Lanny Young, a key witness against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, was released from federal prison yesterday.
Young, a lobbyist and landfill developer, had his two-year sentence reduced by U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller and was released on December 11.
Siegelman attorney Vince Kilborn was outraged by the decision, noting that Fuller has refused to release Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy pending their appeals.Kilborn also noted that Young had pled guilty to several felonies but still received a sharply reduced sentence.
Kilborn called Siegelman's continued imprisonment a "great American tragedy." The Siegelman case is at the heart of a Congressional investigation into selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Schnauzer settles down
We schnauzers are known to be a bit hyper. And the Legal Schnauzer went a bit over the edge while posting yesterday about the ExxonMobil ruling, breaking into a fit of capital letters and exclamation points.
Reading that post reminds me of our beloved Murphy when she used to see crows walking in our front yard. Man, she hated crows, and she would almost try to dive through the window to get at them--until we closed the blinds. (The crows never seemed to notice a thing; they just kept doing that funky crow walk.)
Anyway, I've taken some doggie Xanax, so maybe I can discuss the ExxonMobil case with a bit more clarity tonight.
When I talk about criminal acts by Alabama's Republican Supreme Court justices, it might be best to refer (calmly . . . calmly) to the Bribery: A Primer post that was part of our Mississippi Churning series on the Paul Minor case.
And then we have the Mail Fraud: A Primer post from that same series. Remember those terms: Bribery and honest-services mail fraud. That's what we are talking about here.
Those posts will give you the legal foundation you need to understand what happened in the ExxonMobil case. And we will go into it in more detail soon.
The bottom line? You take money from a party and then act in a corrupt and unlawful manner, you've committed a crime.
Now, I feel better. But I feel the Xanax wearing off. Better go.
To all a good night . . .
Reading that post reminds me of our beloved Murphy when she used to see crows walking in our front yard. Man, she hated crows, and she would almost try to dive through the window to get at them--until we closed the blinds. (The crows never seemed to notice a thing; they just kept doing that funky crow walk.)
Anyway, I've taken some doggie Xanax, so maybe I can discuss the ExxonMobil case with a bit more clarity tonight.
When I talk about criminal acts by Alabama's Republican Supreme Court justices, it might be best to refer (calmly . . . calmly) to the Bribery: A Primer post that was part of our Mississippi Churning series on the Paul Minor case.
And then we have the Mail Fraud: A Primer post from that same series. Remember those terms: Bribery and honest-services mail fraud. That's what we are talking about here.
Those posts will give you the legal foundation you need to understand what happened in the ExxonMobil case. And we will go into it in more detail soon.
The bottom line? You take money from a party and then act in a corrupt and unlawful manner, you've committed a crime.
Now, I feel better. But I feel the Xanax wearing off. Better go.
To all a good night . . .
More Raw Siegelman Story
News is breaking all over today on the Don Siegelman saga, driven largely by investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, both at her personal site (at-Largely) and at Raw Story.
First, Alexandrovna reports that CBS's corporate owners are under heavy pressure to quash the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. In fact, Alabama Governor Bob Riley is bragging that his corporate cronies have pulled the rug over the story. But Alexandrovna says she knows about a particularly hot angle that CBS seems squeamish about. If the 60 Minutes folks do not run with the story, Alexandrovna says she will.
Also, Alexandrovna is hearing from multiple sources that Alabama whistleblowing attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being tailed under orders by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This is the same Alice Martin who has taken clear steps to cover up wrongdoing by Republican judges and political operatives in our own Legal Schnauzer case. We will be reporting in detail on Ms. Martin's two-faced tactics.
Alexandrovna leads a team of Raw Story reporters who have produced part III of their "The Permanent Republican Majority" series. Part III is titled "Running Elections from the White House" and paints an intricate story of a national power grab with roots in Alabama state judicial elections.
Raw Story draws connections between Rove's tactics in Alabama and the Swift Boat Veterans' ads attacking John Kerry in 2004. Included is a fascinating diagram that lays out the sleazy Web linking Alabama to Rove's national plan for GOP dominance.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an interesting take on the Raw Story report and notes how it dovetails nicely with his own investigative work that centers on Alabama.
There is one name that I hope the Raw Story folks will add to their diagram. That name is Dax Swatek. It was Dax Swatek's father, William E. Swatek, who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that led to the blog you are now reading. It also led to the commission of multiple federal crimes by Mr. Swatek and Republican judges in Alabama state courts, starting in district courts in the GOP stronghold of Shelby County and rising up to the Republican-dominated Supreme Court--the same court that recently robbed Alabamians of $3.6 billion in a lawsuit involving oil giant ExxonMobil.
William E. Swatek and his judicial cronies are getting away with their federal crimes. In fact, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has taken clear steps to sweep the case out of public view. And why is that? Well, Dax Swatek was Governor Riley's campaign manager in 2004. And he was manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 campaign for a seat on Alabama's Court of Criminal Appeals.
And who is Dax Swatek's mentor? None other than Bill Canary, who is at the very heart of the Raw Story diagram.
We will be showing in detail soon how we can add a Dax Swatek/Alice Martin wing to the diagram so expertly put together by the Raw Story investigators.
Finally, we have another piece of interesting Siegelman-related news. Journalist Mark Crispin Miller presents a fascinating 2004 interview in which Siegelman talks about the grudge Rove and other Republicans held against him.
How to draw all of this together? The theme is this: Our nation is in the midst of a Justice Department scandal that, if it ever truly is uncovered, might rank with the worst scandals in our nation's history. And where were the seeds planted? In Alabama's state courts? And where is our Legal Schnauzer story planted? In those very same Alabama state courts.
I think Miller, Horton, and Alexandrovna are telling us this: If you want to truly understand the corruption tearing through the Bush administration, you need to first understand the corruption that still can be found in Alabama's state courts. That's where Karl Rove's plan truly started. And that's where the Rove stench remains.
First, Alexandrovna reports that CBS's corporate owners are under heavy pressure to quash the 60 Minutes story on the Siegelman case. In fact, Alabama Governor Bob Riley is bragging that his corporate cronies have pulled the rug over the story. But Alexandrovna says she knows about a particularly hot angle that CBS seems squeamish about. If the 60 Minutes folks do not run with the story, Alexandrovna says she will.
