happens to serve on Infinity's board of directors.
Riley Inc.'s "career ruination plan" hardly is limited to Carol and me. I've reported about Russ and Dee Fine, of Birmingham, who were fired from their radio show after reporting about Bob Riley's ties to a Masonic group with a history of racial exclusiveness. I've had probably a dozen or more readers tell me about losing their state jobs, or knowing a friend or family member who lost a state job, apparently because they didn't fall into the Riley political camp.
I still think Hubbard will be acquitted, although evidence presented so far strongly suggests he is guilty on most of the charges. I've seen so many debacles in Alabama courtrooms that it's hard to imagine justice actually being served in one. I can see the jury being dense or inattentive, witnesses being threatened (we already have reports of that), or jurors being paid off. Any of those would result in an acquittal or a mistrial--with either outcome being a major victory for Hubbard.
What if Hubbard is found guilty, and the mask is pulled off Riley Inc. in a way that never has happened before? That still could be the result of the Hubbard trial--and it all would flow from Mike Hubbard's loss of a job.
The document, filed by Mason's own lawyers in a civil case, provides the most direct evidence yet that Mason is in deep doo-doo. If Mason knows she is under criminal scrutiny, Bentley likely also knows the feds are on his tail--although his lawyers have yet to file a motion similar to the one Mason's lawyers filed in the wrongful-termination lawsuit of former ALEA chief Spencer Collier.
Multiple news outlets, including this one, have reported for more than a month that Bentley, Mason and perhaps other members of the administration are the targets of an investigation led by Georgia federal prosecutor John A. Horn. Now, Mason's lawyers are asking for a stay in the Collier civil case because of the criminal investigation--and the possibility that Mason's testimony in the civil case could incriminate her in the brewing criminal matter.
Yesterday, attorneys for Rebekah Mason publicly acknowledged in a court filing what our Facebook news team first reported in April 2016 – Rebekah and Governor Robert Bentley are the targets of a federal criminal probe into their racketeering and public corruption activities. What was once a torrid love affair between Bentley and Rebekah is now a game of survival for each lover.
Bentley, 73, and Mason, 44, are expected to be criminally charged by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for using Bentley’s position as governor to execute a wide ranging racketeering conspiracy involving wire and mail fraud, tax fraud, bribery, money laundering, the unauthorized use of the federal National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Law Enforcement Tactical System (LETS) databases, and related criminal charges.
That is powerful stuff, and one wonders if Mason and Bentley realize how much trouble they could be in. Mason's lawyers seem to understand, and they have provided the most direct evidence yet that the Good Ship Bentley is taking on water and listing badly--with perhaps dire consequences for those on board. Writes Watkins:
Federal investigators are aggressively probing the couple’s racketeering enterprise with an eye toward expediting the initiation of criminal charges against Bentley, Mason, and other co-conspirators. The governor and his accomplices are staring down the barrel of a criminal indictment that is expected to set a record for the number of felony charges in a single federal criminal case. Bentley has been identified as the “kingpin” of the couple’s racketeering enterprise.
Bentley and Mason are well aware of their status as targets of the federal criminal investigation. This is why Mason formally requested a state court in Montgomery to place a hold on a wrongful termination case filed by Spencer Collier, the former head of the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA). In March 2016, Collier publicly confirmed the Bentley-Mason “sex for power” affair. Collier has also confirmed that Bentley ordered him to use the NCIC and LETS databases to impermissibly target and harass online journalists Roger Alan Shuler and me, which Collier refused to do.
As you can see from that last sentence, this hits close to home. That a governor allegedly would attempt to use criminal databases to intimidate and harass citizen journalists--Watkins and me--well, it sounds like the mafia has taken over the governor's mansion. I've seen signs that elements of organized crime have infiltrated Alabama government for 15 years or more.
From Bentley's warped perspective, an intimidation campaign probably made sense. After all, his scandal probably would have gone away a long time ago if it weren't for the "non-traditional press," specifically Watkins and me.
Could Bentley, Mason, and perhaps others, be headed for federal prison? One can never predict what an Alabama jury might decide--if the matter gets that far. But this much seems clear: The Bentley/Mason story, which might expose unimaginable corruption in Alabama government, probably would have fizzled out long ago without the Web press.
