Lack of an attorney-client relationship provides a second ground for rejecting Drummond Company's request for immediate appeal in Roberson case

Tamara Harris Johnson

 

We have shown that Drummond Company's request for interlocutory appeal in David Roberson's $75-million lawsuit should be rejected because the Alabama Supreme Court already has held that the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA) applies only to lawyers and law firms and not to entities that happen to employ one or more in-house lawyers. But that is not the only reason Drummond's request should be dead on arrival. The second reason involves the presence -- or lack thereof -- of an attorney-client relationship.

Aalabama law is clear that ALSLA -- and its tight statute of limitations, which could make the Roberson complaint time-barred -- applies only where there is an attorney-client relationship. Circuit Judge Tamara Harris Johnson correctly stated the law in her recent order dismissing the Balch and Bingham law firm from the Roberson case, citing a case styled Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. Hooper, 707 So. 2d 209 (Ala., 1997). Harris wrote:

The Court held further that “an attorney-client relationship is an essential element of a claim under the Legal Services Liability Act... To create an attorney-client relationship,there must be an employment contract‘either express or implied’ between an attorney and the party for whom he purports to act or someone authorized to represent such party. . . . ”

The Court in Mississippi Valley, supra, further held, “The test for determining the existence of [an attorney-client] relationship is a subjective one and ‘hinges upon the client’s belief that he is consulting a lawyer in that capacity and his manifested intention is to seek professional legal advice.”

In our view, Johnson correctly stated the law in the Balch dismissal, but she applied it incorrectly -- and her order should be reversed by the Alabama Supreme Court, where it stands on appeal.

In his complaint, David Roberson states that he had no attorney-client relationship with anyone at Drummond (including in-house counsel Blake Andrews) or anyone at Balch, for that matter. As a matter of law, that statement must be taken as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage. But Johnson apparently found it to be 'conclusory" and not a well-pleaded factual allegation, so she did not take it as true. That, however, runs counter to Alabama Supreme Court precedent, as stated in Ex parte Austal USA (2007). 

In Austal, workers alleged the company intentionally provided them with a defective saw, knowing it would cause injuries. Austal dismissed the allegations as conclusory, and the court admitted the allegations were "so shocking that it invites skepticism." But still, it found they had to be taken as true early in the litigation and denied Austal's motion to dismiss:

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, however, a court's ability to pick and choose which allegations of the complaint to accept as true is constrained by Alabama's broad and well settled standard for the dismissal of claims under Rule 12(b)(6). In this case, there is no question that the plaintiffs have pleaded that Austal “made the conscious and deliberate decision to intentionally injure its workmen.” That allegation -- that a company would deliberately injure multiple specific employees -- is so shocking that it invites skepticism. Moreover, we agree with Austal that a specific intent or desire to cause injury to its employees is not particularly consistent with the alleged cost-saving motivation for causing such injuries. Nevertheless, our standard of review does not permit this Court to consider the plausibility of the allegations. Rather, in considering whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, we must take the allegations of the complaint as true. . . . we do not consider “'whether the pleader will ultimately prevail but whether the pleader may possibly prevail,”

David Roberson, a biologist by training, is an intelligent, sophisticated guy, and he surely knows whether he had formed an attorney-client contract, and he clearly states in the complaint that he did not. Per Austal, Johnson must take that allegation as true, forming a second ground for rejecting Drummond's request for immediate appeal, probably meaning it should not even be certified for transmission to the Alabama Supreme Court.

PNC Bank makes a splash on Birmingham banking scene, and CDLU charitable group calls for it to sever ties with Balch and Bingham and its ugly past

 

A Birmingham-based public charity and advocacy group is calling on PNC Bank, after yesterday's acquisition of BBVA USA, to sever the bank's ties to the Balch and Bingham law firm. The charitable organization Consejo De Latinos Unidos (CDLU) cites Balch's apparently racist actions in recent years -- including a lead role in the North Birmingham Superfund bribery scandal -- and historic ties to former segregationist Gov. George Wallace and a 1960s highway-funds scandal that involved the imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

To spearhead its campaign regarding BBVA's unsavory ties to Birmingham's legal community, CDLU has launched two Web sites -- one in English and one in Spanish -- to document the ugly past of a financial institution that once was Compass Bank and Central Bank before Spain-based BBVA took over in 2007.