Also, Alexandrovna is hearing from multiple sources that Alabama whistleblowing attorney Dana Jill Simpson is being tailed under orders by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. This is the same Alice Martin who has taken clear steps to cover up wrongdoing by Republican judges and political operatives in our own Legal Schnauzer case. We will be reporting in detail on Ms. Martin's two-faced tactics.
Alexandrovna leads a team of Raw Story reporters who have produced part III of their "The Permanent Republican Majority" series. Part III is titled "Running Elections from the White House" and paints an intricate story of a national power grab with roots in Alabama state judicial elections.
Raw Story draws connections between Rove's tactics in Alabama and the Swift Boat Veterans' ads attacking John Kerry in 2004. Included is a fascinating diagram that lays out the sleazy Web linking Alabama to Rove's national plan for GOP dominance.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, has an interesting take on the Raw Story report and notes how it dovetails nicely with his own investigative work that centers on Alabama.
There is one name that I hope the Raw Story folks will add to their diagram. That name is Dax Swatek. It was Dax Swatek's father, William E. Swatek, who filed a bogus lawsuit against me that led to the blog you are now reading. It also led to the commission of multiple federal crimes by Mr. Swatek and Republican judges in Alabama state courts, starting in district courts in the GOP stronghold of Shelby County and rising up to the Republican-dominated Supreme Court--the same court that recently robbed Alabamians of $3.6 billion in a lawsuit involving oil giant ExxonMobil.
William E. Swatek and his judicial cronies are getting away with their federal crimes. In fact, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin has taken clear steps to sweep the case out of public view. And why is that? Well, Dax Swatek was Governor Riley's campaign manager in 2004. And he was manager for Alice Martin's failed 2000 campaign for a seat on Alabama's Court of Criminal Appeals.
And who is Dax Swatek's mentor? None other than Bill Canary, who is at the very heart of the Raw Story diagram.
We will be showing in detail soon how we can add a Dax Swatek/Alice Martin wing to the diagram so expertly put together by the Raw Story investigators.
Finally, we have another piece of interesting Siegelman-related news. Journalist Mark Crispin Miller presents a fascinating 2004 interview in which Siegelman talks about the grudge Rove and other Republicans held against him.
How to draw all of this together? The theme is this: Our nation is in the midst of a Justice Department scandal that, if it ever truly is uncovered, might rank with the worst scandals in our nation's history. And where were the seeds planted? In Alabama's state courts? And where is our Legal Schnauzer story planted? In those very same Alabama state courts.
I think Miller, Horton, and Alexandrovna are telling us this: If you want to truly understand the corruption tearing through the Bush administration, you need to first understand the corruption that still can be found in Alabama's state courts. That's where Karl Rove's plan truly started. And that's where the Rove stench remains.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
War of Words over ExxonMobil
A rhetorical war is heating up over the Alabama Supreme Court's recent ruling that threw out most of a $3.6 billion jury verdict for the state in a case against oil giant ExxonMobil.
This is a war that Democrats simply must win. The ExxonMobil ruling is a GOP gift, wrapped in a gigantic bow, saying, "Here, take back the appellate courts--if you have the guts." Do Democrats have the guts?
If Democrats fail to take that gift and beat Republicans over the head with it, there is no hope for justice in Alabama for the foreseeable future.
Joe Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, is making an encouraging start toward educating the public about just how badly they have been screwed by our corporate-owned courts.
Turnham makes many strong points in his recent public statements. He says the $3.6 billion represents only five weeks of ExxonMobil's earnings. He notes that the money could have helped repair county roads and bridges, fill a Medicaid funding gap, added thousands of state troopers and sheriff deputies, provided laptop computers for every Alabama student, and provided college scholarships for thousands of graduates.
But Turnham and the Democrats still are pulling punches. They still are not getting to the key point. Here's the nutshell message: The eight Republican justices who voted to overturn the trial-court verdict are CRIMINALS. Let me repeat: They are CRIMINALS!
If Democrats cannot show that significant numbers of Republican judges in this state are CRIMINALS, they are likely to continue getting clobbered in judicial races. Heck, the Bush Justice Department has prosecuted a Supreme Court justice in Mississippi (one supported by Democrats) for behavior that wasn't even close to what the GOPers in Alabama have done.
Our GOP justices took $5.5 million in campaign contributions from Exxon interests and then ruled unlawfully in their favor. That is a CRIME! It's called honest-services mail fraud. It's also called bribery. People understand the concept of crime. Use it against the Republicans for once.
Democrats, for God's sake, please do what Republicans have done so brilliantly for years: Use clear, simple language that Joe Six-Pack can understand. These GOP judges are CRIMINALS.
How's this for an ad: Republican Judges Control our High Courts. They are CRIMINALS! Here's why . . . "
And you don't even have to do any work to show why. I'll do it for you. Just stay tuned to Legal Schnauzer. Heck, just read Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb's dissent in the ExxonMobil case. She all but calls her colleagues criminals.
Speaking of a rhetorical war, you can check out this piece of garbage from Skip Tucker, director of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse. There is no polite way to say this, so let's be blunt: Mr. Tucker is a paid shill who doesn't have a clue about the facts or the law in the Exxon case. His group should be called Alabama Voters Who Enjoy Bending Over and Taking it up the Wazoo from Corporate Criminals.
If the Democrats can't beat this weenie, God help them.
This is a war that Democrats simply must win. The ExxonMobil ruling is a GOP gift, wrapped in a gigantic bow, saying, "Here, take back the appellate courts--if you have the guts." Do Democrats have the guts?
If Democrats fail to take that gift and beat Republicans over the head with it, there is no hope for justice in Alabama for the foreseeable future.
Joe Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, is making an encouraging start toward educating the public about just how badly they have been screwed by our corporate-owned courts.
Turnham makes many strong points in his recent public statements. He says the $3.6 billion represents only five weeks of ExxonMobil's earnings. He notes that the money could have helped repair county roads and bridges, fill a Medicaid funding gap, added thousands of state troopers and sheriff deputies, provided laptop computers for every Alabama student, and provided college scholarships for thousands of graduates.
But Turnham and the Democrats still are pulling punches. They still are not getting to the key point. Here's the nutshell message: The eight Republican justices who voted to overturn the trial-court verdict are CRIMINALS. Let me repeat: They are CRIMINALS!
If Democrats cannot show that significant numbers of Republican judges in this state are CRIMINALS, they are likely to continue getting clobbered in judicial races. Heck, the Bush Justice Department has prosecuted a Supreme Court justice in Mississippi (one supported by Democrats) for behavior that wasn't even close to what the GOPers in Alabama have done.
Our GOP justices took $5.5 million in campaign contributions from Exxon interests and then ruled unlawfully in their favor. That is a CRIME! It's called honest-services mail fraud. It's also called bribery. People understand the concept of crime. Use it against the Republicans for once.
Democrats, for God's sake, please do what Republicans have done so brilliantly for years: Use clear, simple language that Joe Six-Pack can understand. These GOP judges are CRIMINALS.
How's this for an ad: Republican Judges Control our High Courts. They are CRIMINALS! Here's why . . . "
And you don't even have to do any work to show why. I'll do it for you. Just stay tuned to Legal Schnauzer. Heck, just read Chief Justice Sue Bell Cobb's dissent in the ExxonMobil case. She all but calls her colleagues criminals.
Speaking of a rhetorical war, you can check out this piece of garbage from Skip Tucker, director of Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse. There is no polite way to say this, so let's be blunt: Mr. Tucker is a paid shill who doesn't have a clue about the facts or the law in the Exxon case. His group should be called Alabama Voters Who Enjoy Bending Over and Taking it up the Wazoo from Corporate Criminals.
If the Democrats can't beat this weenie, God help them.
Goff Turning Tables on Riley?
The battle between Montgomery insurance executive John W. Goff and Alabama Governor Bob Riley appears to be taking a very interesting turn.
Bob Gambacurta, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that Goff is taking his case to Congress, appealing for relief from what he calls a conspiracy by Riley and others to ruin him financially.
Goff expects to appear before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA). The subcommittee will conduct hearings on legislation that allows insurance companies to opt out of state charters in favor of federal regulations. Kanjorski has pledged to examine regulatory abuse by state agencies, and Goff says he has been a victim of such abuse.
Meanwhile, Goff's attorneys claim that Riley is attempting to have Goff investigated as payback for a lawsuit Goff filed against Riley and others over insurance matters. Goff's attorneys are asking the Justice Department to examine their claims of a conspiracy involving Riley.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, first brought the Goff situation to national attention, and we have posted about it several times here at Legal Schnauzer. In fact, Horton wrote that Riley was so agitated at the prospect of having to testify under oath in the Goff lawsuit that he was asking U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for help in making it "go away." The federal investigation of Goff appears to be designed to make Riley's wish come true.
But it could be just the latest example of prosecutorial shenanigans in Alabama. And it adds to the mounting evidence that Riley is little more than a scumbag with a goobery smile and some spiffy cowboy boots.
So far, Riley has managed to hide the source of his campaign cash in 2002 (can we say Jack Abramoff?) and his methods for producing funny numbers that gave him a ultra-close victory over Don Siegelman (can we say Dan Gans?). And for what it's worth, he's managed to obscure the fact that William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, has been protected by Republican judges and GOP prosecutor Alice Martin from being held accountable for filing a fraudulent lawsuit (and violating federal law in the process) against your humble blogger.
Can John W. Goff and his aggressive group of attorneys smoke the Riley sleaze machine out into the clear, for all to see? We'll be watching closely.
Bob Gambacurta, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that Goff is taking his case to Congress, appealing for relief from what he calls a conspiracy by Riley and others to ruin him financially.
Goff expects to appear before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA). The subcommittee will conduct hearings on legislation that allows insurance companies to opt out of state charters in favor of federal regulations. Kanjorski has pledged to examine regulatory abuse by state agencies, and Goff says he has been a victim of such abuse.
Meanwhile, Goff's attorneys claim that Riley is attempting to have Goff investigated as payback for a lawsuit Goff filed against Riley and others over insurance matters. Goff's attorneys are asking the Justice Department to examine their claims of a conspiracy involving Riley.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, first brought the Goff situation to national attention, and we have posted about it several times here at Legal Schnauzer. In fact, Horton wrote that Riley was so agitated at the prospect of having to testify under oath in the Goff lawsuit that he was asking U.S. Attorney Leura Canary for help in making it "go away." The federal investigation of Goff appears to be designed to make Riley's wish come true.
But it could be just the latest example of prosecutorial shenanigans in Alabama. And it adds to the mounting evidence that Riley is little more than a scumbag with a goobery smile and some spiffy cowboy boots.
So far, Riley has managed to hide the source of his campaign cash in 2002 (can we say Jack Abramoff?) and his methods for producing funny numbers that gave him a ultra-close victory over Don Siegelman (can we say Dan Gans?). And for what it's worth, he's managed to obscure the fact that William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, has been protected by Republican judges and GOP prosecutor Alice Martin from being held accountable for filing a fraudulent lawsuit (and violating federal law in the process) against your humble blogger.
Can John W. Goff and his aggressive group of attorneys smoke the Riley sleaze machine out into the clear, for all to see? We'll be watching closely.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Campaign Cash and ExxonMobil
What was behind the Alabama Supreme Court's decision to throw out most of a $3.6 billion jury award that the state had secured against oil giant ExxonMobil?
Cold, hard campaign cash, according to Harper's Scott Horton.
Horton reports that in the past six years, Republican candidates for Alabama's highest court have taken more than $5.5 million in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil lobbyists and lawyers, and groups allied with the company.
"That means that the eight judges who voted to throw out the state's massive jury award against ExxonMobil were actually placed on the court with ExxonMobil's money and support--though that support is almost all carefully funnelled in an indirect way, of course," Horton writes.
Where did the money come from? Horton provides a list:
* Tort reform groups whose leadership includes Exxon lobbyists gave $3 million.
* Seven political action committees, controlled by Exxon's Alabama lobbyist Fine Geddie & Associates, gave $293,000.
* Alabama lawyers who represent Exxon in the gas-royalties suit gave thousands of dollars.
* The Business Council of Alabama gave at least $2.1 million. (That's the group headed by Bill Canary, of the famous "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote. And a close associate of Bill Canary is Dax Swatek, whose father William E. Swatek filed a bogus lawsuit against me and is being protected from his crimes by the Bush Justice Department.)
"Just think of it from a corporate perspective," Horton writes. "An investment of $5.5 million to eliminate a $3.6 billion liability? The best investment those oil men ever made."
One thing is for sure: The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling was not based on the law. In fact, the court violated its own well-settled precedents in order to let Exxon off the hook.
In a neighboring state, Mississippi, the Bush Justice Department has treated similar alleged activity by a Supreme Court justice as a federal crime. Actually, the Mississippi justice in question--Oliver Diaz--did not come remotely close to committing a federal crime. But he was tried for it anyway, mainly because he had the support of prominent Democrats.
And in Alabama? The evidence is piling up that eight Republicans on the high court did indeed commit a federal crime. What will the Bushies do about it? Almost certainly nothing.
But we at Legal Schnauzer will be dishing the real dirt on the Supreme Court that flat out stole from the citizens who support them. Another Alabama blogger, Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering, is on top of this story. I highly recommend his site.
Much more coming on the ExxonMobil decision.
Cold, hard campaign cash, according to Harper's Scott Horton.
Horton reports that in the past six years, Republican candidates for Alabama's highest court have taken more than $5.5 million in campaign contributions from ExxonMobil lobbyists and lawyers, and groups allied with the company.
"That means that the eight judges who voted to throw out the state's massive jury award against ExxonMobil were actually placed on the court with ExxonMobil's money and support--though that support is almost all carefully funnelled in an indirect way, of course," Horton writes.
Where did the money come from? Horton provides a list:
* Tort reform groups whose leadership includes Exxon lobbyists gave $3 million.
* Seven political action committees, controlled by Exxon's Alabama lobbyist Fine Geddie & Associates, gave $293,000.
* Alabama lawyers who represent Exxon in the gas-royalties suit gave thousands of dollars.
* The Business Council of Alabama gave at least $2.1 million. (That's the group headed by Bill Canary, of the famous "my girls will take care of Don Siegelman" quote. And a close associate of Bill Canary is Dax Swatek, whose father William E. Swatek filed a bogus lawsuit against me and is being protected from his crimes by the Bush Justice Department.)
"Just think of it from a corporate perspective," Horton writes. "An investment of $5.5 million to eliminate a $3.6 billion liability? The best investment those oil men ever made."
One thing is for sure: The Alabama Supreme Court's ruling was not based on the law. In fact, the court violated its own well-settled precedents in order to let Exxon off the hook.
In a neighboring state, Mississippi, the Bush Justice Department has treated similar alleged activity by a Supreme Court justice as a federal crime. Actually, the Mississippi justice in question--Oliver Diaz--did not come remotely close to committing a federal crime. But he was tried for it anyway, mainly because he had the support of prominent Democrats.
And in Alabama? The evidence is piling up that eight Republicans on the high court did indeed commit a federal crime. What will the Bushies do about it? Almost certainly nothing.
But we at Legal Schnauzer will be dishing the real dirt on the Supreme Court that flat out stole from the citizens who support them. Another Alabama blogger, Robby Scott Hill at Novationeering, is on top of this story. I highly recommend his site.
Much more coming on the ExxonMobil decision.
On Siegelman and Such
Random thoughts on issues connected to Don Siegelman, justice, steroids, and more . . .
Thank God for Dan Abrams!
And while we're at it, let's thank God for MSNBC. With Abrams and Keith Olbermann on the menu, those of us to the left of Rush Limbaugh actually have something to watch on cable these days.
It was heartening to see Abrams multipart "Bush League Justice" series last week. And it ended with a bang on Thursday night, with a report on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) proved to be articulate spokesmen for the growing number of Americans who sense the case was a grotesque example of selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
By its nature, television is a medium of time constraints, and one had the impression that Horton and Davis easily could have talked for two hours or more about key issues connected to the Siegelman case. But the 20 minutes or so that Abrams devoted to the case made for compelling viewing. And the host vowed to follow the Siegelman/DOJ closely, even noting that the days of the mainstream media pretty much ignoring the case are over. Hear, hear!
Horton has a report on the Abrams segment, and notes that at least three major news organizations are working on stories that will break new leads in the Siegelman matter. It's only a matter of nailing down corroborative accounts, and Horton expects to see major news coming by the end of the year. Also, at least one of the developing stories is expected to break ground on close ties between Karl Rove and Alabama Governor Bob Riley related to the Siegelman matter. Can't wait for that.
Pravda of the South at it again
A fairly important national story, with connections to Alabama, broke last week. But you never would know it from reading The Birmingham News, which Harper's Scott Horton has so aptly called "The Pravda of the South."
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee found former presidential adviser Karl Rove and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and turn over documents related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
This all has huge implications for Alabama and the case of former Governor Don Siegelman. But after reading my paper on Friday, I thought, "Where in the heck was the Rove contempt story?" I had already seen it on the Web, and I figured a story with such ties to Alabama would receive prominent play in our state's largest paper.
I figured wrong. After scouring the paper with an electron microscope, I found the story in the National Briefs, on page 7A.
Steroids and Perspective
I've been a baseball fan pretty much all of my life, so I've been following stories about release of the Mitchell Report on steroids and baseball.
I understand it's a big story, and I was not surprised to see The Birmingham News put it on the front page of the paper, with blanket coverage in the sports section.
But it raises this question: Why so much attention to the issue of cheating baseball players and why so relatively little attention to the issue of cheating judges, prosecutors, and others connected to our justice system?
As Birmingham News columnist Ray Melick wrote: "Study after study suggests cheating has been on the rise in all areas of American life." Melick makes a good point. So why doesn't his newspaper cover the cheating by public officials that is going on right under its nose? And it's a form of cheating that is far more important to our society than the cheating that has been going on in baseball.
Oh, and did you see President Bush's comment about the Mitchell Report? "My hope is that this report is a part of putting the steroid era of baseball behind us," he said. "Steroids have sullied the game."
And who has sullied the U.S. Justice Department? And is Bush serious about putting the era of a corrupt justice department behind us? (See item above.)
Langford and the Dome
Looks like we might be in for some interesting stories connected to Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, businessman Milton McGregor, and the proposed new dome for Birmingham.
A multipurpose dome has been discussed in Birmingham for years, usually connected to a need for more convention space. That has seemed to mean the dome would be connected to the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex downtown. But Langford has proposed building the dome near the Birmingham Race Course, in an area where McGregor owns a significant amount of land.
The Birmingham News noted that this smells like a possible quid pro quo, with Langford doing a favor for a campaign supporter. The News has a point, and it appears that Langford could be heading down a slippery slope.
I applaud the News for aggressive reporting on this story. But where is the aggressive reporting when it involves Governor Bob Riley and sweetheart deals involving state contracts and a biotechnology center in Huntsville?
Thank God for Dan Abrams!
And while we're at it, let's thank God for MSNBC. With Abrams and Keith Olbermann on the menu, those of us to the left of Rush Limbaugh actually have something to watch on cable these days.
It was heartening to see Abrams multipart "Bush League Justice" series last week. And it ended with a bang on Thursday night, with a report on the Don Siegelman case in Alabama. Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) proved to be articulate spokesmen for the growing number of Americans who sense the case was a grotesque example of selective prosecution by the Bush Department of Justice (DOJ).
By its nature, television is a medium of time constraints, and one had the impression that Horton and Davis easily could have talked for two hours or more about key issues connected to the Siegelman case. But the 20 minutes or so that Abrams devoted to the case made for compelling viewing. And the host vowed to follow the Siegelman/DOJ closely, even noting that the days of the mainstream media pretty much ignoring the case are over. Hear, hear!
Horton has a report on the Abrams segment, and notes that at least three major news organizations are working on stories that will break new leads in the Siegelman matter. It's only a matter of nailing down corroborative accounts, and Horton expects to see major news coming by the end of the year. Also, at least one of the developing stories is expected to break ground on close ties between Karl Rove and Alabama Governor Bob Riley related to the Siegelman matter. Can't wait for that.
Pravda of the South at it again
A fairly important national story, with connections to Alabama, broke last week. But you never would know it from reading The Birmingham News, which Harper's Scott Horton has so aptly called "The Pravda of the South."
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee found former presidential adviser Karl Rove and current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify and turn over documents related to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
This all has huge implications for Alabama and the case of former Governor Don Siegelman. But after reading my paper on Friday, I thought, "Where in the heck was the Rove contempt story?" I had already seen it on the Web, and I figured a story with such ties to Alabama would receive prominent play in our state's largest paper.
I figured wrong. After scouring the paper with an electron microscope, I found the story in the National Briefs, on page 7A.
Steroids and Perspective
I've been a baseball fan pretty much all of my life, so I've been following stories about release of the Mitchell Report on steroids and baseball.
I understand it's a big story, and I was not surprised to see The Birmingham News put it on the front page of the paper, with blanket coverage in the sports section.
But it raises this question: Why so much attention to the issue of cheating baseball players and why so relatively little attention to the issue of cheating judges, prosecutors, and others connected to our justice system?
As Birmingham News columnist Ray Melick wrote: "Study after study suggests cheating has been on the rise in all areas of American life." Melick makes a good point. So why doesn't his newspaper cover the cheating by public officials that is going on right under its nose? And it's a form of cheating that is far more important to our society than the cheating that has been going on in baseball.
Oh, and did you see President Bush's comment about the Mitchell Report? "My hope is that this report is a part of putting the steroid era of baseball behind us," he said. "Steroids have sullied the game."
And who has sullied the U.S. Justice Department? And is Bush serious about putting the era of a corrupt justice department behind us? (See item above.)
Langford and the Dome
Looks like we might be in for some interesting stories connected to Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, businessman Milton McGregor, and the proposed new dome for Birmingham.
A multipurpose dome has been discussed in Birmingham for years, usually connected to a need for more convention space. That has seemed to mean the dome would be connected to the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex downtown. But Langford has proposed building the dome near the Birmingham Race Course, in an area where McGregor owns a significant amount of land.
The Birmingham News noted that this smells like a possible quid pro quo, with Langford doing a favor for a campaign supporter. The News has a point, and it appears that Langford could be heading down a slippery slope.
I applaud the News for aggressive reporting on this story. But where is the aggressive reporting when it involves Governor Bob Riley and sweetheart deals involving state contracts and a biotechnology center in Huntsville?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Issues of Insecurity
Eugene Robinson, of the Washington Post, is one of my favorite columnists. And he had a particularly thought-provoking column recently.
In a column titled "We, the Paranoid," Robinson writes of attending a panel discussion on "The Insecure American" at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. "(It) turned out to be a revelation--by turns alarming, depressing, and laugh-out-loud amusing--as scholar after scholar presented research showing just how unnerved this society is," Robinson wrote.
One researcher had studied gated communities, noting that people camp behind walls because they are afraid of crime, they feel isolated from neighbors, and they are nostalgic for some kind of Norman Rockwell past. The study showed that there isn't less crime in gated communities and people do not feel closer to their neighbors. In fact, many residents still turn on their burglar alarms, despite the walls and security guards.
This all made me think of my own little experience with our deeply troubled justice system in the United States. My experience has centered around corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama's state courts, with starring roles for some of the same Republican characters who have been featured in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.
I have about as much psychological training as Lucy Van Pelt in the famous Peanuts comic strip. But follow me for a moment, and with Eugene Robinson's help, perhaps we will be onto something.
* The primary judge who repeatedly cheated me--and committed federal crimes in the process--is Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner. Where does Judge Joiner live? A gated community called Highland Lakes. You can read all about here. Where did Judge Joiner go to school? My research indicates he went to Indian Springs School in Birmingham and completed both undergraduate work and law school at Samford University. These are all private institutions. If Judge Joiner's precious fanny has ever touched a desk at a public school, I see no evidence of it. And where does the fine judge go to church? Why a suburban megachurch of course--the Church at Brook Hills. And where do Judge Joiner and his wife, Cathy, send their daughter, Christy, to school? My sources tell me they send her to Briarwood Christian, which is (surprise, surprise!) a private school. Another source says she has been home schooled at times. Either way, sounds like she ain't getting near a public school.
* Now here's where it gets a bit creepy. You might think Mike Joiner became a judge because he was such an outstanding lawyer. You would be wrong. My sources tell me he was a mediocrity at best as a lawyer. But half of south Shelby County, around Columbiana (the county seat), is related to him. There is even an area called Joinertown. No wonder he doesn't have to worry about whether he rules according to the law or not! He's judge for life! My sources tell me that the good judge's parents, Hubert and Christine Joiner, live in the neck of the woods around Joinertown. One of the judge's brothers is an ophthalmologist. On that kind of income, I'm guessing he's a gated-community guy, too.
* Now, let's consider William E. Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me and committed federal crimes in the process. Remember, Mr. Swatek has valuable ties to Alabama Republican royalty. His son, Dax, was Governor Bob Riley's campaign manager. The Daxter also ran the failed campaign of Alice Martin for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Alice Martin, of course, went on to become U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, where she initiated a failed attempt to prosecute Don Siegelman. The "successful" attempt to prosecute Siegelman came in the Middle District of Alabama under the esteemed Leura Canary. You can read all you need to know about Martin and Canary here and here. But back to Bill Swatek. Where does he live? Behind a gated drive off Highway 119 in north Shelby County, the one with an "S" on it. Swatek has plenty of acreage, about 18 acres I think, and you can't even see his house from the road. Guess he likes his privacy. I'm told by someone who has visited the house that there are so many firearms about that "you would think you were in an armed camp." What's Swatek afraid of? Are there some vicious squirrels on his property? Oh, and Swatek has a penchant for private schools, too. Son Chace is a Briarwood Christian grad. And Chace went to law school at Pepperdine University in California, that bastion of progressive thinking. Guess who's dean of the law school there? Yikes!
* And let's not forget Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of the behemoth Briarwood Presbyterian Church. As we've noted before, Briarwood and its powerhouse football program played a role in a strange real-estate deal that caused your humble blogger to wind up with an eight-time criminal for a neighbor and all sorts of legal and financial headaches.
So, do you see a thread here? We're talking about people who are walling themselves off from the public at large--through gated communities, private schools, mammoth doctrinaire churches. And yet what kind of people do those conditions turn out?
Well, Judge J. Michael Joiner and William Swatek are common criminals. And that's not just my opinion. They have repeatedly committed honest services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346) in my case. We will go into more detail on this later, but much of the language related to 1346 refers to "theft" of honest services. And that's what they are--thieves. And who do they steal from? They steal honest services from you, me, and all of the citizens of Alabama. And because they use the U.S. mails, it's a federal crime.
Joiner and Swatek might not look like the guy you envision using a crow bar to break into your home. But they are not one bit better. In fact, they are worse. The guy with the crow bar probably did not take an oath to uphold the law, and he probably isn't on the public payroll.
This brings us back around to one of my pet theories here at Legal Schnauzer. The idea is this: If we are to get to the root of the problem with our modern justice system, we must not look at it only as a legal problem. I submit that it is also a mental-health problem. Based on Eugene Robinson's column, I suspect a lot of sociopathy is being bred behind those gated walls and inside those private schools.
Show me a sociopath, and I will show you someone who--no matter how tough he might appear on the outside--is deeply insecure.
Consider just one example: the Alabama election of 2002. The evidence is overwhelming that numbers were manipulated to give Bob Riley the victory over Don Siegelman. If that's the case, what was at the heart of that act? Insecurity. And I submit insecurity is at the heart of almost everything we have, and will, discuss on this blog--the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.
And we mustn't forget the man who turned Alabama's state courts into a Republican playground and then turned the U.S. Justice Department into a criminal enterprise. That, of course, would be Karl Rove. Think he's got some insecurities?
Let's give Eugene Robinson the last word: "We're afraid of one another, we're afraid of the rest of the world, we're afraid of getting sick, we're afraid of dying. Maybe if we study our insecurities and confront them, we'll learn to keep them in check . . . maybe we'll learn that life isn't really any better behind the walls."
In a column titled "We, the Paranoid," Robinson writes of attending a panel discussion on "The Insecure American" at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. "(It) turned out to be a revelation--by turns alarming, depressing, and laugh-out-loud amusing--as scholar after scholar presented research showing just how unnerved this society is," Robinson wrote.
One researcher had studied gated communities, noting that people camp behind walls because they are afraid of crime, they feel isolated from neighbors, and they are nostalgic for some kind of Norman Rockwell past. The study showed that there isn't less crime in gated communities and people do not feel closer to their neighbors. In fact, many residents still turn on their burglar alarms, despite the walls and security guards.
This all made me think of my own little experience with our deeply troubled justice system in the United States. My experience has centered around corrupt lawyers and judges in Alabama's state courts, with starring roles for some of the same Republican characters who have been featured in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman.
I have about as much psychological training as Lucy Van Pelt in the famous Peanuts comic strip. But follow me for a moment, and with Eugene Robinson's help, perhaps we will be onto something.
* The primary judge who repeatedly cheated me--and committed federal crimes in the process--is Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner. Where does Judge Joiner live? A gated community called Highland Lakes. You can read all about here. Where did Judge Joiner go to school? My research indicates he went to Indian Springs School in Birmingham and completed both undergraduate work and law school at Samford University. These are all private institutions. If Judge Joiner's precious fanny has ever touched a desk at a public school, I see no evidence of it. And where does the fine judge go to church? Why a suburban megachurch of course--the Church at Brook Hills. And where do Judge Joiner and his wife, Cathy, send their daughter, Christy, to school? My sources tell me they send her to Briarwood Christian, which is (surprise, surprise!) a private school. Another source says she has been home schooled at times. Either way, sounds like she ain't getting near a public school.
* Now here's where it gets a bit creepy. You might think Mike Joiner became a judge because he was such an outstanding lawyer. You would be wrong. My sources tell me he was a mediocrity at best as a lawyer. But half of south Shelby County, around Columbiana (the county seat), is related to him. There is even an area called Joinertown. No wonder he doesn't have to worry about whether he rules according to the law or not! He's judge for life! My sources tell me that the good judge's parents, Hubert and Christine Joiner, live in the neck of the woods around Joinertown. One of the judge's brothers is an ophthalmologist. On that kind of income, I'm guessing he's a gated-community guy, too.
* Now, let's consider William E. Swatek, the ethically challenged attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me and committed federal crimes in the process. Remember, Mr. Swatek has valuable ties to Alabama Republican royalty. His son, Dax, was Governor Bob Riley's campaign manager. The Daxter also ran the failed campaign of Alice Martin for a seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Alice Martin, of course, went on to become U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, where she initiated a failed attempt to prosecute Don Siegelman. The "successful" attempt to prosecute Siegelman came in the Middle District of Alabama under the esteemed Leura Canary. You can read all you need to know about Martin and Canary here and here. But back to Bill Swatek. Where does he live? Behind a gated drive off Highway 119 in north Shelby County, the one with an "S" on it. Swatek has plenty of acreage, about 18 acres I think, and you can't even see his house from the road. Guess he likes his privacy. I'm told by someone who has visited the house that there are so many firearms about that "you would think you were in an armed camp." What's Swatek afraid of? Are there some vicious squirrels on his property? Oh, and Swatek has a penchant for private schools, too. Son Chace is a Briarwood Christian grad. And Chace went to law school at Pepperdine University in California, that bastion of progressive thinking. Guess who's dean of the law school there? Yikes!
* And let's not forget Briarwood Christian School, a ministry of the behemoth Briarwood Presbyterian Church. As we've noted before, Briarwood and its powerhouse football program played a role in a strange real-estate deal that caused your humble blogger to wind up with an eight-time criminal for a neighbor and all sorts of legal and financial headaches.
So, do you see a thread here? We're talking about people who are walling themselves off from the public at large--through gated communities, private schools, mammoth doctrinaire churches. And yet what kind of people do those conditions turn out?
Well, Judge J. Michael Joiner and William Swatek are common criminals. And that's not just my opinion. They have repeatedly committed honest services mail fraud (18 U.S. Code 1346) in my case. We will go into more detail on this later, but much of the language related to 1346 refers to "theft" of honest services. And that's what they are--thieves. And who do they steal from? They steal honest services from you, me, and all of the citizens of Alabama. And because they use the U.S. mails, it's a federal crime.
Joiner and Swatek might not look like the guy you envision using a crow bar to break into your home. But they are not one bit better. In fact, they are worse. The guy with the crow bar probably did not take an oath to uphold the law, and he probably isn't on the public payroll.
This brings us back around to one of my pet theories here at Legal Schnauzer. The idea is this: If we are to get to the root of the problem with our modern justice system, we must not look at it only as a legal problem. I submit that it is also a mental-health problem. Based on Eugene Robinson's column, I suspect a lot of sociopathy is being bred behind those gated walls and inside those private schools.
Show me a sociopath, and I will show you someone who--no matter how tough he might appear on the outside--is deeply insecure.
Consider just one example: the Alabama election of 2002. The evidence is overwhelming that numbers were manipulated to give Bob Riley the victory over Don Siegelman. If that's the case, what was at the heart of that act? Insecurity. And I submit insecurity is at the heart of almost everything we have, and will, discuss on this blog--the Siegelman case in Alabama, the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, and my own Legal Schnauzer case.
And we mustn't forget the man who turned Alabama's state courts into a Republican playground and then turned the U.S. Justice Department into a criminal enterprise. That, of course, would be Karl Rove. Think he's got some insecurities?
Let's give Eugene Robinson the last word: "We're afraid of one another, we're afraid of the rest of the world, we're afraid of getting sick, we're afraid of dying. Maybe if we study our insecurities and confront them, we'll learn to keep them in check . . . maybe we'll learn that life isn't really any better behind the walls."
MSNBC Spotlights Siegelman Case Tonight
Legal Schnauzer readers will want to tune in tonight to MSNBC's Abrams Report.
The program will feature a major segment on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. This is part of host Dan Abrams' series entitled "Bush League Justice."
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) will be among the guests. Horton, of course, has brought the Siegelman case to the national forefront, and Davis is a key player in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation of the Bush Justice Department.
Abrams Report airs at 8 p.m., central time, 9 p.m., eastern.
The program will feature a major segment on the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. This is part of host Dan Abrams' series entitled "Bush League Justice."
Scott Horton, of Harper's.org, and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) will be among the guests. Horton, of course, has brought the Siegelman case to the national forefront, and Davis is a key player in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's investigation of the Bush Justice Department.
Abrams Report airs at 8 p.m., central time, 9 p.m., eastern.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The ExxonMobil Coverup
The Legal Schnauzer has been out of commission for a couple of days because of sinus problems. But we are back in the saddle just in time to make sure that none of our readers falls for the latest gambit from the office of Alabama Governor Bob Riley.
Riley's office has announced that it will not ask the Alabama Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to throw out nearly all of the state's $3.6 billion judgment in a natural-gas royalties dispute with ExxonMobil.
Ken Wallis, Riley's legal advisor, said the governor had decided that seeking a rehearing "would be futile."
"With 8-1, we did not feel there was a likelihood of success," Wallis said.
So why bother trying? That's the spirit that made this country great isn't it?
There is an ulterior motive to Riley's decision to accept the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling, and it's one Mr. Wallis doesn't want you to know about. The 8-1 decision involved eight Republican justices voting to overturn the trial-court finding, with the lone Democrat (Sue Bell Cobb) casting a dissent. Riley, of course, is a Republican.
And here is why the governor is caving in: When a party seeks to have an appellate court rehear a case, it must file an application for rehearing. And along with the application, the party must file a brief, citing instances where the court ruled incorrectly or misunderstood the facts and the law involved.
Riley and Co. simply do not want to file a brief for reconsideration because such a brief, done honestly, would reveal the eight GOP justices for what they are--a bunch of rogues who are intentionally cheating the state of Alabama and ignoring their own well-settled law to do it. The brief would be a public document, and it's possible (though not likely) that a reporter from an Alabama newspaper might awaken from his or her slumber long enough to realize that, "Hey, there's a story here!"