Well, we now know that "smoke" was right on target--that it included raging fire, you might say. With the help of Watkins and Britt, our blog has helped bring us to a point where we know the governor and his mistress are aware they are in deep trouble--that an entire administration might soon be crumbling.
Erik Davis Harp
(From Bay County, Florida,
Sheriff's Office)
How many criminal charges do you need to become a member in good standing of the University of Alabama's Crimson Tide Foundation? In the case of Erik Davis Harp, one-time business partner of former Luther Strange campaign manager Jessica Medeiros Garrison, the answer appears to be two.
Harp recently was arrested near Panama City Beach, Florida, on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon (firearm) into a government building. That comes on top of his 2009 indictment in Queens, New York, as one of two alleged ringleaders in an illegal offshore sports gambling operation. The ring, which had an offshore "wire room" in Panama, reportedly generated more than $20 million a month. For another perspective, the ring took in $567 million in a 28-month period leading to arrests.
It's not clear what, if any. punishment Harp received in the gambling case, but published reports indicate those arrested faced possible prison sentences of up to 25 years. For good measure, Harp's LinkedIn page (which misspells his first name as "Eric") lists him as an "independent gambling and casinos professional."
Is this the kind of guy the University of Alabama wants supporting Crimson Tide athletics, especially Nick Saban's vaunted football team? The answer appears to be yes.
The Web site for the Crimson Tide Foundation lists Harp as a donor. And he's not just any donor; he's a member of the Lifetime Giving Society. He's in the Crimson Circle, for folks who have given $50,000 to $99,000.
For most of us, that's pretty serious cash. And given Erik Harp's sketchy background, not to mention the scary mugshot above, it raises these questions:
Where did that money come from?
If Harp can afford to give serious cash to UA athletics, why did he seek criminal indigent status in the Florida case? (See document at the end of this post.) How did Harp claim he had no income or assets, even though he declared on his application that he lives at a swanky Marriott resort near Panama City Beach? Did Harp lie under oath on his application to be declared insolvent? Is it common for a prominent Bama booster to flaunt the law and file an application for indigent status that appears to be highly dubious?
Does anyone at the Crimson Tide Foundation care?
A pre-trial hearing in the Harp case is set for June 9, one week from today.
Imagine serving six years in a federal prison for a "crime" that: (a) You did not commit; and (b) Isn't a crime, as defined by case law, anyway. Imagine that now, roughly four years after your release and a major effort to piece your life back together, the media continues to incorrectly report about key facts of the case that turned your life upside down.
Richard Scrushy, former CEO of Birmingham-based HealthSouth, finds himself in that position. His codefendant, former Governor Don Siegelman, recently made national news when he was interviewed about the corruption conviction of former Virginia Govenor Robert McDonnell--with Siegelman landing in solitary confinement at Oakdale (LA) Correctional Facility, not long after the story came out in The Washington Post.
Siegelman quickly was returned to the general prison population after his punishment became known to the public. For Scrushy, the episode served as a reminder that the public largely still does not know the truth about his role in perhaps the most blatant political prosecution in American history.
The public generally has been told that Scrushy: (1) Gave Siegelman $500,000; and (2) It was to help promote the governor's education lottery.
Neither is true, Scrushy says.
Scrushy did arrange for HealthSouth to give $250,000. But the money did not go to Siegelman; it was given to the Alabama Democratic Party, to help pay down debt after voters had rejected the lottery plan.
Why the confusion? Scrushy points to stories prosecutors repeatedly told the press during the 2006 trial in Montgomery. Prosecutors somehow convinced jurors that Scrushy was responsible for the entire $500,000.
In fact, a Maryland company called Integrated Medical Solutions gave the other $250,000, and that donation came before the lottery referendum--but Scrushy had nothing to do with that transaction, he says.
Prosecutors' theory, repeated often to the press, was that Scrushy gave the entire $500,000, in exchange for an appointment to the Certificate of Need (CON) Board, which regulates Alabama hospitals. In fact, Scrushy says, he gave half that amount, he gave it as he already was stepping down from the CON, and he gave it toward the Alabama Democratic Party's effort to pay down debt on the lottery campaign--at the request of former Alabama Power CEO Elmer Harris, not Don Siegelman.
Also, Scrushy had served on the board under three other governors. In other words, Scrushy was a CON veteran long before Siegelman was elected.
