When I first considered writing a blog about my experiences in Alabama courts, I thought it would focus only on judicial corruption at the state level.
Never did I think it would focus on prosecutorial corruption at the federal level. Never did I think it would have connections to broader, more national issues. Never did I think I would see evidence in my own case of selective prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), a subject that now is the focus of a Congressional investigation.
But your humble blogger has learned that blogs can morph. And so Legal Schnauzer has come to focus on multiple topics--judicial corruption and prosecutorial corruption, wrongdoing in Alabama's judicial branch and its connections to Alabama's executive branch.
I was fighting a bogus lawsuit for about a year and half, paying lawyers almost $12,000, before I realized that J. Michael Joiner, a circuit judge in Shelby County, Alabama, was cheating me blind. Enough strange rulings came down--and I received enough nonsensical answers from my lawyers--that I was motivated to spend hours and hours at the Jefferson County Law Library, learning the law that applied to my case.
Finally, I realized that the judge was crooked, and my own lawyers had to know it. But it was clear my lawyers were more interested in gaining favor with a judge in Alabama's wealthiest county than they were in fulfilling their duty under the law to represent their client honestly and zealously. And I suspect they are hardly the only lawyers who would stand by silently in the face of blatant judicial wrongdoing.
But you know what? At the time it dawned on me that I was being cheated, I thought this must be an isolated case. I thought I was just unlucky; it didn't occur to me that judicial corruption was widespread, that people all over the country were routinely being cheated. But again, research showed me an unpleasant truth: Judicial corruption is a coast-to-coast problem.
And then, early this year, I became aware of the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys in the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ). Before long, the DOJ scandal expanded, and evidence surfaced that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated. Alabama remained on center stage when U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) helped initiate a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the DOJ.
I learned to look at state-level judicial corruption through the lens of the evolving federal scandal. And the ties between the two became clear. Corruption cases tend to involve money, mail, telephones, computers. That's why corruption cases--even those that involve a mayor, a governor, a state judge--usually end up in federal court.
So let's take a broader look at judicial corruption. After all, the problem goes way beyond my case.
And let's take a federal perspective with us. While states have judicial oversight groups--Alabama's is called the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission--they are notoriously weak. The only way to solve the problem of judicial corruption is through federal law enforcement.
We will start our travelogue of judicial corruption close to home--in the Deep South.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Spotlight on Mississippi
The Congressional investigation into the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ) so far appears to be focusing on federal prosecutions in Alabama, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But another case in the Deep South, this one in Mississippi, might also require scrutiny.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an excellent post today about the Mississippi case of attorney Paul Minor and judges Oliver Diaz, John Whitfield, and Wes Teel.
Horton lays out the political backdrop to the prosecution, which wound up with convictions for Minor, Whitfield, and Teel. Diaz was acquitted twice, on corruption and tax-evasion charges.
Horton notes two key elements behind the case:
* It targeted key sources of funds for Democratic candidates in Mississippi.
* It helped lead to the election of Republican Haley Barbour as governor of the state.
The Minor case in Mississippi has been of great interest to us here at Legal Schnauzer. It has remarkable similarities to the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. It strongly hints of a political prosecution, with Democratic-leaning defendants being pursued by Republican-led prosecutors. And it involves judicial corruption, a subject which goes to the core of our humble blog.
We will take a close look at the Minor case. But first, let's look at judicial corruption in general across the South.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an excellent post today about the Mississippi case of attorney Paul Minor and judges Oliver Diaz, John Whitfield, and Wes Teel.
Horton lays out the political backdrop to the prosecution, which wound up with convictions for Minor, Whitfield, and Teel. Diaz was acquitted twice, on corruption and tax-evasion charges.
Horton notes two key elements behind the case:
* It targeted key sources of funds for Democratic candidates in Mississippi.
* It helped lead to the election of Republican Haley Barbour as governor of the state.
The Minor case in Mississippi has been of great interest to us here at Legal Schnauzer. It has remarkable similarities to the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama. It strongly hints of a political prosecution, with Democratic-leaning defendants being pursued by Republican-led prosecutors. And it involves judicial corruption, a subject which goes to the core of our humble blog.
We will take a close look at the Minor case. But first, let's look at judicial corruption in general across the South.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Craig's Stall Attracts Tourists
When you are writing a blog about judicial corruption (and other assorted--and sordid--problems in our justice system), you have to take advantage of any opportunity you get to interject humor into the proceedings. Our subject here at Legal Schnauzer is not one that naturally lends itself to lots of chuckles.