We wouldn't want that. So Riley would rather let the case die and see his state get cheated out of billions of dollars. He simply does not want someone to write a brief that would show that the Supreme Court's ruling was unlawfully decided.
And it wouldn't take a legal scholar to write such a brief. Most anyone with three or four days of law school could probably show how the Supremes intentionally butchered the case in order to repay the corporate supporters who put them in office. (These same corporate supporters also put Riley in office.) Heck, I don't have the first day of law school, and I could write the brief--and I would do it for free.
Think I'll e-mail Wallis and offer to write the brief--for the good of our fine state. Wonder what his reply would be.
The Supremes so blatantly cheated the citizens of Alabama that Riley feels compelled to sweep the whole thing under the proverbial rug. That's the kind of leadership we have in Montgomery.
And did you notice that The Birmingham News buried the story on an inside page? Think that was an accident? Far and away the most important story in yesterday's newspaper, and it winds up on page 12 or 15 or some such.
With the help of Novationeering's Robby Scott Hill, we've already shown you one way the Supreme Court cheated Alabamians in its haste to kiss the collective fanny of ExxonMobil. We will show you more ways soon.
I'm not an expert on appellate law, but I believe the state still could file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And even if the state does file an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court is not likely to hear it. Did you know this? U.S. Supreme Court rules specifically state that the court is not in the business of hearing cases in order to correct state courts. If your state courts screwed you, that's tough.
You can see why it's kind of important to have honest state appellate courts. And that is something Alabama definnitely does not have.
And here is one other thought to keep in mind: This decision by Riley to forgo a rehearing shows a sort of collusion that goes on between our corrupt executive branch and our corrupt judicial branch--both dominated by Republicans.
I've seen evidence of this kind of collusion in my own case. William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, filed a bogus lawsuit against me that started a chain of events leading to this blog. By law, Bill Swatek should have been held accountable for filing a baseless claim in Alabama courts. Several mechanisms are available for doing just that. But since Bill Swatek has ties to the executive branch, he gets away with murder in our judicial branch. And the evidence is strong that this kind of footsie is not accidental.
What happens in Alabama is a smaller version of what happens on the national stage--we are the nation's canary in a coal mine. The Bush Administration turns the U.S. Justice Department into a politicized cesspool. The Riley Administration does much the same thing with the judicial branch of Alabama's state government.
Folks like Bob Riley assume that Alabamians will just sit back and take it. Sadly, he might be right about that.
Riley's office has announced that it will not ask the Alabama Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to throw out nearly all of the state's $3.6 billion judgment in a natural-gas royalties dispute with ExxonMobil.
Ken Wallis, Riley's legal advisor, said the governor had decided that seeking a rehearing "would be futile."
"With 8-1, we did not feel there was a likelihood of success," Wallis said.
So why bother trying? That's the spirit that made this country great isn't it?
There is an ulterior motive to Riley's decision to accept the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling, and it's one Mr. Wallis doesn't want you to know about. The 8-1 decision involved eight Republican justices voting to overturn the trial-court finding, with the lone Democrat (Sue Bell Cobb) casting a dissent. Riley, of course, is a Republican.
And here is why the governor is caving in: When a party seeks to have an appellate court rehear a case, it must file an application for rehearing. And along with the application, the party must file a brief, citing instances where the court ruled incorrectly or misunderstood the facts and the law involved.
Riley and Co. simply do not want to file a brief for reconsideration because such a brief, done honestly, would reveal the eight GOP justices for what they are--a bunch of rogues who are intentionally cheating the state of Alabama and ignoring their own well-settled law to do it. The brief would be a public document, and it's possible (though not likely) that a reporter from an Alabama newspaper might awaken from his or her slumber long enough to realize that, "Hey, there's a story here!"
We wouldn't want that. So Riley would rather let the case die and see his state get cheated out of billions of dollars. He simply does not want someone to write a brief that would show that the Supreme Court's ruling was unlawfully decided.
And it wouldn't take a legal scholar to write such a brief. Most anyone with three or four days of law school could probably show how the Supremes intentionally butchered the case in order to repay the corporate supporters who put them in office. (These same corporate supporters also put Riley in office.) Heck, I don't have the first day of law school, and I could write the brief--and I would do it for free.
Think I'll e-mail Wallis and offer to write the brief--for the good of our fine state. Wonder what his reply would be.
The Supremes so blatantly cheated the citizens of Alabama that Riley feels compelled to sweep the whole thing under the proverbial rug. That's the kind of leadership we have in Montgomery.
And did you notice that The Birmingham News buried the story on an inside page? Think that was an accident? Far and away the most important story in yesterday's newspaper, and it winds up on page 12 or 15 or some such.
With the help of Novationeering's Robby Scott Hill, we've already shown you one way the Supreme Court cheated Alabamians in its haste to kiss the collective fanny of ExxonMobil. We will show you more ways soon.
I'm not an expert on appellate law, but I believe the state still could file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. And even if the state does file an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court is not likely to hear it. Did you know this? U.S. Supreme Court rules specifically state that the court is not in the business of hearing cases in order to correct state courts. If your state courts screwed you, that's tough.
You can see why it's kind of important to have honest state appellate courts. And that is something Alabama definnitely does not have.
And here is one other thought to keep in mind: This decision by Riley to forgo a rehearing shows a sort of collusion that goes on between our corrupt executive branch and our corrupt judicial branch--both dominated by Republicans.
I've seen evidence of this kind of collusion in my own case. William E. Swatek, the father of Riley campaign manager Dax Swatek, filed a bogus lawsuit against me that started a chain of events leading to this blog. By law, Bill Swatek should have been held accountable for filing a baseless claim in Alabama courts. Several mechanisms are available for doing just that. But since Bill Swatek has ties to the executive branch, he gets away with murder in our judicial branch. And the evidence is strong that this kind of footsie is not accidental.
What happens in Alabama is a smaller version of what happens on the national stage--we are the nation's canary in a coal mine. The Bush Administration turns the U.S. Justice Department into a politicized cesspool. The Riley Administration does much the same thing with the judicial branch of Alabama's state government.
Folks like Bob Riley assume that Alabamians will just sit back and take it. Sadly, he might be right about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)