We have been among the media outlets to incorrectly report about the $500,000 figure. But in April 2013, roughly one year after Scrushy's release from prison, we ran a post designed to correct the record. Unfortunately, it hasn't always worked. Here is part of what The Washington Post reported in its recent articles about Siegelman:
Siegelman’s case is the reverse. He gave Alabama health-care executive Richard Scrushy a new term on an important industry regulatory board. But Scrushy’s offering was a $500,000 campaign contribution to push a referendum measure for a lottery that would benefit the state’s underfunded school system.
That, however, is not how it happened. "We weren't going to be a health-care company, operating in the Bible Belt, and look like we supported a form of gambling," Scrushy said. "It was too big a risk, and that's why we did not give prior to the referendum.
"After the vote, I said I would help--as a favor to Elmer Harris and to the Alabama Democratic Party, We felt there was nothing wrong with a company being friends with the Alabama Democratic Party. And a number of prominent businessmen had their names on the note, so I felt it would be good for me to have my name on there, too."
Little did Scrushy know that a relatively straightforward transaction could be so badly twisted--and it's still happening almost 10 years after the trial.
We hope our readers had a meaningful and enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. But it proved to be an immensely sad time in the Schnauzer household.
Baxter, our little boy Tonkinese kitty kat who had done so much to keep us more or less sane since we adopted him and his sister Chloe in summer 2004, died at about 2:30 a.m. on Friday.
We knew he hadn't been acting quite right for about a month, but we didn't think it was serious. It wasn't until last Thursday morning that Baxter started looking unsteady on his feet, and we made plans to schedule a vet appointment for him, even though we knew our depleted resources were going to make that a challenge.
Unfortunately, our "little feller" didn't make it through the night, He was curled next to me when I heard him let out a soft cough. That's not unusual for kitty kats, so I didn't think too much of it for a few seconds. But then I noticed he was laying on his side (unusual), with his head in a peculiar position. I called out to Carol, and she scooped him up to love on him, but we could tell from the vacant look in his eyes that he was gone.
Our eyes started filling with tears, and we both felt a numb sensation. As a human, you know you are likely to outlive your pets. But it seems like we never are prepared to lose them. The minute we realized Baxter was gone, our room at what we call The Shiftless Drifters Motel in Missouri, seemed to shrink and lose whatever luster it had. Baxter had given our spartan quarters a sense of life and joy, and we could feel that being sucked away.
I made a reference in last Thursday's post to our concern about Baxter. In fact, we were struggling in several areas, but Baxter's health was our No. 1 concern. In the post, I noted the apparent efforts of Gov. Robert Bentley to unlawfully use state and federal resources to target attorney Donald Watkins and me for breaking the story about Bentley's affair with former advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason. Then I tried to show that such abusive tactics, and many others we've faced over the past two years, have consequences for their targets. From that post.:
On the bad-news side, my little family unit is suffering, physically and emotionally, forced to live like refugees in a hostile environment. If justice ever comes, I'm not sure we will survive to see it.
The illegal use of government resources to retaliate against journalists might go beyond Watkins and me--to include, in my case, a spouse and a furry loved one. My wife, Carol, and I, since being forced to move to our current (and hopefully temporary) location in Springfield, Missouri, have seen evidence that suggests Alabama and Missouri forces have engaged in a coordinated effort to steal many of our personal belongings, force us to the edge of homelessness, terrorize us with handguns and at least one assault weapon, and force us to live in a week-by-week flea-bag motel whose charms include bed-bug infestations and meth dealers around the corner.
In fact, one member of our family is suffering from physical symptoms that we think might be caused by an allergic reaction to bed bugs and the nasty residue they leave behind. But we don't have the resources to seek treatment. At the moment, we are not sure we can pay next week's rent, which means the roof over our heads might soon disappear.
The sentence in yellow refers to Baxter. My reference was oblique because pets are not allowed at our current living quarters. But I should have remembered that, some time ago, Carol's physician here in Springfield designated Baxter as a service animal, so I guess that made him legal all the way. And to be sure, he did provide invaluable services to Carol and me. To see his beautiful blue eyes, to love on him and curl up with him, to take in his wonderful smell, to laugh at his inquisitive nature and peculiar habits. . . well, all of that did an incalculable amount of good for our mental health.
A reader asked in a comment about Baxter, and I added this:
Anonymous said...