PNC has a major presence in its home-base of Pittsburgh, and is the naming sponsor of PNC Park, the beautiful home of major league baseball's Pittsburgh Pirates. Will PNC maintain ties to Balch and Bingham? It's too early to know, but the CDLU says the answer should be a resounding no. From a CDLU press release issued yesterday:

Consejo De Latinos Unidos (CDLU), a public charity and advocacy group called on William S. Demchak, the CEO of PNC Bank which is acquiring BBVA USA, to terminate the alleged racist law firm Balch and Bingham, which has represented BBVA USA for more than half a century.

“The undisputed fact is that BBVA USA was founded in 1964 by a staunch segregationist who was part of racist Alabama Governor George Wallace’s inner circle. BBVA USA’s founder was also a long-time partner at Balch and Bingham, a law firm which continues to engage in deplorable and unsavory conduct. In 2018, a Balch and Bingham partner was convicted and sentenced to five years in federal prison for a bribery scheme that included suppressing African-Americans from testing their toxic and contaminated property in North Birmingham. BBVA USA’s outside counsel has also been involved in other alleged misconduct including targeting poor African-American children and allegedly disenfranchising African-American voters,” said Ernesto Pichardo, a long-time civil rights activist and chairman of the board of the CDLU.

In 1993, Pichardo won a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision for religious freedom and Civil Rights after his Afro-Caribbean faith came under attack due to blatant intolerance and discrimination by racists and religious bigots.

Today, the CDLU launched two websites documenting the racist history of BBVA USA, one in English, the other in Spanish.

CDLU's chairman says PNC Bank should take a stand for social justice -- in Birmingham and around the country, where it will have a presence in 29 of the 30 top U.S. markets. With BBVA deal, PNC will become the country’s fifth-largest bank by assets, with $550 billion, just behind JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, according to Financial Times.

The deal should be about more than dollars and cents, says CDLU's chairman. From the press release:

“PNC Bank has a voice, a voice to bring systemic racism to an end. Balch and Bingham has refused to apologize to the African-American community for their egregious and unacceptable conduct, and 18 of 18 major D.C. lobbying clients have courageously terminated the embattled firm. PNC Bank must take a stand and not allow the firm to earn a single penny from this transaction,” Pichardo declared.

Pichardo has been a member of the board of directors of the CDLU since 2003, a public charity and advocacy group that launched an accountability and education project in 2017 about Balch and Bingham’s transgressions.

 

PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates

 

Drummond's request for immediate appeal in Roberson case should be swiftly denied because Alabama Supreme Court already has ruled in the negative on central question presented

 

Drummond Company's request for an interlocutory appeal in David Roberson's $75-million lawsuit should be dead on arrival. In fact, it should not even be certified for an appeal at the trial-court level, and its request for a stay in discovery certainly should not be granted. Why?

Drummond states such an immediate appeal is proper, in part because:

THERE ARE CONTROLLING QUESTIONS OF LAW AS TO WHICH THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

That, however, is not true. The Alabama Supreme Court already has stated its opinion on the central issue in the request for interlocutory appeal -- and it is not favorable to Drummond. In fact, the high court already has thoroughly shot holes in Drummond's case, so there is no difference of opinion -- and  no basis for an interlocutory appeal.

What is that central question Drummond seeks to place before the high court? Here's how it is stated in the company's brief:

Whether a  corporation, which is not itself a legal services provider, may avail itself of the ALSLA statute of limitations where its alleged liability is based on the conduct of its general counsel, who is a legal services provider?

The Alabama Supreme Court already has answered that question in a case styled Alabama Educ. Ass’n v. Nelson, 770 So. 2d 1057 (Ala. 2000). Nelson involved a teacher's efforts to sue AEA under the Alabama Legal Services Liabiliy Act (ALSLA) because of alleged legal malpractice by one of the association's in-house lawyers. That appears to be analogous to Roberson's claims related to Drummond in-house counsel Blake Andrews -- and the company's efforts to seek protection of the ALSLA and its tight statute-of-limitations, which could make the Roberson lawsuit time-barred.

But Drummond has a slight problem -- it admits that it is not a legal-services provider, and the Alabama Supreme Court held in Nelson that the ALSLA does not apply in such situations. In essence, the state's high court found in Nelson that ALSLA does not apply to the AEA -- which, like Drummond, is not a legal-services provider -- so it could not apply to Drummond. That means Roberson's complaint is not time-barred, and Drummond's request for interlocutory appeal should be sent to the dead letter office. Here is the key finding in Nelson:

        We note that throughout the ALSLA, the language used by the Legislature indicates             that the Act was intended to apply to lawyers and law firms. For example, §                         6-5-572(3)(a) sets out the "standard of care" a "legal service provider" is to observe:

"The standard of care applicable to a legal service provider is that level of such reasonable care, skill, and diligence as other similarly situated legal service providers in the same general line of practice in the same general locality ordinarily have and exercise in a like case."

        What standard of care would be applied to the AEA under this statute? We know of no         other "legal service provider" that, in regard to the AEA, might be considered to be             "similarly situated." Clearly this section contemplates that the ALSLA is to be                     applied  only to lawyers and to law firms— including professional corporation                    associations,  and partnerships—whose membership is composed solely of lawyers             acting for the  purpose of providing legal services.

        The plain language of § 6-5-572(2), as well as that of the other portions of the                    ALSLA, clearly indicates that the Legislature intended for the ALSLA to apply only            to lawyers and to entities that are composed of members who are licensed to practice         law within the State of Alabama. Because the AEA is not a lawyer or an entity whose         membership is composed of lawyers, it cannot be held liable under the ALSLA.

How might that last sentence be adjusted to fit Roberson v. Drummond? We will go with this:

Because Drummond is not a lawyer or an entity whose membership is composed of lawyers, it cannot avail itself of the ALSLA statute of limitations.

 That is not the only reason Drummond's request for interloctory appeal should be quickly rejected. We will address another one in an upcoming post.

David Roberson objects to Drummond's request for immediate appeal, arguing it is only designed to delay discovery in a case that already has experienced delays

David Roberson

 

Former Drummond executive David Roberson has filed an objection to the company's request for an interlocutory appeal in his $75-million fraud lawsuit.

Attorney Burt Newsome, writing on behalf of Roberson and his wife/co-plaintiff Anna, says there is no legal justification under the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure (ARAP) for the trial court to certify such an appeal -- stating essentially that Drummond's request is illegitimate, designed only to delay discovery in the case (The full Roberson objection is embedded at the end of this post.) Writes Newsome:

Under ARAP 5, for an interlocutory appeal to be granted an immediate appeal must materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. The interlocutory appeal statute sets a high threshold for certification to prevent piecemeal appeals; indeed, to obtain certification to appeal an interlocutory decision, a litigant must show that not only that an immediate appeal will advance the termination of the litigation but also that the appeal involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. . . . An analysis of the counts against Defendant Drummond that are still pending in this case shows that Drummond's request for an interlocutory appeal neither materially advances the termination of the litigation nor does it involve a controlling question of law as to which there is a significant ground for difference of opinion but is just yet another attempt by Drummond to delay the discovery process.

Newsome notes that Drummond's request only seeks appeal on three of the five counts that are pending against it:

Even if the interlocutory appeal was granted, this would not remotely end the litigation in this case. The same discovery would have to be done relative to the promissory fraud count that is in the complaint anyway. In addition, none of the remaining counts in the complaint against Defendant Drummond involve involve the receipt of legal services by either Plaintiff.

Drummond argues that its general counsel, Blake Andrews, gave David Roberson legal services, placing the case under the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA) and its tight statute of limitations. Newsome says, in so many words, that is rubbish:

There is not one piece of evidence in front of this Court that either Plaintiff ever received any legal services whatsoever from Defendant Drummond Company. There is not one piece of evidence in front of this court that either Plaintiff ever asked anyone at Drummond Company for legal advice and/or a question about whether or not anything was legal or illegal. Furthermore, Blake Andrews nor anyone else at Drummond could have ever served as David Roberson's attorney as this would have been a gross conflict of interest. . . .

In addition, the appeal pending as it relates to the claims of [codefendant] Balch and Bingham are clearly different. Balch and Bingham is a law firm and Drummond is not. It would be illegal for Drummond to give legal advice.

Newsome further notes that additional delay in the case would be unfair to the Robersons:

David Roberson . . . is currently out on bond pending the ruling on  his criminal appeal. He is also in his seventies and in poor health. If Mr. Roberson is in prison and/or deceased, his counsel's ability to do discovery will be severely hampered and I would have no way to consult with him during the case. . . . There is no just reason to further delay this case moving forward. Drummond merely seeks endless delays because it simply does not want to answer the Plaintiffs' discovery. Any further delay in conducting discovery in this case would be highly prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.

 

Drummond files for interlocutory appeal in David Roberson lawsuit, seeking dismissal similar to the one granted to codefendant Balch and Bingham law firm

Drummond Coal

 

Drummond Company is seeking an interlocutory appeal of certain issues in a $75-million fraud lawsuit from its former vice president David Roberson -- and it  also asks for a stay of discovery, which only began recently after a delay of roughly 14 months.

Is this a stalling tactic to delay discovery that Roberson's attorney, Burt Newsome, launched on November 2? It's hard to say, but Drummond is asking the trial court to certify three questions for interlocutory appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. All of the questions involve counts in the Roberson complaint where Circuit Judge Tamara Harris Johnson denied dismissal, stating that the statute of limitations (SOL) period prescribed by the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act (ALSLA) did not apply. Johnson granted dismissal on SOL grounds for codefendant Balch Bingham, and Drummond essentially is asking for identical treatment for its motion to dismiss.

Drummond's motion revolves around allegations that Blake Andrews, the company's general counsel, knew a scheme to overcome U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup regulations at a Superfund site. in North Birmingham was illegal -- and asked Roberson to process related invoices, leading to the latter's indictment and conviction at a federal criminal trial.

Here are the three questions for which Drummond seeks certification:

(1.) Where a legal services provider (Balch) is alleged to have devised an illegal "plan' on behalf of its client (Drummond) and represented to the plaintiff (an employee of the client) that the plan was legal, and for that reason, the plaintiff followed the employer's instructions in paying the legal services provider's invoices, can claims against the legal services provider premised on the plan be barred by the ALSLA statute of limitations while substantively identical claims against the client are not? 

(2) Whether a  corporation, which is not itself a legal services provider, may avail itself of the ALSLA statute of limitations where its alleged liability is based on the conduct of its general counsel, who is a legal services provider?

(3.) Whether alleged misrepresentations by a lawyer that led a plaintiff to believe his conduct was legal are "legal services" under the ALSLA?

The full Drummond motion is embedded below:

 

Legal Schnauzer passes 4 million page views and reaches its 13th anniversary, two major milestones in our effort to unmask legal and political corruption

 

 Legal Schnauzer recently reached two milestones, and I never dreamed we would approach either one. First, we passed 4 million page views. Then, we reached the blog's 13th anniversary.

Both are pretty neat when you consider that I started this little enterprise with the idea that it probably would last a year or so.

Along the way, we have . . .

* Been named among the top 50 law blogs in North America, the only truly independent blog on the list. All the others are connected to law firms, law schools, legal associations, media groups, or public-affairs organizations.

* Played a lead role in the ousting of corrupt political figures, such as Alabama "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley and his mistress "Home Wrecky Becky" Caldwell Mason, plus former U.S. Judge Mark Fuller. We played a supporting role in the investigative journalism that led to the conviction of former House Speaker Mike Hubbard. Most recently, we played a supporting role in the journalism that apparently led to the retirement of Jefferson County Probate Judge Alan King and the surprise resignation of U.S. Attorney Jay Town -- with Ban Balch playing a lead role on both stories.


* Perhaps more than any other news site in Alabama, we've exposed the hypocrisy of "family values" conservatives, reporting on the extramarital activities and financial shenanigans involving U.S. Sen. Luther Strange and Jessica Medeiros Garrison; former GOP Gov. Robert Bentley, and the fully nude, gay-porn photographs of U.S. Judge Bill Pryor,

* On a story that has international implications, we've reported on former Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his history of corrupt actions dating back more than 20 years in Alabama.Substantial evidence suggests Sessions was in the middle of the KremlinGate scandal, which should surprise no one who knows about Sessions' background in "The Heart of Dixie, including his ties to the scandal-plagued Balch Bingham law firm.

When we gave birth to Legal Schnauzer back in the George W. Bush era, we did not have many other muckraking  enterprises in the Alabama blogosphere. I'm pleased to report that we have some excellent company these days. Of particular note is banbalch.com, which came on the scene roughly four years ago and has become a highly influential blog in a relatively short time. Publisher K.B Forbes. is an aggressive investigator, with a colorful writing style, and we suspect that has made Ban Balch must reading for many in the Birmingham legal community.

As for our milestones, they start with our first post, which was titled "Is 'Your Honor' Really Honorable?" and published on June 3, 2007. Some 4,164 posts later, we are still cranking out the kind of investigative journalism that is found at very few news outlets in Alabama, or anywhere else.

We're not certain when we passed 4 million page views, but the current number from the primary statistics service that we use (as I write this) is at 4,339,434. Our all-time unique visits are at roughly 3  million.

For reasons I don't fully understand, our second stat service (which is Google based) provides significantly different numbers. It has our all-time page views at 8.4 million, which means we passed 4 million there a long time ago. I didn't sign up for the first stat service until I had been blogging for several months, while the second one is attached to the blogging platform itself, and that might explain part of the difference. But on a daily basis, the Google-based counter provides a number that is roughly twice that of  the independent counter.

Never have figured out why that happens. I like the Google numbers better, but I tend to look at the independent numbers as the official count for Legal Schnauzer.

The numbers show that our readership has steadily grown. After starting the blog on June 3, 2007, we reached 1 million page views on or about July 15, 2011. We reached 2 million page views on or about February 25, 2015. We' published a post about hitting 3 million page views on July 5, 2017.  This post, about passing 4 million comes on Nov. 11, 2020.

That means it took a little more than 4 years to reach 1 million, another 3 1/2 years to reach 2 million, another 2 1/2 years to reach 3 million, and another 3 years to reach 4 million. That indicates there is a serious appetite for the kind of journalism we produce at Legal Schnauzer -- and I would say that's a good thing, especially given that we have been in an era of public corruption unlike anything this country ever has seen. And much of it likely has ties to Alabama.

Legal Schnauzer clearly has made an impact, largely because of readers who follow and support us, and sources who help inform us. Regular readers know that our kind of unbridled journalism comes with a price, especially in red states like Alabama and Missouri, where corruption flows like a river.

In October 2013, I was kidnapped by "law enforcement" from inside our home in Birmingham and tossed in jail for five months. In essence, I was "arrested for blogging," reporting on the gross corruption that only recently has caught the attention of the state's somnolent mainstream press. In summer 2014, forced from our home by a wrongful foreclosure, Carol and I landed in Springfield, Missouri, where I grew up. In September 2015, we were the targets of an unlawful eviction, which included cops pointing assault rifles at my head and shattering Carol's left arm so severely that it required trauma surgery.

It seems clear that both of these events were attempts to shut down Legal Schnauzer. But we are still here, and our readership is growing. The thugs have failed, in the face of devoted, intelligent, and thoughtful readers.

For your gracious support, we offer our most sincere thanks. And we invite you to stick around for the next 4 million page views.

On a final note, we reached one other milestone recently. On May 31, 2020, we had 65,199 page views -- a one-day record for the blog. The next day, June1, 2020, we had 59,163 page views -- for a two-day total of  124,362, another record.

As David Roberson's civil case against Drummond Company kicks into high gear, the immunity deal he rejected in criminal case is beginning to smell funny

Drummond Coal

 

Something is starting to smell funny about the immunity deal former Drummond Company executive David Roberson rejected in the North Birmingham Superfund case, according to a report at banbalch.com. Reports Publisher K.B. Forbes:

In 2017, the criminal defense team of ex-Drummond Executive David Roberson allegedly flat-out rejected a full immunity deal with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

And what would David Roberson have done for that immunity deal?

According to sources, the federal government wanted Roberson to honestly testify about the alleged bribes from Drummond Company to politicians.

The testimony the feds also sought included details of an alleged bribery ring of “do-not-ask” but “just-send-the-check” co-conspirators.

But Roberson’s criminal attorneys allegedly rejected the deal.

With the criminal attorneys being paid generously (to this day) by Drummond Company, some observers wonder:

Was the rejection of the immunity deal done solely for Drummond’s benefit at Roberson’s expense?

The issue is coming back to life in Roberson's $75-million fraud lawsuit against Drummond and the Balch Bingham law firm, and the company's general counsel is coming under enhanced scrutiny. Writes Forbes:

Blake Andrews, General Counsel of Drummond Company, was allegedly so “confused” by the invoices in the North Birmingham Bribery Scheme, he allegedly had Roberson sign off on them as the “fall guy.”

Was “Confused” Andrews involved in any way with the rejection of this immunity deal?

Roberson’s civil litigation team is dispatching discovery requests and video deposition subpoenas.

Roberson’s civil attorneys should dig deep into Andrews' communications with Roberson’s criminal defense team and make sure there were no alleged strings-attached,  to his detriment.

What was Roberson’s reward for keeping his mouth shut and being loyal?

Drummond allegedly vowed to keep him on the payroll, pay for his criminal litigation costs, and take care of Roberson and his family.

Yet six months after his conviction, Roberson was terminated. He lost his home, his possessions, and barely can pay for the prescription drugs of his family members.

Will the prospect of intense discovery make some Drummond officials, and their Balch allies, uneasy? Writes Forbes:

Now, Roberson’s $75 million civil lawsuit against Drummond and Balch & Bingham is moving forward.

The judge refused to dismiss the promissory fraud count where the Robersons asserted they both turned down employment opportunities and the selling of their home for a profit based on Drummond’s assurances that appear to have been lies.

Drummond always has declared loyalty, absolute loyalty to their employees.

Regardless of the morality of the matter, David Roberson saved Drummond Company $100 to $150 million in costs in the North Birmingham CERLA matter.

And now some folks at Drummond appear to be “dazed and confused.

"Let's get Mikey! He likes it!" Did a classic TV commercial from the 1970s play out among top officials at Drummond Co. in Superfund scheme?

 

An anonymous comment here at Legal Schnauzer, about a beloved cereal commercial from the 1970s and '80s, has turned into a splendid post -- both amusing and insightful about the David Roberson lawsuit against Drummond Company -- at banbalch.com. 

Publisher K.B. Forbes hits just the right tone under the headline “'Let’s Get Mikey! He likes it. Hey Mikey!” Drummond’s General Counsel Blake Andrews Under Fire." The post is light-hearted because . . . well, it's about one of the most clever, long-running (14 years) commercials in television history. But there is a serious undertone because the commercial seems to actually reflect the mindset of Drummond officials who allegedly set up Roberson as the fall guy in the North Birmingham Superfund bribery scandal. 

Here is the comment-- published 11/5/20 -- that set Forbes' post aflight:

Anonymous said...

This routine reminds me of the great cereal commercial from back in the day, where the kids said, "Hey Mikey, you try it." Except this is, "Hey Roberson, you pay the invoice."

November 5, 2020 at 12:07 PM

Writes Forbes:

We have no bones to pick with Drummond Company whatsoever. None.

But walking goosestep with embattled law firm Balch & Bingham is detrimental to one’s health, livelihood, and reputation.

Just ask Jeff Sessions, Luther Strange, or disgraced ex-U.S. Attorney Jay E. Town among others.

Even former Drummond CEO Mike Tracy abruptly “retired” last year after cuddling up with Balch, and after the alleged set-up of “fall guy” ex-Drummond executive David Roberson was exposed.

Now, Blake Andrews , General Counsel of Drummond Company is under fire for allegedly conspiring with Tracy to allegedly have Roberson sign off on all invoices and payments involved in the North Birmingham Bribery Scheme.

Andrews appears to have been so “confused” by the invoices from the money laundering operation, Andrews allegedly had Roberson take the fall.

An anonymous commentator on the well read legal blog Legal Schnauzer wrote:

Forbes then ties the comment, and the commercial, into the real world:

In the years that Roberson worked for Drummond, he never, ever reviewed or signed-off on any Alabama legal invoices. Ever.

Why then, did Blake Andrews allegedly have Roberson sign-off and approve all the legal invoices from Balch & Bingham seeking reimbursement for payments made by Balch on behalf of Drummond to the Oliver Robinson Foundation?

Was Blake Andrews indeed “confused” or did he willingly know that these payments were illegal?

Roberson is not a lawyer; he is a biologist.

Andrews appears to have been the same legal counselor who hired Roberson’s criminal defense team that rejected a full-immunity deal.

As we wrote in the summer of 2019:

NOW FOR THE SHOCKER: In the North Birmingham Bribery Case, Dave Roberson was offered an immunity deal if he had testified against Balch & Bingham, according to insiders.

Why didn’t he testify? Why didn’t he take the deal?

Roberson had faith in Drummond Company. He was loyal, and Drummond declared their support after his criminal conviction [in July of 2018], calling him a “man of integrity.”

Six months later in February [of 2019], Drummond, showing little integrity,  reversed course and fired Roberson.

With a new Administration entering, a new group of U.S. Attorneys arriving, and aggressive talk against environmental racism, Drummond CEO Richard Mullen, who likes to save money or make money, should break the chains with Balch, put the North Birmingham matter behind him, and “retire” Blake Andrews.

Not only does it appear that Drummond Company received bad legal advice from Balch & Bingham, they also appear to have been led foolishly by their own General Counsel.

Mullen needs to mop up Andrews’ ugly mess and separate Drummond Company from Balch & Bingham once and for all.

How will Joe Biden react to the "hot American mess" he inherits after defeating Donald Trump in a drawn-out, disputed, and dramatic 2020 election process?

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

 

A "hot American mess."

That's how Axios describes the situation confronting President-Elect Joe Biden as he prepares to take office from Donald Trump in January. Writes Mike Allen,:

Never before has a president-elect inherited a complex set of urgent — and epic — emergencies like the ones confronting Joe Biden and America. 

FDR, no doubt, inherited a hot American, Depression-era mess in 1932. President-elect Biden's spoils, in some respects, are similarly rotten: a spreading pandemic, sky-high long-term unemployment, stratospheric federal debt, an outgoing president claiming the Democrat stole the election, a nation bitterly divided, and misinformation and lies spreading at scale on platforms available to every citizen for free. 

Any one of these crises would take a presidential term to tame. Six, at once, seem almost incomprehensible in their scale and complexity.

Biden plans to focus first on the coronavirus and the economic devastation it continues to wreak. Getting the nation to feel secure about its physical and economic health will determine whether Biden is a success or failure. 

But the messes are many:

Here is how Allen breaks them down:

1. An average of 100,000+ people are getting the virus daily — a number expected to keep rising through the holidays. Biden has zero authority to attack it until late January. He'll get a head start Monday by appointing his own COVID task force. In his victory speech [Saturday] night, he promised a plan "built on a bedrock of science ... to turn this pandemic around."
   
2. Real unemployment is much worse than the headline figures and shows the true depth of the recession Biden will inherit. Modeling we unveiled in October on "Axios on HBO" shows that if you define an unemployed person as someone "looking for a full-time job that pays a living wage who can't find one," the effective unemployment rate in the U.S. is 26.1%.
3. The federal deficit topped $3 trillion in the year that ended Sept. 30, and it will haunt Washington next year, despite the bipartisan decision to ignore it. By some measures, it's the biggest budget gap since 1945 — a reminder that the U.S. is confronting crises on a scale it has encountered only a couple of times in 230 years.
4. Trump will torment Biden from outside the White House, and he could dominate Republican politics and media for years to come. Trump retains a psychic hold on a huge swath of America, making quick healing look out of reach.
5. Social media, which has connected the world and enabled so much creativity and so many new businesses, creates a distortion field that amplifies the worst in us, and it's an accelerant for lies and nonsense. This makes the White House's bully pulpit, once the most formidable communications platform in the world, just one more voice in the feed.

The bottom line: Biden confidants say he knows this weekend's halo is an aberration. His reality is a rising left in the Democratic Party that will constantly pressure him, a Republican majority in the Senate that will constantly constrain him, and a reality of a rattled world that will constantly haunt him.

Luther Strange, Robert Bentley, and Kay Ivey are among targets for data about payments in scheme to defeat EPA regulations at site in North Birmingham

 

Drummond Coal

Burt Newsome, attorney for former Drummond Company vice president David Roberson, is seeking documentation about payments to some of the biggest names in Alabama politics as part of the second set of discovery filed yesterday in Roberson's $75-million lawsuit against his former employer. The payments would be related to a scheme, allegedly orchestrated by Drummond and the Balch Bingham law firm, to defeat U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup regulations at a site in North Birmingham.

The full discovery document is embedded at the end of this post.

Newsome asks for copies of any and all checks for payment to the following individuals and entities in the years 2014 and 2015 and the source documents sent to the Accounting Department and/or Controller to approve these payments:

(a) Congressman Bradley Byrne

(b) Congressman Mike Rogers

 (c) Congressman Mo Brooks

(d) Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)

(e) Former Governor Robert Bentley

(f) Former Attorney General Luther Strange

(g) Governor Kay Ivey 

Newsome also asks for documents related to payments to former Trump official Trey Glenn, Scott Phillips, and entities connected to them -- along with payments to Balch Bingham and the EPA.