So to lighten things up a bit, let's turn to our old friend Larry Craig. You remember Craig, the Republican U.S. senator from Idaho who was arrested for soliciting homosexual sex in a restroom at the Minneapolis airport. Craig pleaded guilty to a charge of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and now is trying to have his plea withdrawn so he can fight the charge.
Well, it turns out that the bathroom stall where Craig was arrested has become a tourist attraction. People who work at the Minneapolis airport report they are regularly being asked for directions to the famous stall.
One man admitted to making at least two stops already to see the stall. Lots of folks take pictures, both inside and outside the restroom.
Reports have it that in order to take a photo of the stall, you have to adopt a "wide stance."
On a more serious note, the American Civil Liberties Union is standing up for Craig. The ACLU says that Craig's various gestures in the restroom amount to constitutionally protected free speech. And even if he did the foot tapping etc., his actions do not amount to a crime.
You've got to give the ACLU credit. I think it's safe to say that Larry Craig has not been a champion of the ACLU during his political career. But the ACLU, which a lot of conservatives like to trash in a kneejerk way, stands up for him while many of his political brethren bail on him.
And I think the ACLU is right. It seems pretty clear what Craig was up to. But if you read the account of what he did, and read the statute he was accused of violating, I don't think there is any way it adds up to a crime.
I'm not a law-enforcement professional by any means, but seems to me the police officer acted too hastily. If he had let things play out to the point that Craig specifically asked for a sex act there in the restroom, then the disorderly conduct charge would probably be legit. But as it is, I think Craig should be found not guilty--assuming he can get the guilty plea withdrawn.
So to lighten things up a bit, let's turn to our old friend Larry Craig. You remember Craig, the Republican U.S. senator from Idaho who was arrested for soliciting homosexual sex in a restroom at the Minneapolis airport. Craig pleaded guilty to a charge of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and now is trying to have his plea withdrawn so he can fight the charge.
Well, it turns out that the bathroom stall where Craig was arrested has become a tourist attraction. People who work at the Minneapolis airport report they are regularly being asked for directions to the famous stall.
One man admitted to making at least two stops already to see the stall. Lots of folks take pictures, both inside and outside the restroom.
Reports have it that in order to take a photo of the stall, you have to adopt a "wide stance."
On a more serious note, the American Civil Liberties Union is standing up for Craig. The ACLU says that Craig's various gestures in the restroom amount to constitutionally protected free speech. And even if he did the foot tapping etc., his actions do not amount to a crime.
You've got to give the ACLU credit. I think it's safe to say that Larry Craig has not been a champion of the ACLU during his political career. But the ACLU, which a lot of conservatives like to trash in a kneejerk way, stands up for him while many of his political brethren bail on him.
And I think the ACLU is right. It seems pretty clear what Craig was up to. But if you read the account of what he did, and read the statute he was accused of violating, I don't think there is any way it adds up to a crime.
I'm not a law-enforcement professional by any means, but seems to me the police officer acted too hastily. If he had let things play out to the point that Craig specifically asked for a sex act there in the restroom, then the disorderly conduct charge would probably be legit. But as it is, I think Craig should be found not guilty--assuming he can get the guilty plea withdrawn.
Democrats in Shelby County?
The Birmingham News reports that a couple of relatively new groups of Democrats have emerged in overwhelmingly Republican Shelby County.
It's nice to know there are some Democrats in Shelby County besides my wife and me. The Shelby County Grassroots Democrats formed earlier this year. They are teaming with the state-affiliated Shelby County Democratic Party, which had been inactive for several years until last summer.
The groups have 150 or so members, and interest evidently is on the upswing, driven partly by disenchantment over the Iraq war, an influx of new residents, and aggressive recruiting.
Legal Schnauzer certainly applauds these efforts. I spend a considerable amount of time exposing Republican corruption in Shelby County, and I soon will be going into great detail on the sleaze that takes place at the courthouse in Columbiana. But there are actually a lot of attractive qualities about Shelby County--as long as you avoid Columbiana and its god-awful courthouse.
Heck, Michael Jordan chose to live in Shelby County while he played for the Birmingham Barons, so the place must have something going for it.
"A lot of Shelby County Democrats really haven't been given any choices or reasons to come out and vote because we haven't had many people on the ballots," says Dick Bell, chairman of the state-affiliated group. "That goes a long way in dampening the spirits."
I'll say. My wife and I have given up on voting in most primaries because there usually aren't any Democrats to vote for. And we've given up voting in any election that involves a possible tax increase to support schools, libraries, etc. We have no children, but we always have voted for taxes to support schools. And they always fail, evidently because Republicans with children vote against them. Amazing.
Democratic groups in Shelby County have a tough road ahead if they hope to make an impact in their area. I see a frightening form of group-think in this county among the white middle and upper classes. I think they give little if any thought to their vote, beyond pulling that GOP lever.
No matter how awful the Bush administration gets, I suspect these voters will be going Republican all the way next time around.
If we had a military draft and their little Justin or Blake was a threat to get shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Iran or North Korea), things might change. But as long as the white middle and upper classes aren't asked to sacrifice for the neocon's international misadventures (and domestic corruption), those voters will continue to go Republican, I'm afraid. Hope it's not that way in other parts of the country. But that's the way it appears to be in Shelby County, Alabama.
A few years back, my wife and went to our polling place for a primary election. We got there fairly early, but it looked like at least 200-300 people had already gone through the line. When we got to the front and asked for a Democratic Party ballot, the older gentlemen manning the table looked at us like we were Creatures from the Black Lagoon. Then, I saw why he was so stunned. Before receiving our ballots, we had to put our names on a sign-in sheet. Ours were the first names on the list. I would love to know how long it took for another Democrat to sign up.
Bell says his group has grown from 30 members to about 100 in the past year. The grassroots group has grown from six members in February to 35 now, with an e-mail group of 80.
I wonder how ballsy these new Democratic groups might be. The highest-ranking elected officials in the county are the circuit judges. They are all Republican, and I have overwhelming evidence that at least three of them are corrupt to the core. (One of the Republicans, Hub Harrington, is a Siegelman appointee and is a Republican in name only in this county; I've had indirect dealings with him in my case, and I was rather impressed. He's the only judge down there that I have any faith in at all. It must be tough for him to serve while surrounded by hacks like J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson.)
If Shelby County Democrats really want to make some noise, I know an issue they could sink their teeth into. Dick Bell is an attorney, and he would have to have an unusual surplus of courage (and testicles the size of Wisconsin) to take on the right-wing legal establishment in Shelby County. But stranger things have happened, I guess.
The tone of the News story was a bit dismissive, I thought. It was kind of like: "Oh, look at these little pathetic Democrats in Shelby County. Aren't they cute?"
Would love to see Shelby County Democrats shock the News and kick up a major s**tstorm. And I know just the issue they could use to do it.
It's nice to know there are some Democrats in Shelby County besides my wife and me. The Shelby County Grassroots Democrats formed earlier this year. They are teaming with the state-affiliated Shelby County Democratic Party, which had been inactive for several years until last summer.
The groups have 150 or so members, and interest evidently is on the upswing, driven partly by disenchantment over the Iraq war, an influx of new residents, and aggressive recruiting.
Legal Schnauzer certainly applauds these efforts. I spend a considerable amount of time exposing Republican corruption in Shelby County, and I soon will be going into great detail on the sleaze that takes place at the courthouse in Columbiana. But there are actually a lot of attractive qualities about Shelby County--as long as you avoid Columbiana and its god-awful courthouse.
Heck, Michael Jordan chose to live in Shelby County while he played for the Birmingham Barons, so the place must have something going for it.
"A lot of Shelby County Democrats really haven't been given any choices or reasons to come out and vote because we haven't had many people on the ballots," says Dick Bell, chairman of the state-affiliated group. "That goes a long way in dampening the spirits."
I'll say. My wife and I have given up on voting in most primaries because there usually aren't any Democrats to vote for. And we've given up voting in any election that involves a possible tax increase to support schools, libraries, etc. We have no children, but we always have voted for taxes to support schools. And they always fail, evidently because Republicans with children vote against them. Amazing.
Democratic groups in Shelby County have a tough road ahead if they hope to make an impact in their area. I see a frightening form of group-think in this county among the white middle and upper classes. I think they give little if any thought to their vote, beyond pulling that GOP lever.
No matter how awful the Bush administration gets, I suspect these voters will be going Republican all the way next time around.
If we had a military draft and their little Justin or Blake was a threat to get shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Iran or North Korea), things might change. But as long as the white middle and upper classes aren't asked to sacrifice for the neocon's international misadventures (and domestic corruption), those voters will continue to go Republican, I'm afraid. Hope it's not that way in other parts of the country. But that's the way it appears to be in Shelby County, Alabama.
A few years back, my wife and went to our polling place for a primary election. We got there fairly early, but it looked like at least 200-300 people had already gone through the line. When we got to the front and asked for a Democratic Party ballot, the older gentlemen manning the table looked at us like we were Creatures from the Black Lagoon. Then, I saw why he was so stunned. Before receiving our ballots, we had to put our names on a sign-in sheet. Ours were the first names on the list. I would love to know how long it took for another Democrat to sign up.
Bell says his group has grown from 30 members to about 100 in the past year. The grassroots group has grown from six members in February to 35 now, with an e-mail group of 80.
I wonder how ballsy these new Democratic groups might be. The highest-ranking elected officials in the county are the circuit judges. They are all Republican, and I have overwhelming evidence that at least three of them are corrupt to the core. (One of the Republicans, Hub Harrington, is a Siegelman appointee and is a Republican in name only in this county; I've had indirect dealings with him in my case, and I was rather impressed. He's the only judge down there that I have any faith in at all. It must be tough for him to serve while surrounded by hacks like J. Michael Joiner, G. Dan Reeves, and Ron Jackson.)
If Shelby County Democrats really want to make some noise, I know an issue they could sink their teeth into. Dick Bell is an attorney, and he would have to have an unusual surplus of courage (and testicles the size of Wisconsin) to take on the right-wing legal establishment in Shelby County. But stranger things have happened, I guess.
The tone of the News story was a bit dismissive, I thought. It was kind of like: "Oh, look at these little pathetic Democrats in Shelby County. Aren't they cute?"
Would love to see Shelby County Democrats shock the News and kick up a major s**tstorm. And I know just the issue they could use to do it.
The Power of the Prosecutor
The role of prosecutor is one of immense power in our justice system. It also is a role that is ripe for potential abuse.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides considerable insight into how the role can, and has been, abused over the years.
Concern about abuse of prosecutorial power dates to the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Horton brings us to the modern day, where the state attorney general has played a prominent role in federal prosecutions in Alabama.
Both William Pryor (now a federal judge) and current AG Troy King have shown a pattern of finding a target and then searching the law books to come up with a crime to fit the person. Interestingly, Pryor and King often don't prosecute the cases themselves. Rather, they turn them over to federal prosecutors.
The Montgomery Advertiser recently reported that King had not filed criminal charges in a single case brought to him by the Alabama Ethics Commission since King took over as AG in 2004. I guess King has been too busy with political witch hunts to bother with ethics cases.
Horton cites a two-part series by Mobile Lagniappe, which provides details into King's politically motivated prosecution of Bessemer judge Dan King (a Republican), who got on the AG's bad side by ruling in favor of gaming interests in a high-profile case. Dan King is charged with a 56-count indictment on a variety of corruption charges and is scheduled to go to trial in December.
Wonder if Troy King would be interested in going after some legitimately corrupt Republican judges in Shelby County. Nah.
Speaking of Shelby County, King recently took a case away from District Attorney Robby Owens over Owens' handling of a death-penalty case. I must say that I'm conflicted about this one. Anyone who rips a public official in Shelby County usually has my support, and I've been extremely unimpressed with Owens and his office (much more on that coming later).
But King seems to come off as a bit of a hothead here. It's hard to make Shelby County officials look good, but King actually manages to pull it off.
Horton reports that King sees himself as the natural successor to Bob Riley as Alabama's next Republican governor. Should be interesting to see how that goes.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, provides considerable insight into how the role can, and has been, abused over the years.
Concern about abuse of prosecutorial power dates to the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Horton brings us to the modern day, where the state attorney general has played a prominent role in federal prosecutions in Alabama.
Both William Pryor (now a federal judge) and current AG Troy King have shown a pattern of finding a target and then searching the law books to come up with a crime to fit the person. Interestingly, Pryor and King often don't prosecute the cases themselves. Rather, they turn them over to federal prosecutors.
The Montgomery Advertiser recently reported that King had not filed criminal charges in a single case brought to him by the Alabama Ethics Commission since King took over as AG in 2004. I guess King has been too busy with political witch hunts to bother with ethics cases.
Horton cites a two-part series by Mobile Lagniappe, which provides details into King's politically motivated prosecution of Bessemer judge Dan King (a Republican), who got on the AG's bad side by ruling in favor of gaming interests in a high-profile case. Dan King is charged with a 56-count indictment on a variety of corruption charges and is scheduled to go to trial in December.
Wonder if Troy King would be interested in going after some legitimately corrupt Republican judges in Shelby County. Nah.
Speaking of Shelby County, King recently took a case away from District Attorney Robby Owens over Owens' handling of a death-penalty case. I must say that I'm conflicted about this one. Anyone who rips a public official in Shelby County usually has my support, and I've been extremely unimpressed with Owens and his office (much more on that coming later).
But King seems to come off as a bit of a hothead here. It's hard to make Shelby County officials look good, but King actually manages to pull it off.
Horton reports that King sees himself as the natural successor to Bob Riley as Alabama's next Republican governor. Should be interesting to see how that goes.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Sliming Artur Davis
I love it when Scott Horton, of Harper's, accurately predicts what The Birmingham News is going to do before the paper even does it.
It happened a few weeks ago when the News evidently assigned Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Brett Blackledge to write a story calling into question the accuracy of Jill Simpson's affidavit in the Don Siegelman case. Horton wrote about the brewing story on a Saturday evening, and it appeared in the News the next morning.
Well, it's happened again. And evidently Mr. Horton has some darn good sources on the inside at The Birmingham News. That indicates the paper has at least one employee with the conscience, and the guts, to stand up to his or her employer's right-wing, low-rent tactics. Perhaps there is hope for the world yet.
Horton posted yesterday that the News was about to publish a major piece, sliming U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who is leading the Congressional investigation into the Bush Department of Justice scandal. And what to our wandering eyes should appear this morning upon perusing the front page of the News? Why, the very story to which Horton had referred, written by the one and only Brett Blackledge.
As Horton says, by casting a critical eye toward the News' conservative brethren Artur Davis clearly has pissed off the big dogs at Birmingham's trusted daily. Check out the story yourself and decide if it has any significant news value, other than to send this message to Davis: Watch your step, bub. I guess it was this or burn down Davis' house.
Horton has come to calling Birmingham's daily "the Pravda of the South." I'm starting to think it's unfair to sully Pravda's good name by making that comparison.
It happened a few weeks ago when the News evidently assigned Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Brett Blackledge to write a story calling into question the accuracy of Jill Simpson's affidavit in the Don Siegelman case. Horton wrote about the brewing story on a Saturday evening, and it appeared in the News the next morning.
Well, it's happened again. And evidently Mr. Horton has some darn good sources on the inside at The Birmingham News. That indicates the paper has at least one employee with the conscience, and the guts, to stand up to his or her employer's right-wing, low-rent tactics. Perhaps there is hope for the world yet.
Horton posted yesterday that the News was about to publish a major piece, sliming U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL), who is leading the Congressional investigation into the Bush Department of Justice scandal. And what to our wandering eyes should appear this morning upon perusing the front page of the News? Why, the very story to which Horton had referred, written by the one and only Brett Blackledge.
As Horton says, by casting a critical eye toward the News' conservative brethren Artur Davis clearly has pissed off the big dogs at Birmingham's trusted daily. Check out the story yourself and decide if it has any significant news value, other than to send this message to Davis: Watch your step, bub. I guess it was this or burn down Davis' house.
Horton has come to calling Birmingham's daily "the Pravda of the South." I'm starting to think it's unfair to sully Pravda's good name by making that comparison.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
A Curious Case of Leaking in Mobile
The strange case of Charlie McNichol appears to be over. And it raises more questions than it answers.
McNichol, the former law enforcement coordinator and spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Mobile, pleaded guilty yesterday to a misdemeanor charge of leaking information about a grand jury probe into Orange Beach corruption.
McNichol is on paid leave from his job and faces no more than a year in prison. Sentencing is set for Oct. 18. The investigation involved former Orange Beach mayor Steve Russo and three others, who were convicted or pleaded guilty.
A few questions come quickly to mind:
* Who was the "personal friend" to whom McNichol leaked information? Was McNichol's plea designed to ensure that this information did not come out in court? I assume McNichol didn't leak the information to his dry cleaner or his garbage man. Did he leak the information to a reporter? Was a reporter from the Mobile Press-Register? If so, who? And does this indicate something about the way the Mobile paper goes about collecting news?
* If the Mobile Press-Register was involved, shouldn't the paper reveal that? After all, the paper makes it a point to air other people's "dirty laundry" (at least in some instances).
* Why did the Justice Department bring this case and ignore evidence of leaking by the office of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery?
* Will Russo and the others be entitled to new trials?
* McNichol was charged with misdemeanor theft of property. Is that truly the proper charge here? Should an act that so seriously undermines the process of justice be deemed a misdemeanor and is there a more serious charge with which McNichol could have been charged?
* How did this case come to light? The Justice Department seems to have no problem ignoring possible leaking in Montgomery. Why investigate and prosecute this at all? Did a Democrat, or a Republican with a conscience (a south Alabama version of Jill Simpson), get wind of this and press for something to be done?
McNichol, the former law enforcement coordinator and spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Mobile, pleaded guilty yesterday to a misdemeanor charge of leaking information about a grand jury probe into Orange Beach corruption.
McNichol is on paid leave from his job and faces no more than a year in prison. Sentencing is set for Oct. 18. The investigation involved former Orange Beach mayor Steve Russo and three others, who were convicted or pleaded guilty.
A few questions come quickly to mind:
* Who was the "personal friend" to whom McNichol leaked information? Was McNichol's plea designed to ensure that this information did not come out in court? I assume McNichol didn't leak the information to his dry cleaner or his garbage man. Did he leak the information to a reporter? Was a reporter from the Mobile Press-Register? If so, who? And does this indicate something about the way the Mobile paper goes about collecting news?
* If the Mobile Press-Register was involved, shouldn't the paper reveal that? After all, the paper makes it a point to air other people's "dirty laundry" (at least in some instances).
* Why did the Justice Department bring this case and ignore evidence of leaking by the office of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery?
* Will Russo and the others be entitled to new trials?
* McNichol was charged with misdemeanor theft of property. Is that truly the proper charge here? Should an act that so seriously undermines the process of justice be deemed a misdemeanor and is there a more serious charge with which McNichol could have been charged?
* How did this case come to light? The Justice Department seems to have no problem ignoring possible leaking in Montgomery. Why investigate and prosecute this at all? Did a Democrat, or a Republican with a conscience (a south Alabama version of Jill Simpson), get wind of this and press for something to be done?
The Reality of Recusal
Yesterday's post about the Don Siegelman case and the strange "recusal" of Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, raises an issue that deserves more attention.
The post was based on superb reporting by Scott Horton, of Harper's, showing that there is little, if any, evidence that Canary actually recused herself from the Siegelman case. Canary stated publicly that she had recused herself, but no recusal papers have surfaced.
Perhaps most importantly, Horton showed that the Justice Department evidently did not follow the usual process for the recusal of a U.S. attorney. When a U.S. attorney recuses him or herself from a case, it normally is assigned to a U.S. attorney from a neighboring district. That only makes sense. How is the cause of justice furthered if the recused attorney, Canary in this case, merely passes the case along to one of her underlings? The case is still handled in the same office where the potential prejudice exists, only now it is being handled by someone who answers to the recused U.S. attorney.
We citizens might be pretty dim sometimes. But even the dimmest among us can see that doesn't smell right.
This is just one of many cases in our justice system where a recusal is made merely for show. It does not necessarily provide the complaining party with a more impartial judge.
Consider my own case. After I discovered that J. Michael Joiner, circuit judge in Shelby County, Alabama, was regular golf buds with opposing counsel Bill Swatek, I moved for Joiner's recusal. Joiner admitted in open court that he and Swatek played golf together regularly and had been neighbors for many years. The record clearly showed Joiner's prejudice in the case; almost every ruling he made was contrary to Alabama law, and every one of them went in favor of Swatek and his client (the one with the lengthy criminal record).
By law, Joiner never should have taken the case to begin with; his history with Swatek disqualified him from the outset. But Joiner took it and made multiple biased rulings--including the denial of two motions for summary judgment that, by law, had to be granted--before granting recusal only after I brought it up.
(By the way, I brought it up after I was representing myself. The two attorneys I had hired, and been forced to fire, had to know about Joiner's conflict--and they surely knew Joiner was cheating me--but they did nothing about it. That's one of the dirty secrets of the legal profession--many lawyers are more loyal to judges than they are their own clients. If a judge wants a lawyer to do something--no matter how unethical--the lawyer is likely to do it or risk having his or her career ruined.)
When Joiner recused himself, who did the case go to? Well, it went right to another Shelby County judge, G. Dan Reeves, who apparently is Joiner's bud and was more than willing to continue with the same kind of unlawful rulings in Swatek's favor. I suspect Joiner was pulling the strings all along behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz.
In fact, I suspect Joiner was pulling strings on the criminal-trespass case that led to the lawsuit against me. In that case, my Neighbor from Hell (NFH) was charged with third degree criminal trespass against me, and the trial transcript shows that he unknowingly confessed to the crime, based on Alabama law as it's actually written. But Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson read NFH the riot act but acquitted, citing law that doesn't exist.
Now Judge Jackson is either an idiot (a distinct possibility) or he was being influenced by someone up the chain of command (Joiner?) to let Bill Swatek's client off, setting up Swatek to file a bogus malicious-prosecution lawsuit against me, the victim of a crime.
This all illustrates the kind of incestuous relationship that exists among judges in the real world. Having a disqualified judge recuse himself, only to see it go to another judge in the same circuit who probably is influenced by the recused judge, makes no sense.
And I've found that judges are like the mafia. They all seem to be connected, watching each other's backs. For example, I've seen evidence that judges in Jefferson County, Alabama, have been influenced to make unlawful rulings by judges in Shelby County. And I've got overwhelming evidence that appellate judges in Alabama are more interested in protecting their Republican brethren at the trial-court level than they are in correcting trial judges' gross mistakes.
A recusal did absolutely nothing to help yours truly get justice. I suspect the same thing happened with Don Siegelman.
The post was based on superb reporting by Scott Horton, of Harper's, showing that there is little, if any, evidence that Canary actually recused herself from the Siegelman case. Canary stated publicly that she had recused herself, but no recusal papers have surfaced.
Perhaps most importantly, Horton showed that the Justice Department evidently did not follow the usual process for the recusal of a U.S. attorney. When a U.S. attorney recuses him or herself from a case, it normally is assigned to a U.S. attorney from a neighboring district. That only makes sense. How is the cause of justice furthered if the recused attorney, Canary in this case, merely passes the case along to one of her underlings? The case is still handled in the same office where the potential prejudice exists, only now it is being handled by someone who answers to the recused U.S. attorney.
We citizens might be pretty dim sometimes. But even the dimmest among us can see that doesn't smell right.
This is just one of many cases in our justice system where a recusal is made merely for show. It does not necessarily provide the complaining party with a more impartial judge.
Consider my own case. After I discovered that J. Michael Joiner, circuit judge in Shelby County, Alabama, was regular golf buds with opposing counsel Bill Swatek, I moved for Joiner's recusal. Joiner admitted in open court that he and Swatek played golf together regularly and had been neighbors for many years. The record clearly showed Joiner's prejudice in the case; almost every ruling he made was contrary to Alabama law, and every one of them went in favor of Swatek and his client (the one with the lengthy criminal record).
By law, Joiner never should have taken the case to begin with; his history with Swatek disqualified him from the outset. But Joiner took it and made multiple biased rulings--including the denial of two motions for summary judgment that, by law, had to be granted--before granting recusal only after I brought it up.
(By the way, I brought it up after I was representing myself. The two attorneys I had hired, and been forced to fire, had to know about Joiner's conflict--and they surely knew Joiner was cheating me--but they did nothing about it. That's one of the dirty secrets of the legal profession--many lawyers are more loyal to judges than they are their own clients. If a judge wants a lawyer to do something--no matter how unethical--the lawyer is likely to do it or risk having his or her career ruined.)
When Joiner recused himself, who did the case go to? Well, it went right to another Shelby County judge, G. Dan Reeves, who apparently is Joiner's bud and was more than willing to continue with the same kind of unlawful rulings in Swatek's favor. I suspect Joiner was pulling the strings all along behind the curtain, like the Wizard of Oz.
In fact, I suspect Joiner was pulling strings on the criminal-trespass case that led to the lawsuit against me. In that case, my Neighbor from Hell (NFH) was charged with third degree criminal trespass against me, and the trial transcript shows that he unknowingly confessed to the crime, based on Alabama law as it's actually written. But Shelby County District Judge Ron Jackson read NFH the riot act but acquitted, citing law that doesn't exist.
Now Judge Jackson is either an idiot (a distinct possibility) or he was being influenced by someone up the chain of command (Joiner?) to let Bill Swatek's client off, setting up Swatek to file a bogus malicious-prosecution lawsuit against me, the victim of a crime.
This all illustrates the kind of incestuous relationship that exists among judges in the real world. Having a disqualified judge recuse himself, only to see it go to another judge in the same circuit who probably is influenced by the recused judge, makes no sense.
And I've found that judges are like the mafia. They all seem to be connected, watching each other's backs. For example, I've seen evidence that judges in Jefferson County, Alabama, have been influenced to make unlawful rulings by judges in Shelby County. And I've got overwhelming evidence that appellate judges in Alabama are more interested in protecting their Republican brethren at the trial-court level than they are in correcting trial judges' gross mistakes.
A recusal did absolutely nothing to help yours truly get justice. I suspect the same thing happened with Don Siegelman.
Friday, September 14, 2007
A Strange Sort of Recusal
So what kind of public servant is Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the middle district of Alabama?
According to a post today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, Ms. Canary is an unusually secretive public servant. And she is a justice official with an awfully strange definition of recusal.
In a superb piece of reporting, Horton provides critical insights into the woman who leads the office that successfully prosecuted former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges. The Siegelman prosecution has become the heart of the Congressional investigation into the U.S. attorneys scandal.
Some highlights:
According to a post today from Scott Horton, of Harper's, Ms. Canary is an unusually secretive public servant. And she is a justice official with an awfully strange definition of recusal.
In a superb piece of reporting, Horton provides critical insights into the woman who leads the office that successfully prosecuted former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman on corruption charges. The Siegelman prosecution has become the heart of the Congressional investigation into the U.S. attorneys scandal.
Some highlights:
* Canary has claimed that she recused herself from the Siegelman case because of conflicts involving her husband, Republican operative Bill Canary. Horton's research assistant double checked court files and found no recusal papers for Leura Canary in the case.
* Leura Canary announced her recusal and stated the Justice Department had advised her that no "actual conflicts of interest" exist. Of course, that is not the standard for recusal. The standard is the "appearance of impropriety," and Horton quotes a legal ethicist saying that "this is not a borderline or close case" regarding the requirement of Canary's recusal.
* Horton interviews senior career officials in the Justice Department and finds that the usual process upon recusal is for a neighboring U.S. attorney to be appointed to handle the matter. That did not happen in the Siegelman case. According to public statements, Canary turned it over to one of her own staffers.
* After having announced her recusal, Canary appeared at a press conference and gave interviews in major newspapers. What kind of recusal is that?
* Attorney John Aaron filed a Freedom of Information request seeking papers connected to Canary's recusal. He received nothing.
The Foundation of a Scandal
The foundation of the Department of Justice (DOJ) scandal continues to be built, with Alabama remaining a focal point.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that Rainsville attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being interviewed today in Washington, D.C., regarding her sworn allegations that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated. Wilson provides excellent background on Simpson's involvement in the DOJ scandal and the events that led up to the Siegelman prosecution.
Wilson presents this most interesting quote from New York attorney Scott Horton, the author of the No Comment blog at Harper's.org. "So far the evidence coming out of the U.S. attorneys scandal points to political motivation in prosecutions or the suppression of prosecutions in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California, but the strongest case so far, and the one where the direct involvement of Karl Rove is most apparent, is Alabama, a state where Rove's roots and political connections run very deep."
This is the first indication I've seen that the Congressional investigation might include "the suppression of prosecutions" by the Bush Justice Department. So far, attention has focused on cases where public servants who are Democrats have been prosecuted for apparently political reasons. These include the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania.
But there is another variety of "selective prosecution." These include cases where Republican public servants get away with clear crimes--in other words, their prosecutions are suppressed--for political reasons.
That is exactly what is happening in the case that is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer blog. The wrongdoers, in my case, are a series of Republican judges in Alabama, led by Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, along with Pelham, Alabama, attorney Bill Swatek (the father of Dax Swatek, former campaign manager for current Alabama governor Bob Riley).
Who is suppressing this prosecution? Why, none other than Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the lady who led the first prosecution of Don Siegelman. In fact, I have clear evidence of Ms. Martin taking affirmative steps to sweep the wrongdoing in my case under the proverbial rug.
When the first Siegelman prosecution fell apart, Republicans turned to the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery, which is led by Leura Canary.
What kind of honorable public servant is Ms. Canary? More on that coming up.
Glynn Wilson, of Locust Fork World News & Journal, reports that Rainsville attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being interviewed today in Washington, D.C., regarding her sworn allegations that the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman was politically motivated. Wilson provides excellent background on Simpson's involvement in the DOJ scandal and the events that led up to the Siegelman prosecution.
Wilson presents this most interesting quote from New York attorney Scott Horton, the author of the No Comment blog at Harper's.org. "So far the evidence coming out of the U.S. attorneys scandal points to political motivation in prosecutions or the suppression of prosecutions in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and California, but the strongest case so far, and the one where the direct involvement of Karl Rove is most apparent, is Alabama, a state where Rove's roots and political connections run very deep."
This is the first indication I've seen that the Congressional investigation might include "the suppression of prosecutions" by the Bush Justice Department. So far, attention has focused on cases where public servants who are Democrats have been prosecuted for apparently political reasons. These include the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin, and the Cyril Wecht case in Pennsylvania.
But there is another variety of "selective prosecution." These include cases where Republican public servants get away with clear crimes--in other words, their prosecutions are suppressed--for political reasons.
That is exactly what is happening in the case that is at the heart of our Legal Schnauzer blog. The wrongdoers, in my case, are a series of Republican judges in Alabama, led by Shelby County circuit judges J. Michael Joiner and G. Dan Reeves, along with Pelham, Alabama, attorney Bill Swatek (the father of Dax Swatek, former campaign manager for current Alabama governor Bob Riley).
Who is suppressing this prosecution? Why, none other than Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and the lady who led the first prosecution of Don Siegelman. In fact, I have clear evidence of Ms. Martin taking affirmative steps to sweep the wrongdoing in my case under the proverbial rug.
When the first Siegelman prosecution fell apart, Republicans turned to the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery, which is led by Leura Canary.
What kind of honorable public servant is Ms. Canary? More on that coming up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)