I assume the one not doing well is your little furry guy, Baxter?
May 26, 2016 at 1:22 PM
legalschnauzer said...
Yes, you are correct, @1:22. We're not sure exactly what's wrong, but he hasn't eaten normally in 2-3 days, and that's always a concern. He hasn't been drinking much today. He's had some "inappropriate elimination" (peeing outside his box) in recent days, which can be a sign of several things, including a urinary tract infection. Also, he has asthma, and we now are having to deal with bed bug residue--plus, a number of smokers now live around us, and it wafts through our unit. He's not used to smoke, and we're concerned that, or some other environmental factor, is causing problems with his asthma. We're extremely concerned, and we don't have the resources to take him to the vet. Treatment might be as simple as a steroid shot, but we just don't know. Thanks for asking.
May 26, 2016 at 1:28 PM
Baxter was a "special needs" kitty kat, and somehow, that endeared him to us even more than usual. He was diagnosed with asthma and high blood pressure (who knew a cat could have high blood pressure?) not long after joining our family unit. Our vet prescribed a human HBP medicine for him, and we always got a kick out of seeing a prescription for "Baxter Cat Shuler" at our nearby Walgreens in Birmingham.
We discovered Baxter's health needs one day when he started walking sort of sideways and eventually fell over in our foyer. I was talking with someone on the phone when I saw him collapse. I immediately explained the situation, hung up, freaked out, and summoned Carol for a quick trip to the vet. The HBP apparently had caused Baxter's loss of balance, and it probably would have killed him if Carol had not become an expert at giving him his half a pill almost every night. Those of you who've ever tried to get a cat to swallow a pill know how big a challenge that can be.
What caused Baxter's death? We probably will never know for sure, but a tech at an emergency pet hospital where we took him in the middle of the night said he'd had a good long life (13 years), especially for a cat with two life-threatening health conditions. We took that to mean Baxter likely died from organ failure brought on by asthma and HBP. We don't know if exposure to bed-bug residue and smoke had anything to do with it.
We do know that cats are creatures of habit, that they like a steady environment and are not fond of change. Baxter went through two moves, both under traumatic circumstances (Chloe went through one of the moves). They both seemed to adjust well to the upheaval, but who knows how it all affected them? I can't help but ask this question: Would we still have both of our beloved kitty kats if we had not been forced out of our home in Birmingham?
The emergency vet hospital is handling Baxter's cremation, and we now will have three urns--for Murphy, our miniature schnauzer; Chloe; and Baxter. Those urns are among the few possessions that have not been stolen from us over the past two years or so. Except for a seven-month period in 2004--after Murphy's death and before the kitty kats' arrival--we now are without a pet for the first time in 23 years.
While we never will know for sure why we lost Baxter, we'll be eternally grateful that we found him--and his big sister. (Chloe died in July 2015, apparently from gastrointestinal cancer; I call her Baxter's "big sister," because she was a beautiful, fluffy girl--quite a bit bigger than him. But they were the same age, born in the same litter.)
Baxter was the only male pet we've had, and as you might expect, he could be a bit of a pistol. (In fact, "Pistol Pete" was one of many nicknames we bestowed upon him.) Most of the time, he was a little gentleman and a delight to have a around. But when Chloe was alive, he occasionally found the need to "goose" his big sister in some way. Here's how we described all three of our pets in our post about Chloe's death:
We have a tendency to create "personas" for our pets. Murphy, the miniature schnauzer for whom this blog is named, was a feisty, playful sort, who was an utter joy but could be a bit overprotective of her family unit. She reveled in her "humans," but she probably didn't come across as overly friendly to people she didn't know.
Baxter, Chloe's brother (from the same litter), is our court jester and clown. He's got the typical curiosity of a cat and tends to get into things and occasionally causes messes. We think of him as this "dude" kind of fellow, who likes to go to the gym with his guy friends--where they swim, play racquetball, tell off-color jokes, and snap each other in the butt with towels when showering in the locker room. Baxter tends to be right under our feet, but he can turn into a "fraidy cat" when strangers enter the house. (Baxter, by the way, is doing fine, although he seems puzzled by his sister's absence.)
As for Chloe, it's like she never met a stranger. It's not that she would be all over them with affection. But she seemed to say, "Hey, come on in, there's tea in the fridge, snacks in the cabinet, and I'll be around listening to music if you need me. Hopefully, you won't need me, but make yourself at home anyway."
Baxter had this "Dennis the Menace" quality that usually manifested itself when he sunk his teeth into the nape of his sister's neck, as if he was going to bring her down and turn her into a meal on some imaginary Serengheti. Chloe was a good sport about it, and you could almost see her eyes rolling, calmly waiting for Baxter to get done with his tough-guy routine.
But at least twice, Chloe's patience ran out, and things didn't end so well for our "little feller"-- although it provided moments of hilarity that we will always cherish.
On one occasion, I was going down to our kitchen in Birmingham to make a snack, Baxter and Chloe following close behind. At some point, they got in front of me, and Baxter decided to pull his "George of the Jungle" routine, jumping on Chloe and grabbing her neck in a way that looked more vigorous than usual. "You'd better be careful, feller, she's bigger than you are," I said and went on the other side of our work island to make a sandwich.
I then heard a loud "Eeeeeek" that was so high-pitched I thought our windows were going to break. I looked on the other side of the work island to see Baxter on his back, with Chloe plopped on top of him. Baxter's eyes were big, and he had this look on his face like, "Don't hurt me, don't hurt me."
Chloe let him up, and a few minutes later, they were curled up together in a chair. But that remains the loudest and funniest "Eeeeeek" I've ever heard.
On another occasion, we were in Missouri--in the apartment where we were unlawfully evicted--and (as usual) I was the first one to bed. Usually, Baxter was second, followed by Carol. Chloe would sleep with us in bed sometimes, but she had a heavy coat, and if it was fairly warm, she would curl up in a chair or on the couch for the night.
I wasn't quite asleep when I felt a light plop on the bed, and I figured it was Baxter. With a sliver of light coming from the hallway, I could see a big, fluffy figure; it was Chloe. A few minutes later, I heard another plop, and this time it was Baxter--and he apparently was none too pleased that Chloe had beaten him to bed, and perhaps taken his spot. With just enough light to make out their shadows, I saw Baxter launch into his neck-chomping routine. But this time, he was not just lightly chomping down on an area of loose skin; he was pulling on Chloe's neck, and I saw her skin stretched out in a way that had to be more than a little uncomfortable.
I had a feeling this wasn't going to end well for our little boy. But I had always taken a hands-off approach to their antics, so I decided to wait a moment to see what happened. Suddenly, Chloe lowered her head, lifted her rump and then raised up with all her might.
With a loud "Aaaaacck!" Baxter went flying through the air, off the bed, heading toward our chest of drawers. "Oh, my God, he must be hurt" was my immediate thought. But it turns out that old adage about kitty kats landing on their feet proved to be true, at least in this instance. I saw Baxter sitting on the floor, on his haunches, seemingly no worse for wear. He appeared to have a slight look of satisfaction on his face. Before I knew it, Baxter was back on the bed, curled up with his sister.
When we had our house in Birmingham, Carol and I often would be reading or otherwise chilling out--with everything quiet, on all fronts. Then we would hear this rumbling that quickly grew to sound like a herd of water buffalo coming down the stairs. We would look to see Chloe flying around the corner, with Baxter hot on her tail.
These wild sessions usually would last 12-15 seconds. When the chase was over, they would look at each other, and plop down to take a nap. Baxter was always the chaser, and Chloe was the chasee.
As I write this, I would give anything to hear our "water buffalo" flying down the steps again. In recent days, we've gone several places and returned to what serves as our "home," expecting to find Baxter there to greet us. It breaks our hearts when we realize he isn't there. We so much want to kiss his head, massage his ears, pat his sides, and rub his pads.
For now, the sadness seems overwhelming. But someday, we hope to look back on those moments when Baxter and Chloe were so very close--and realize they are some of the fondest memories of our lives.
In recent days, for some strange reason, I've been thinking about Ball Four, by Jim Bouton, which almost certainly is the greatest sports book ever written--and one of the funniest books of any genre. Like many great works of comedy, the book is filled with thoughtful truths. Here is the book's classic last line:
You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time.
I'll never think of that line again without thinking of Baxter . . . and Chloe . . . and Murphy--because you spend a good bit of your life caring for pets you love, and in the end, it turns out that it was the other way around all the time.
Here is a video where we introduced Baxter and Chloe to Legal Schnauzer readers several years ago:
