We have written posts here and here about the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) employee who used state equipment to send a hate-filled e-mail to a California gay-rights group.
Now we can finally identify the sender. Her name is Pamala Gibson, and she works as an office associate in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at UAB.
Matthew Keys, a reporter with Fox 40 KTXL TV in Sacramento, outed Gibson in a recent story.
Sean Hetherington, a Sacramento native now living in West Hollywood, received the e-mail from Gibson. The e-mail was sent in response to Day Without a Gay, a grassroots protest of California Proposition 8, which eliminated same-sex marriage rights when it passed in the November election.
Hetherington and his partner organized Day Without a Gay, asking supporters to call in sick for work and not purchase anything for one day.
Gibson made it clear in her e-mail that she is not a supporter:
"You freaks make me sick," the e-mail read. "You are the scourge of the earth and are responsible for everything that's wrong in this sorry world because of the immorality you have brought on this world as a whole."
Said Hetherington: "We were baffled that an educator could be so anti-gay."
According to Keys, Gibson did not seem anxious to discuss her missive:
We tried to contact Gibson via a phone number found on the university's website. Gibson answered the phone, but hung up after we identified ourselves as FOX40 News. Subsequent attempts to contact Gibson thereafter failed, and a message left on her phone mail system went unanswered.
UAB seems to be doing its best duck-and-cover routine in the wake of Gibson's e-mail. Reports Keys:
While Gibson's speech would be protected under her First Amendment right under the US Constitution, it's not protected by her employer.
In an e-mail obtained by FOX40 News from a University of California, Davis activist, Alesia Jones, the Interim Chief Human Resources Officer at the University of Alabama said the university is aware of the e-mail sent from their school.
"[The University of Alabama at Birmingham] strives to create and maintain an environment that (sic) all of our employees feel valued," the e-mail read. "We are looking into this matter and will address according to our internal policies."
That's more of a response than Hetherington received. "I left a message and asked for a phone call to explain the university's acceptable-use policy," Hetherington said. "Nobody has contacted me. Nobody returned my phone call."
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
UAB and "Acceptable Use" of a Computer
We recently reported on a story about a UAB employee who used a state-owned computer to send a hate-filled e-mail to a gay-rights group.
You might have noticed a deafening silence from UAB on the issue of possible discipline for the woman who sent the e-mail. You might also notice a disconnect between the way UAB seems to be treating this woman and the way it fired me unlawfully after 19 years of service.
All of which brings us to the issue of computer usage in the workplace. And it brings up a mistake I made in my previous post on this subject.
I wrote that UAB did not have a policy on the use of computers and the Internet--or at least one that I had been able to find. Well, I finally found it, and it is called UAB's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
Funny that I worked at the university for 19 years--and I was pretty good about keeping up with campus news, reading office memos, etc.--and I had never seen or heard of this thing. Guess that's because some genius decided it shouldn't be published in the employee handbook.
Anyway, the UAB AUP makes my termination smell even worse than it did before--if that's possible. And it also raises an odor about the blanket of protection UAB appears to be laying down for the woman who sent the anti-gay e-mail.
A few points jump out from reading the UAB policy:
* It is a policy violation to transmit messages that use threatening, racist, sexist, or harassing language. Bottom line? The woman, with the anti-gay e-mail, clearly violated UAB policy.
* UAB gave only vague reasons for my dismissal, but they seem to focus on allegations that I engaged in excessive "non work-related activity" on my computer, involving my "personal blog." Nowhere are these subjects mentioned in the UAB AUP policy, and we already have established that they are not mentioned in the employee handbook. We also have established that the Web research I did on my work computer was indeed related to my job--in fact, it was a requirement of my job. Bottom line? I did not violate UAB policy. I already knew that, but a reading of the AUP doubly confirms it.
* The AUP says violations of policy will be handled with revocation of user accounts, revocation of network access, and/or progressive discipline actions. Under university policy, progressive discipline is to start with an oral warning. Neither the AUP, nor the employee handbook, says that immediate termination--as happened in my case--is appropriate. And that's if you actually violated policy--which I did not.
The general tone of the UAB policy is to prohibit computer use that is "destructive, disruptive, or illegal." Even if the allegations against me were true, my use was none of those things. And considering that my use actually was part of my job description . . . well, you can see why I sense that my termination was driven by Republican political forces external to the university.
As we recently have shown, using Auburn University and its football program as examples, people in higher education can do some incredibly stupid things. But my termination is, shall we say, off the charts.
So what should happen to the woman who sent the anti-gay e-mail? According to university policy, she probably should get an oral warning--although a case could be made for written warning considering the nasty nature of the offense.
If you take my case in consideration, the woman should be fired. Of course, if my case were used as a guideline, almost everyone on campus would be fired--at least those who were using computers to do their jobs.
In reality, UAB does not have a problem with employees using computers to do their jobs. The university only has a problem when an employee, on his own time, writes a blog that exposes corruption among Alabama Republicans and criticizes the Bush Justice Department, particularly its handling of the Don Siegelman case.
So what do we learn from the case of the anti-gay e-mail and the case of the Legal Schnauzer? We learn that UAB has no problem with an employee using state-owned equipment to send a bigoted, threatening message, an act that clearly violates university policy.
On the other hand, UAB does have a problem with an employee who writes a blog, on his own time, about government corruption--an act that clearly is not a violation of university policy.
Do you see a problem with UAB's application of the First Amendment?
UAB is supported both by state taxpayer dollars and by more than $400 million a year in federal research grants. Taxpayers from one coast to the other have a vested interest in how this institution conducts itself.
Perhaps it is time that taxpayers make their voices heard about discriminatory and unlawful practices at one of the nation's largest academic medical centers.
A good place to start would be by contacting the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, which controls the purse strings that send millions of dollars to UAB every year.
Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) chairs the committee, and contact information can be found here.
Beverly Pheto recently was named staff director for the House Appropriations Committee.
You might have noticed a deafening silence from UAB on the issue of possible discipline for the woman who sent the e-mail. You might also notice a disconnect between the way UAB seems to be treating this woman and the way it fired me unlawfully after 19 years of service.
All of which brings us to the issue of computer usage in the workplace. And it brings up a mistake I made in my previous post on this subject.
I wrote that UAB did not have a policy on the use of computers and the Internet--or at least one that I had been able to find. Well, I finally found it, and it is called UAB's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
Funny that I worked at the university for 19 years--and I was pretty good about keeping up with campus news, reading office memos, etc.--and I had never seen or heard of this thing. Guess that's because some genius decided it shouldn't be published in the employee handbook.
Anyway, the UAB AUP makes my termination smell even worse than it did before--if that's possible. And it also raises an odor about the blanket of protection UAB appears to be laying down for the woman who sent the anti-gay e-mail.
A few points jump out from reading the UAB policy:
* It is a policy violation to transmit messages that use threatening, racist, sexist, or harassing language. Bottom line? The woman, with the anti-gay e-mail, clearly violated UAB policy.
* UAB gave only vague reasons for my dismissal, but they seem to focus on allegations that I engaged in excessive "non work-related activity" on my computer, involving my "personal blog." Nowhere are these subjects mentioned in the UAB AUP policy, and we already have established that they are not mentioned in the employee handbook. We also have established that the Web research I did on my work computer was indeed related to my job--in fact, it was a requirement of my job. Bottom line? I did not violate UAB policy. I already knew that, but a reading of the AUP doubly confirms it.
* The AUP says violations of policy will be handled with revocation of user accounts, revocation of network access, and/or progressive discipline actions. Under university policy, progressive discipline is to start with an oral warning. Neither the AUP, nor the employee handbook, says that immediate termination--as happened in my case--is appropriate. And that's if you actually violated policy--which I did not.
The general tone of the UAB policy is to prohibit computer use that is "destructive, disruptive, or illegal." Even if the allegations against me were true, my use was none of those things. And considering that my use actually was part of my job description . . . well, you can see why I sense that my termination was driven by Republican political forces external to the university.
As we recently have shown, using Auburn University and its football program as examples, people in higher education can do some incredibly stupid things. But my termination is, shall we say, off the charts.
So what should happen to the woman who sent the anti-gay e-mail? According to university policy, she probably should get an oral warning--although a case could be made for written warning considering the nasty nature of the offense.
If you take my case in consideration, the woman should be fired. Of course, if my case were used as a guideline, almost everyone on campus would be fired--at least those who were using computers to do their jobs.
In reality, UAB does not have a problem with employees using computers to do their jobs. The university only has a problem when an employee, on his own time, writes a blog that exposes corruption among Alabama Republicans and criticizes the Bush Justice Department, particularly its handling of the Don Siegelman case.
So what do we learn from the case of the anti-gay e-mail and the case of the Legal Schnauzer? We learn that UAB has no problem with an employee using state-owned equipment to send a bigoted, threatening message, an act that clearly violates university policy.
On the other hand, UAB does have a problem with an employee who writes a blog, on his own time, about government corruption--an act that clearly is not a violation of university policy.
Do you see a problem with UAB's application of the First Amendment?
UAB is supported both by state taxpayer dollars and by more than $400 million a year in federal research grants. Taxpayers from one coast to the other have a vested interest in how this institution conducts itself.
Perhaps it is time that taxpayers make their voices heard about discriminatory and unlawful practices at one of the nation's largest academic medical centers.
A good place to start would be by contacting the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, which controls the purse strings that send millions of dollars to UAB every year.
Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) chairs the committee, and contact information can be found here.
Beverly Pheto recently was named staff director for the House Appropriations Committee.
Is Siegelman Appeals Panel Trying to Protect Corrupt Judge?
It has been a week since oral arguments were heard in Atlanta on the appeal of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. But a major mystery about the proceedings remains:
Why did the three-judge panel spend most of its time asking questions about relatively minor issues--juror misconduct and an obstruction-of-justice charge involving the sale of a motorcycle? Why did the justices largely ignore the case's centerpiece--the alleged bribery scheme between Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy?
Adam Nossiter, of The New York Times, was one of several journalists who seemed baffled by the judges' questioning. When one of Siegelman's lawyers tried to raise his main argument--that the government failed to show a quid pro quo agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy--Judge J.L. Edmondson cut him off. "I don't think that's going to be your best argument today," the judge said.
Edmondson's statement, of course, is goofy because the bribery argument, showing the trial judge Mark Fuller gave an unlawful jury instruction on the issue, is central to the case.
So what was Edmondson up to? Well, we have a theory here at Legal Schnauzer.
Experience has taught me that many judges and lawyers are like members of a dysfunctional fraternity--something out of Animal House, without the humor.
They will go to extraordinary lengths to protect a fellow member of the tribe and hide the seamy underbelly of their profession. I suspect that is what Edmondson was doing by steering the conversation away from the bribery issue.
With the juror-misconduct issue, the focus was on jurors. With the obstruction-of-justice issue, the focus was on an inanimate object--a motorcycle--and a charge that was essentially an add-on to the main case.
But the bribery issue put the focus right where it belongs, on corrupt U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller. Had Edmondson allowed the bribery argument to proceed, two truths would have become clear:
* Fuller intentionally treated a legal campaign contribution as an illegal bribe; and
* Fuller intentionally gave the jury unlawful instructions, which virtually guaranteed a conviction.
What does this mean for the appellate panel's ruling? That is anyone's guess. Evidence for granting a new trial is overwhelming, and some experts say the convictions could be tossed altogether.
But my guess is that, even in their written ruling, the appeals judges will go out of their way to protect Fuller. The oral argument, which lasted less than an hour, probably was for show anyway, I suspect. The judges have plenty of written information before them to make what should be an easy decision.
Even if the judges write an opinion that is highly favorable for Siegelman and Scrushy, look for them to steer attention away from Fuller. It remains unclear how hard-nosed an Obama administration will be about rampant corruption in the Bush Justice Department. But it's possible that Mark Fuller could receive some unwelcome scrutiny in 2009.
My guess is that the all-Republican panel in the Siegelman appeal will do its best to take a corrupt crony out of the cross hairs.
Why did the three-judge panel spend most of its time asking questions about relatively minor issues--juror misconduct and an obstruction-of-justice charge involving the sale of a motorcycle? Why did the justices largely ignore the case's centerpiece--the alleged bribery scheme between Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy?
Adam Nossiter, of The New York Times, was one of several journalists who seemed baffled by the judges' questioning. When one of Siegelman's lawyers tried to raise his main argument--that the government failed to show a quid pro quo agreement between Siegelman and Scrushy--Judge J.L. Edmondson cut him off. "I don't think that's going to be your best argument today," the judge said.
Edmondson's statement, of course, is goofy because the bribery argument, showing the trial judge Mark Fuller gave an unlawful jury instruction on the issue, is central to the case.
So what was Edmondson up to? Well, we have a theory here at Legal Schnauzer.
Experience has taught me that many judges and lawyers are like members of a dysfunctional fraternity--something out of Animal House, without the humor.
They will go to extraordinary lengths to protect a fellow member of the tribe and hide the seamy underbelly of their profession. I suspect that is what Edmondson was doing by steering the conversation away from the bribery issue.
With the juror-misconduct issue, the focus was on jurors. With the obstruction-of-justice issue, the focus was on an inanimate object--a motorcycle--and a charge that was essentially an add-on to the main case.
But the bribery issue put the focus right where it belongs, on corrupt U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller. Had Edmondson allowed the bribery argument to proceed, two truths would have become clear:
* Fuller intentionally treated a legal campaign contribution as an illegal bribe; and
* Fuller intentionally gave the jury unlawful instructions, which virtually guaranteed a conviction.
What does this mean for the appellate panel's ruling? That is anyone's guess. Evidence for granting a new trial is overwhelming, and some experts say the convictions could be tossed altogether.
But my guess is that, even in their written ruling, the appeals judges will go out of their way to protect Fuller. The oral argument, which lasted less than an hour, probably was for show anyway, I suspect. The judges have plenty of written information before them to make what should be an easy decision.
Even if the judges write an opinion that is highly favorable for Siegelman and Scrushy, look for them to steer attention away from Fuller. It remains unclear how hard-nosed an Obama administration will be about rampant corruption in the Bush Justice Department. But it's possible that Mark Fuller could receive some unwelcome scrutiny in 2009.
My guess is that the all-Republican panel in the Siegelman appeal will do its best to take a corrupt crony out of the cross hairs.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Auburn Football: A Portrait of Dysfunction In Higher Education
Our crack Legal Schnauzer sports staff has been following the ongoing saga of Coach Tommy Tuberville and the Auburn football program, and we find it an intriguing story for several reasons.
Back in my sportswriter days, I covered Auburn for three years in the mid to late 1980s. Pat Dye was the coach then, the Tigers regularly went to big-time bowls, and I spent quite a bit of time in the "Loveliest Village on the Plains."
The Tuberville story grabbed our attention because it is both instructive and amusing.
It's instructive because it shows just how dysfunctional higher education can be. That's a subject I know something about, having recently been unlawfully terminated after working for 19 years at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
How goofy is the Tuberville story? Consider this: Tuberville arguably is the most successful coach in school history. Over 10 years, he had an 85-40 record, regularly had the Tigers in major bowl games, and beat archrival Alabama six consecutive times. Unlike a number of his predecessors, he evidently did it in an honest fashion; Auburn never stepped in NCAA doo-doo during his tenure.
You might think that Auburn would give Tuberville a lifetime contract and erect statutes of him all over campus. But what did the Aubies do? They panicked when Tuberville went 5-7 in 2008, while Alabama was going 12-1, and figured that one down year was enough to merit a coaching change.
So Tuberville wound up "resigning," Auburn paid him a $5.1 million buyout (even though it wasn't owed if he truly resigned), and went searching for a new coach. And who did the Aubies come up with? A fellow named Gene Chizik, who had a 5-19 record in two seasons as Iowa State's head coach. He is expected to be formally announced as Auburn's new coach today.
Now to be fair, Chizik has been highly successful as a defensive coordinator at Central Florida, Auburn, and Texas. But as a head coach? Well, the folks in Iowa aren't exactly sorry to see him go.
Take a few higher-ups with doctoral degrees, mix in a harried athletic director and two or three power-mad trustees, and these are the kinds of decisions you get. Paul Davis, a columnist for the Opelika-Auburn News, captured the Auburn nuttiness nicely.
It's nice to know that UAB is not the only massively dysfunctional institution in Alabama.
Why is the Tuberville story amusing? Well, that came when a reporter interviewed Olive Tuberville, the former coach's mother. She cut through all the BS from Auburn administrators and let the truth out of the bag: "He didn't resign," she said of her son. "He was fired."
Then as mothers are wont to do, Olive Tuberville became protective. "He's at an age (54) where something could happen to him. Heart problems are all through my family. I didn't want him getting stressed out."
This was touching, for obvious reasons. But I couldn't help but find some (dark) humor in it, particularly compared to my unceremonious parting with UAB.
Tuberville got a $5.1 million buyout, so unless he's a complete dunderhead with money, he won't have to work again the rest of his life. Technically, Auburn didn't do Tuberville wrong. The university decided to break the contract and was willing to pay the piper to do it.
Auburn acted in a stupid fashion, but it did not cheat Tuberville.
Also, Tuberville did contribute somewhat to his own demise. He made the decision last December to hire new offensive coordinator Tony Franklin and go to a "spread" offense, a move that backfired and resulted in Franklin's exit at midseason.
Me? I got fired, literally, for doing my job. I haven't received the first penny of a buyout or severance. And while Auburn folks have publicly praised Tuberville, UAB went out of its way to trash me, issuing a false statement saying I was fired due to job performance.
Gosh, if Tommy Tuberville was feeling stress, it's a wonder I can function at all.
Olive Tuberville, though, brings up a serious issue regarding turmoil in the workplace. What impact does it have on a person's health, particularly when the turmoil is manufactured and not based on legitimate work issues?
I just turned 52, close to Tommy Tuberville's age. As far as I know, my health is good. Like all families, mine has some health issues in our history. But in general, the Shulers of southwest Missouri have been a pretty hearty bunch.
But how many of my forebears have been under the kind of postmodern, sociopath-induced stress I've faced the past eight years, particularly the past six months. Could the political games that UAB is playing cause me, or someone close to me, to have a heart attack or a stroke? Would anybody at UAB care if that were the outcome of their charade?
And what about mental health? What if I, or someone close to me, were to snap and do something rash. I don't sense that happening with me, but who knows how bad things might get. And what about the people who depend on me? There are one or two of those who are more than a little fed up with the crap we've taken for close to a decade now.
I've been fortunate to be surrounded by good-natured, good-hearted people my whole life. But even the best of people have a breaking point, I suspect. What if one of us finally cracks and strikes back in an unfortunate way?
I wonder if certain folks at UAB--and certain lawyers, judges, and politicos--have thought about that.
As Olive Tuberville might say, maybe they should.
Back in my sportswriter days, I covered Auburn for three years in the mid to late 1980s. Pat Dye was the coach then, the Tigers regularly went to big-time bowls, and I spent quite a bit of time in the "Loveliest Village on the Plains."
The Tuberville story grabbed our attention because it is both instructive and amusing.
It's instructive because it shows just how dysfunctional higher education can be. That's a subject I know something about, having recently been unlawfully terminated after working for 19 years at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
How goofy is the Tuberville story? Consider this: Tuberville arguably is the most successful coach in school history. Over 10 years, he had an 85-40 record, regularly had the Tigers in major bowl games, and beat archrival Alabama six consecutive times. Unlike a number of his predecessors, he evidently did it in an honest fashion; Auburn never stepped in NCAA doo-doo during his tenure.
You might think that Auburn would give Tuberville a lifetime contract and erect statutes of him all over campus. But what did the Aubies do? They panicked when Tuberville went 5-7 in 2008, while Alabama was going 12-1, and figured that one down year was enough to merit a coaching change.
So Tuberville wound up "resigning," Auburn paid him a $5.1 million buyout (even though it wasn't owed if he truly resigned), and went searching for a new coach. And who did the Aubies come up with? A fellow named Gene Chizik, who had a 5-19 record in two seasons as Iowa State's head coach. He is expected to be formally announced as Auburn's new coach today.
Now to be fair, Chizik has been highly successful as a defensive coordinator at Central Florida, Auburn, and Texas. But as a head coach? Well, the folks in Iowa aren't exactly sorry to see him go.
Take a few higher-ups with doctoral degrees, mix in a harried athletic director and two or three power-mad trustees, and these are the kinds of decisions you get. Paul Davis, a columnist for the Opelika-Auburn News, captured the Auburn nuttiness nicely.
It's nice to know that UAB is not the only massively dysfunctional institution in Alabama.
Why is the Tuberville story amusing? Well, that came when a reporter interviewed Olive Tuberville, the former coach's mother. She cut through all the BS from Auburn administrators and let the truth out of the bag: "He didn't resign," she said of her son. "He was fired."
Then as mothers are wont to do, Olive Tuberville became protective. "He's at an age (54) where something could happen to him. Heart problems are all through my family. I didn't want him getting stressed out."
This was touching, for obvious reasons. But I couldn't help but find some (dark) humor in it, particularly compared to my unceremonious parting with UAB.
Tuberville got a $5.1 million buyout, so unless he's a complete dunderhead with money, he won't have to work again the rest of his life. Technically, Auburn didn't do Tuberville wrong. The university decided to break the contract and was willing to pay the piper to do it.
Auburn acted in a stupid fashion, but it did not cheat Tuberville.
Also, Tuberville did contribute somewhat to his own demise. He made the decision last December to hire new offensive coordinator Tony Franklin and go to a "spread" offense, a move that backfired and resulted in Franklin's exit at midseason.
Me? I got fired, literally, for doing my job. I haven't received the first penny of a buyout or severance. And while Auburn folks have publicly praised Tuberville, UAB went out of its way to trash me, issuing a false statement saying I was fired due to job performance.
Gosh, if Tommy Tuberville was feeling stress, it's a wonder I can function at all.
Olive Tuberville, though, brings up a serious issue regarding turmoil in the workplace. What impact does it have on a person's health, particularly when the turmoil is manufactured and not based on legitimate work issues?
I just turned 52, close to Tommy Tuberville's age. As far as I know, my health is good. Like all families, mine has some health issues in our history. But in general, the Shulers of southwest Missouri have been a pretty hearty bunch.
But how many of my forebears have been under the kind of postmodern, sociopath-induced stress I've faced the past eight years, particularly the past six months. Could the political games that UAB is playing cause me, or someone close to me, to have a heart attack or a stroke? Would anybody at UAB care if that were the outcome of their charade?
And what about mental health? What if I, or someone close to me, were to snap and do something rash. I don't sense that happening with me, but who knows how bad things might get. And what about the people who depend on me? There are one or two of those who are more than a little fed up with the crap we've taken for close to a decade now.
I've been fortunate to be surrounded by good-natured, good-hearted people my whole life. But even the best of people have a breaking point, I suspect. What if one of us finally cracks and strikes back in an unfortunate way?
I wonder if certain folks at UAB--and certain lawyers, judges, and politicos--have thought about that.
As Olive Tuberville might say, maybe they should.
A Shocker: Alabama Is NOT No. 1 in Corruption
Alabamians are fond of saying, "Thank God for Mississippi," particularly when we rank 49th in something and have only the Magnolia State behind us. And that happens a lot.
But now, we can say, "Thank God for Louisiana."
A survey by the Corporate Crime Reporter found that Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the country. The ranking is based on data from the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, examining federal convictions per 100,000 residents over the past 10 years.
Louisiana is followed in the top five by Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, and Ohio. Hmmm. Four of the top five most corrupt states are from the South. Surprise, surprise.
And rounding out the top 10, we have Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
This survey was from fall 2007, so the recent antics of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich were not included.
A couple of thoughts from the Schnauzer gallery:
* This survey doesn't begin to reflect the amount of actual corruption in the United States. The editor of Corporate Crime Reporter notes that at least 80 percent of public corruption cases are handled by federal, not state, authorities. And the feds can look into only a tiny percentage of corruption cases. That's why judges and sheriffs in places like Shelby County, Alabama, make no effort to hide their unlawful acts. They know the chances of getting caught are infinitesimally small.
* This survey doesn't take into account corruption in the Justice Department itself, particularly over the past eight years. If you factor corrupt Bushies like Alice Martin and Leura Canary into the mix, Alabama almost certainly becomes No. 1.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, nicely summarizes the special role Bush prosecutors have played in Alabama corruption:
Martin and Canary, who remain the subject of multiple internal ethics probes in the Bush Justice Department, have a long track record of abusive political prosecutions. While Illinois and Alaska are suddenly gaining attention over their multifaceted political corruption probes and prosecutions, Alabama still charts a special place. I imagine even Canary and Martin would argue that their state has a culture of political corruption which puts it in the running for the honor of “most corrupt” among the fifty members of the union. But Alabama distinguishes itself by the special role played by federal prosecutors in the process. The real center of the state’s political corruption lies smack in the U.S. attorney’s offices. Martin and Canary have mastered the art of using their prosecutorial powers to advance the interests of their political party and political associates, as Bennett notes. And they have done so with a wink and a nod from the Bush Justice Department, which has systematically swept all complaints against them–notably led by their career employees–under the carpet. These awards are richly deserved.
Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, has an excellent quote about the nature of public corruption:
“Public officials in any given state can be corrupt to the core, and if a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the resources or the sheer political will to bring the case and win a conviction, the public corruption will not be reflected in the Justice Department’s data set."
That's a major story in Alabama. Corruption is a bipartisan problem, but Republican sleaze has received almost no scrutiny in our state over the past eight years. Hopefully that will begin to change on January 20.
In the meantime, we can learn a lot from this sobering appraisal of our corrupt culture by Frank Rich, of The New York Times.
But now, we can say, "Thank God for Louisiana."
A survey by the Corporate Crime Reporter found that Louisiana is the most corrupt state in the country. The ranking is based on data from the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, examining federal convictions per 100,000 residents over the past 10 years.
Louisiana is followed in the top five by Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, and Ohio. Hmmm. Four of the top five most corrupt states are from the South. Surprise, surprise.
And rounding out the top 10, we have Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey, and New York.
This survey was from fall 2007, so the recent antics of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich were not included.
A couple of thoughts from the Schnauzer gallery:
* This survey doesn't begin to reflect the amount of actual corruption in the United States. The editor of Corporate Crime Reporter notes that at least 80 percent of public corruption cases are handled by federal, not state, authorities. And the feds can look into only a tiny percentage of corruption cases. That's why judges and sheriffs in places like Shelby County, Alabama, make no effort to hide their unlawful acts. They know the chances of getting caught are infinitesimally small.
* This survey doesn't take into account corruption in the Justice Department itself, particularly over the past eight years. If you factor corrupt Bushies like Alice Martin and Leura Canary into the mix, Alabama almost certainly becomes No. 1.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, nicely summarizes the special role Bush prosecutors have played in Alabama corruption:
Martin and Canary, who remain the subject of multiple internal ethics probes in the Bush Justice Department, have a long track record of abusive political prosecutions. While Illinois and Alaska are suddenly gaining attention over their multifaceted political corruption probes and prosecutions, Alabama still charts a special place. I imagine even Canary and Martin would argue that their state has a culture of political corruption which puts it in the running for the honor of “most corrupt” among the fifty members of the union. But Alabama distinguishes itself by the special role played by federal prosecutors in the process. The real center of the state’s political corruption lies smack in the U.S. attorney’s offices. Martin and Canary have mastered the art of using their prosecutorial powers to advance the interests of their political party and political associates, as Bennett notes. And they have done so with a wink and a nod from the Bush Justice Department, which has systematically swept all complaints against them–notably led by their career employees–under the carpet. These awards are richly deserved.
Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, has an excellent quote about the nature of public corruption:
“Public officials in any given state can be corrupt to the core, and if a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the resources or the sheer political will to bring the case and win a conviction, the public corruption will not be reflected in the Justice Department’s data set."
That's a major story in Alabama. Corruption is a bipartisan problem, but Republican sleaze has received almost no scrutiny in our state over the past eight years. Hopefully that will begin to change on January 20.
In the meantime, we can learn a lot from this sobering appraisal of our corrupt culture by Frank Rich, of The New York Times.
Retractable Roof is a MUST for Birmingham Dome
I've followed the Birmingham sports scene professionally, in some form or another, for 30 years. And I like to think I've gained some insight into our city's pluses and minuses when it comes to the games people play.
And here is one insight I can offer as the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex (BJCC) prepares to pick an architect for a proposed $500 million domed stadium: The facility simply MUST have a retractable roof.
College football will be one of the prime events at the stadium. And when people rhapsodize about the popularity of college football in our part of the country, they often forget about one of the main reasons for that: We have gorgeous weather in the fall.
Southerners love football for a variety of reasons. We are the most violent region in the country, and the sport's collisions appeal to our Scotch-Irish heritage.
But I've long contended that Southerners are no more into the actual sport of football than folks from any other region. For Southerners, football is a social event. They love the pageantry, the tailgating, the sights, sounds, and smells.
A large part of that is associated with the weather. In the South, the most pleasant season is the fall--the heart of college football season. And it tends to be dry. I can count on one hand the number of times I've watched a Southern college football game in rainy or cold conditions.
That's why a true dome is such a bad idea for Birmingham--and a retractable roof is a great idea. It would allow the facility to host true indoor events throughout the year, with the roof closed. It would provide a pleasant setting on those rare times when we have bad weather for football. But it would provide an open-air setting, which is so much a part of the Southern football experience.
Consider that UAB football is likely to be one of the stadium's primary tenants. Alabama and Auburn have massive stadiums on their campuses, and they usually pack them, so they don't play in Birmingham anymore. But UAB's fledgling program has no on-campus facility and has called aging Legion Field home.
Most of UAB's crowds are in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. If you put that small a crowd in a true dome, the place is dead. Just look at the Superdome in New Orleans when Tulane University plays there. Tulane draws modest crowds, and with the Superdome, it has probably the worst atmosphere in college football.
But put a UAB crowd in an open-air stadium, on a gorgeous fall afternoon, and you have a nice event.
And here's the kicker: The two finalists for the design job are HOK Inc. of Kansas City and HKS Inc. of Dallas. HOK officials said they think the Birmingham stadium could be built for $410. If BJCC officials opted for a retractable roof, it would add about $30 million to the cost.
Now, $30 million is a lot of money, but it's not much on a $410 project. Apparently, the technology for retractable roofs has improved, bringing the cost down.
HOK has designed a proposed new baseball stadium in Tampa that would use a fabric-based retractable roof. Perhaps a similar plan could be used for Birmingham.
Domed stadiums have been on the decline in sports for years now. Detroit, Houston, Seattle, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Tampa are just a few of the cities that have, or plan to, move away from domed stadiums.
For years, Birmingham has been seen as several steps behind Atlanta, its bigger, bolder neighbor to the east. But Atlanta is stuck with the Georgia Dome for the foreseeable future, and some folks already are calling that facility obsolete.
A retractable-roof stadium would be a sign of visionary thinking for our city and give us a leg up on Atlanta. I like the sound of that.
Let's hope BJCC Chairman Clyde Echols and his associates are listening.
And here is one insight I can offer as the Birmingham Jefferson Convention Complex (BJCC) prepares to pick an architect for a proposed $500 million domed stadium: The facility simply MUST have a retractable roof.
College football will be one of the prime events at the stadium. And when people rhapsodize about the popularity of college football in our part of the country, they often forget about one of the main reasons for that: We have gorgeous weather in the fall.
Southerners love football for a variety of reasons. We are the most violent region in the country, and the sport's collisions appeal to our Scotch-Irish heritage.
But I've long contended that Southerners are no more into the actual sport of football than folks from any other region. For Southerners, football is a social event. They love the pageantry, the tailgating, the sights, sounds, and smells.
A large part of that is associated with the weather. In the South, the most pleasant season is the fall--the heart of college football season. And it tends to be dry. I can count on one hand the number of times I've watched a Southern college football game in rainy or cold conditions.
That's why a true dome is such a bad idea for Birmingham--and a retractable roof is a great idea. It would allow the facility to host true indoor events throughout the year, with the roof closed. It would provide a pleasant setting on those rare times when we have bad weather for football. But it would provide an open-air setting, which is so much a part of the Southern football experience.
Consider that UAB football is likely to be one of the stadium's primary tenants. Alabama and Auburn have massive stadiums on their campuses, and they usually pack them, so they don't play in Birmingham anymore. But UAB's fledgling program has no on-campus facility and has called aging Legion Field home.
Most of UAB's crowds are in the 15,000 to 20,000 range. If you put that small a crowd in a true dome, the place is dead. Just look at the Superdome in New Orleans when Tulane University plays there. Tulane draws modest crowds, and with the Superdome, it has probably the worst atmosphere in college football.
But put a UAB crowd in an open-air stadium, on a gorgeous fall afternoon, and you have a nice event.
And here's the kicker: The two finalists for the design job are HOK Inc. of Kansas City and HKS Inc. of Dallas. HOK officials said they think the Birmingham stadium could be built for $410. If BJCC officials opted for a retractable roof, it would add about $30 million to the cost.
Now, $30 million is a lot of money, but it's not much on a $410 project. Apparently, the technology for retractable roofs has improved, bringing the cost down.
HOK has designed a proposed new baseball stadium in Tampa that would use a fabric-based retractable roof. Perhaps a similar plan could be used for Birmingham.
Domed stadiums have been on the decline in sports for years now. Detroit, Houston, Seattle, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Tampa are just a few of the cities that have, or plan to, move away from domed stadiums.
For years, Birmingham has been seen as several steps behind Atlanta, its bigger, bolder neighbor to the east. But Atlanta is stuck with the Georgia Dome for the foreseeable future, and some folks already are calling that facility obsolete.
A retractable-roof stadium would be a sign of visionary thinking for our city and give us a leg up on Atlanta. I like the sound of that.
Let's hope BJCC Chairman Clyde Echols and his associates are listening.
Friday, December 12, 2008
UAB Employee Used State Computer to Send Anti-Gay E-mail
An employee at UAB apparently used a state computer to send a hate-filled e-mail to a gay-rights organization.
UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) has announced no disciplinary action against the employee.
UAB, of course, is my former employer. The university fired me in May, after 19 years of service, for vague reasons that appeared to center on allegations that I had used my university computer to work on my personal blog.
A UAB investigation of my computer usage showed I never had worked on my blog from my work computer, and a UAB grievance hearing found that I should not have been fired. But UAB President Carol Garrison upheld my termination anyway.
Lindsay Beyerstein reported on my case in a major investigative piece at Raw Story. The Chronicle of Higher Education also picked up on the story.
Substantial evidence indicates that I was fired because my blog exposes corruption among Republican public officials in Alabama and is critical of the Bush Justice Department, particularly its handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution.
We are investigating several leads that suggest my termination was driven by pressure from people with ties to the Alabama Republican Party.
Ebony Hall, a reporter for Birmingham's ABC 33/40, broke the anti-gay e-mail story in a broadcast on Wednesday night. The Web site Left in Alabama picked up on the story yesterday.
The e-mail, sent from a uab.edu account, apparently went to a gay-rights Web site in Los Angeles. The author referred to gays as "freaks" and "the scourge of the earth" and said gays were "responsible for everything wrong in this sorry world."
Jonathan Quinn, president of Central Alabama Pride, called the e-mail contents "shocking," particularly since they originated from taxpayer-funded equipment.
A UAB statement released to ABC 33/40 said the university was looking into the matter. If such conduct occurred, the statement said, it would violate the university's acceptable-use policy and appropriate action would be taken.
UAB's statement raises several issues here at Legal Schnauzer:
* I've read the UAB employee handbook from cover to cover, and I've yet to see a policy regarding use of computers and the Internet. If it's in there, it's well hidden.
* Considering that I was fired, even though UAB's own investigation showed I wasn't using my computer for my blog, one can only assume that an employee who did use UAB equipment for an improper reason--to send a bigoted e-mail--will be fired pronto. So far, no word on whether that has happened.
* Of course, UAB has been wildly inconsistent in applying its non-policies regarding computer use. In 2004 one of my former coworkers, Doug Gillett, was caught actually blogging and conducting a variety of political activities on his work computer. (Doug was a volunteer with the John Kerry campaign at the time; I consider him both a friend, a like-minded thinker, and an all-around swell guy.) Engaging in political activity on state equipment is a clear violation of UAB policy and probably state ethics law. But Doug apparently received only a written warning and still works at UAB. Of course, he was about 25 years old at the time, and I was 51. Is it little wonder that UAB has a variety of discrimination lawsuits pending against it at this moment?
The recent anti-gay e-mail raises a number of questions about UAB, which is supported by taxpayer dollars, receives huge amounts of federal research funds, and is bound to conduct itself in an nondiscriminatory manner:
* Who is this woman and what office does she work in on campus? Is this an isolated incident or has this kind of hateful speech been tolerated, even encouraged, in her work environment for some time?
* Who is this woman's supervisor? Why wasn't the supervisor on top of the woman's activities? What vice president does this supervisor report to? And where was President Carol Garrison when this was going on?
* Was this woman's computer usage monitored at any point? According to testimony in my grievance hearing, UAB conducted an investigation of my computer usage in Feburary/March 2008. Were such investigations conducted campuswide, and if so, what showed up on this woman's computer? (I know the answer to that one. I was targeted specifically for investigation. No one else in my department was monitored, much less people on other parts of campus.)
* Is UAB run by an administration that takes massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on one hand, but tolerates bigoted, hateful speech on the other? Does UAB protect employees who express "conservative" viewpoints on university time, while terminating those who express progressive viewpoints on their own time?
That's exactly what appears to be happening.
UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) has announced no disciplinary action against the employee.
UAB, of course, is my former employer. The university fired me in May, after 19 years of service, for vague reasons that appeared to center on allegations that I had used my university computer to work on my personal blog.
A UAB investigation of my computer usage showed I never had worked on my blog from my work computer, and a UAB grievance hearing found that I should not have been fired. But UAB President Carol Garrison upheld my termination anyway.
Lindsay Beyerstein reported on my case in a major investigative piece at Raw Story. The Chronicle of Higher Education also picked up on the story.
Substantial evidence indicates that I was fired because my blog exposes corruption among Republican public officials in Alabama and is critical of the Bush Justice Department, particularly its handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution.
We are investigating several leads that suggest my termination was driven by pressure from people with ties to the Alabama Republican Party.
Ebony Hall, a reporter for Birmingham's ABC 33/40, broke the anti-gay e-mail story in a broadcast on Wednesday night. The Web site Left in Alabama picked up on the story yesterday.
The e-mail, sent from a uab.edu account, apparently went to a gay-rights Web site in Los Angeles. The author referred to gays as "freaks" and "the scourge of the earth" and said gays were "responsible for everything wrong in this sorry world."
Jonathan Quinn, president of Central Alabama Pride, called the e-mail contents "shocking," particularly since they originated from taxpayer-funded equipment.
A UAB statement released to ABC 33/40 said the university was looking into the matter. If such conduct occurred, the statement said, it would violate the university's acceptable-use policy and appropriate action would be taken.
UAB's statement raises several issues here at Legal Schnauzer:
* I've read the UAB employee handbook from cover to cover, and I've yet to see a policy regarding use of computers and the Internet. If it's in there, it's well hidden.
* Considering that I was fired, even though UAB's own investigation showed I wasn't using my computer for my blog, one can only assume that an employee who did use UAB equipment for an improper reason--to send a bigoted e-mail--will be fired pronto. So far, no word on whether that has happened.
* Of course, UAB has been wildly inconsistent in applying its non-policies regarding computer use. In 2004 one of my former coworkers, Doug Gillett, was caught actually blogging and conducting a variety of political activities on his work computer. (Doug was a volunteer with the John Kerry campaign at the time; I consider him both a friend, a like-minded thinker, and an all-around swell guy.) Engaging in political activity on state equipment is a clear violation of UAB policy and probably state ethics law. But Doug apparently received only a written warning and still works at UAB. Of course, he was about 25 years old at the time, and I was 51. Is it little wonder that UAB has a variety of discrimination lawsuits pending against it at this moment?
The recent anti-gay e-mail raises a number of questions about UAB, which is supported by taxpayer dollars, receives huge amounts of federal research funds, and is bound to conduct itself in an nondiscriminatory manner:
* Who is this woman and what office does she work in on campus? Is this an isolated incident or has this kind of hateful speech been tolerated, even encouraged, in her work environment for some time?
* Who is this woman's supervisor? Why wasn't the supervisor on top of the woman's activities? What vice president does this supervisor report to? And where was President Carol Garrison when this was going on?
* Was this woman's computer usage monitored at any point? According to testimony in my grievance hearing, UAB conducted an investigation of my computer usage in Feburary/March 2008. Were such investigations conducted campuswide, and if so, what showed up on this woman's computer? (I know the answer to that one. I was targeted specifically for investigation. No one else in my department was monitored, much less people on other parts of campus.)
* Is UAB run by an administration that takes massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on one hand, but tolerates bigoted, hateful speech on the other? Does UAB protect employees who express "conservative" viewpoints on university time, while terminating those who express progressive viewpoints on their own time?
That's exactly what appears to be happening.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Tricky World of Lawyer-Client Relationships
We have more news today about the sometimes contentious connections between lawyers and clients.
We reported on this subject yesterday, focusing on Alabama attorney/whistleblower Jill Simpson and former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White.
More news is out today about White and his former attorney, Walter Braswell. In papers filed with U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Braswell says he released White as a client, not the other way around.
Braswell says he had a disagreement with White and his wife, Judy, on the best way to approach White's defense on corruption charges. The Whites wanted to raise allegations of a conspiracy to bring down White, a plot they say involves Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and journalists Tom Scarritt and John Archibald of The Birmingham News.
Braswell said he could find no evidence of such a conspiracy. The nature of any investigation Braswell conducted is unclear.
The Whites have stated in court documents that Gary White, a Republican, was prosecuted because he refused to provide false evidence against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Judy White fired back at Braswell. "The truth is not in Walter Braswell. What he has done will result in his disbarment or, at a minimum, result in his suspension from being able to practice in federal court. He is desperately trying to save his legal career."
Archibald weighs in today with a column titled "Tired Stories of Victimization Lack Evidence." Archibald writes of Siegelman, Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and other Democrats who say they have been unjustly targeted by a Republican-controlled Justice Department:'
"Even if you buy it, which I don't, where does Gary White fit in? How does a white suburban Republican jump aboard the victim train. . . .
"That's the problem with the victim defense. Evidence."
Actually, Archibald is exhibiting a serious case of selective memory here. Evidence does exist that Gary White was targeted for political reasons, but The Birmingham News ignored it at the time--and Archibald is ignoring it now.
The evidence comes in the form of an affidavit from Judy White, saying her husband was pressured to give false testimony against Siegelman. Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, reported on the White case and noted that court documents showed U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon was troubled by the allegations in Mrs. White's affidavit.
All of this information, Horton reported, was available in the court file. But did The Birmingham News report it? Nope.
If Archibald and his colleagues want to see evidence, they might try opening their eyes and looking at a few public documents.
The evidence is there.
We reported on this subject yesterday, focusing on Alabama attorney/whistleblower Jill Simpson and former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White.
More news is out today about White and his former attorney, Walter Braswell. In papers filed with U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Braswell says he released White as a client, not the other way around.
Braswell says he had a disagreement with White and his wife, Judy, on the best way to approach White's defense on corruption charges. The Whites wanted to raise allegations of a conspiracy to bring down White, a plot they say involves Commissioner Bettye Fine Collins, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, and journalists Tom Scarritt and John Archibald of The Birmingham News.
Braswell said he could find no evidence of such a conspiracy. The nature of any investigation Braswell conducted is unclear.
The Whites have stated in court documents that Gary White, a Republican, was prosecuted because he refused to provide false evidence against former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
Judy White fired back at Braswell. "The truth is not in Walter Braswell. What he has done will result in his disbarment or, at a minimum, result in his suspension from being able to practice in federal court. He is desperately trying to save his legal career."
Archibald weighs in today with a column titled "Tired Stories of Victimization Lack Evidence." Archibald writes of Siegelman, Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford and other Democrats who say they have been unjustly targeted by a Republican-controlled Justice Department:'
"Even if you buy it, which I don't, where does Gary White fit in? How does a white suburban Republican jump aboard the victim train. . . .
"That's the problem with the victim defense. Evidence."
Actually, Archibald is exhibiting a serious case of selective memory here. Evidence does exist that Gary White was targeted for political reasons, but The Birmingham News ignored it at the time--and Archibald is ignoring it now.
The evidence comes in the form of an affidavit from Judy White, saying her husband was pressured to give false testimony against Siegelman. Scott Horton, of Harper's magazine, reported on the White case and noted that court documents showed U.S. Judge U.W. Clemon was troubled by the allegations in Mrs. White's affidavit.
All of this information, Horton reported, was available in the court file. But did The Birmingham News report it? Nope.
If Archibald and his colleagues want to see evidence, they might try opening their eyes and looking at a few public documents.
The evidence is there.
Siegelman: Obama Administration Will Not Let Rove Off The Hook
A key Congressional leader has assured former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman that a Barack Obama administration will seek to hold Bush White House strategist Karl Rove accountable for possible interference with the U.S. Justice Department.
"I was at the Democratic National Convention and I asked [Rep.] John Conyers [the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] if Rove would be pursued in the next administration," Siegelman said. "And he said--and I quote--'Let me put your fears to rest; it will happen. We are committed to the long haul.'"
Siegelman's comments came in an exclusive interview on Tuesday evening with Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News. Earlier that day, Siegelman was at the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta for oral arguments on his appeal.
Siegelman long has maintained that Rove was at the heart of a Republican plan to prosecute him on bogus charges. The trial ended with convictions against Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
"We have evidence that Rove was involved and sworn testimony," Siegelman said. "This could be the string that unravels the whole Rove criminal enterprise."
Many observers were surprised that Tuesday's three-judge panel focused largely on questions about juror misconduct and an obstruction of justice charge based on the purchase of a motorcycle. Little was said about the centerpiece of the case--an alleged bribery scheme between Siegelman and Scrushy.
Siegelman took that as a good sign.
"I think that means that they have already made up their minds about that issue and that is at the crux of the whole case. The fact that the same 11th Court of Criminal Appeals freed me in a highly unusual move in March because they had real questions about how the case was handled tells me they think that was a trumped up charge."
Improper communications between jurors seemed to be of particular interest to the judges.
"There were a whole lot of pointed questions about that, and they all seemed helpful to our case that the whole case should be thrown out or at least a mistrial be declared because of prosecutorial misconduct," Siegelman said.
"I was at the Democratic National Convention and I asked [Rep.] John Conyers [the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] if Rove would be pursued in the next administration," Siegelman said. "And he said--and I quote--'Let me put your fears to rest; it will happen. We are committed to the long haul.'"
Siegelman's comments came in an exclusive interview on Tuesday evening with Tommy Stevenson of the Tuscaloosa News. Earlier that day, Siegelman was at the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta for oral arguments on his appeal.
Siegelman long has maintained that Rove was at the heart of a Republican plan to prosecute him on bogus charges. The trial ended with convictions against Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.
"We have evidence that Rove was involved and sworn testimony," Siegelman said. "This could be the string that unravels the whole Rove criminal enterprise."
Many observers were surprised that Tuesday's three-judge panel focused largely on questions about juror misconduct and an obstruction of justice charge based on the purchase of a motorcycle. Little was said about the centerpiece of the case--an alleged bribery scheme between Siegelman and Scrushy.
Siegelman took that as a good sign.
"I think that means that they have already made up their minds about that issue and that is at the crux of the whole case. The fact that the same 11th Court of Criminal Appeals freed me in a highly unusual move in March because they had real questions about how the case was handled tells me they think that was a trumped up charge."
Improper communications between jurors seemed to be of particular interest to the judges.
"There were a whole lot of pointed questions about that, and they all seemed helpful to our case that the whole case should be thrown out or at least a mistrial be declared because of prosecutorial misconduct," Siegelman said.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Lawyers Take Money, Don't Take Responsibility
Two prominent figures in the Don Siegelman story are fighting legal battles of their own, with both cases involving fees paid to lawyers who allegedly then did little or no work.
That's an issue we are intimately familiar with here at Legal Schnauzer. And it helps explain why a national reform movement called JAIL 4 Judges has grabbed a foothold.
Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, the whistleblower who testified under oath that Republican operatives were behind the Siegelman prosecution, has filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar against lawyer Stephen Glassroth.
Simpson hired Glassroth to represent her in a tax matter, but he failed to take action on her behalf. The Alabama State Bar suspended Glassroth's license when he failed to answer Simpson's complaint.
Glassroth perhaps is best known as the attorney who filed the original complaint to force former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.
Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White also has problems with a lawyer. White recently fired his lawyer and said he is having trouble finding a new one because of the volume of public-corruption cases in Birmingham.
(That's good to know; the Bush economy might be imploding, but by golly, criminal defense lawyers are doing a gold-rush business.)
White was convicted in January on corruption charges, but the conviction was voided and a new trial granted. White's wife stated in an affidavit that federal prosecutors targeted him after he refused to provide false testimony against Siegelman.
According to court documents, White said he had paid lawyer Walter Braswell an upfront fee, but Braswell failed to filed a notice of appearance and missed a deadline for filing a brief. After firing Braswell, White eventually got his money back.
I have considerable empathy for Simpson and White because I have been down a similar road.
When my neighbor (Mike McGarity) and his corrupt lawyer (Bill Swatek) filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me, I hired Jesse P. Evans III to defend me. Evans then was with the Birmingham firm of Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson, and he assigned most of the work to an associate Michael Odom. Evans and Odom since have both left for the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter.
Evans and Odom filed two motions for summary judgment and a number of other documents on my behalf. But they did not truly represent my best interest, even though I paid them about $12,000.
For example, they refused to file a counterclaim on my behalf, even though Evans notes from my initial meeting with him showed a notation about a counterclaim. He had immediately filed a counterclaim in a similar property-related dispute in Shelby County, but the opposing counsel in that case was not named William E. Swatek and did not have family ties to the Alabama Republican Party.
When Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner twice denied properly executed and supported Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJ) when the other party did not respond--an MSJ under such circumstances must be granted--Evans and Odom had to know Joiner was cheating me. But they did nothing about it.
They filed no interlocutory appeal to overrule Joiner's unlawful findings. They filed no Motion to Recuse to get a corrupt judge off my case. When I fired them and demanded my money back, they refused.
Evans and Odom, best I can tell, generally have a good reputation. Evans even has written a book about property law in Alabama. So why did they mishandle my case? Evidence suggests that they sold their client down the river in order to placate a judge they knew was corrupt.
My second attorney, a solo practitioner named Richard Poff, appears to have done pretty much the same thing. I paid him $4,500 up front, and he did virtually nothing on my case. When I fired him and demanded a refund, he, too, refused.
Like Simpson, I am dealing with the Alabama State Bar over the actions and inactions of my attorneys. I'm pleased to see that the bar seems to be taking appropriate action in the Simpson matter. I've seen no evidence, so far, that they will hold Evans and Odom accountable, and I still have time to file a complaint against Poff.
Much more is coming here at Legal Schnauzer about Evans, Odom, and Poff, and their many failings in my case.
Interestingly, both Evans and Poff were going through ugly divorces at roughly the same time they were representing me. Did that have an impact on how they handled my case, considering that both were about to take serious financial hits in family court?
We will be examining that question, along with details from their rather juicy divorce cases.
Court records indicate that both Evans and Poff are trying to get reductions in payments they owe through their divorce settlements. (You ladies should enjoy reading about the legal reasoning these two gentlemen use in an effort to get off the financial hook to their ex-wives and children.)
For good measure, Poff is engaged in an intriguing case involving bankruptcy court and charges of legal malpractice. We will dive into that situation with both feet.
You will learn about the steps some lawyers will take to avoid accountability--and the steps the justice system will take to protect them.
We also will be looking at one of the most fundamental problems of our legal system--the fact that law is a self-regulating profession.
If you--like Jill Simpson, Gary White, and me--have problems getting your money's worth from an attorney, how is your complaint likely to be handled? It will be handled by another lawyer.
It's a classic "fox guarding the hen house" situation, and that explains much of what is wrong with American justice.
It also explains why an organization like Jail 4 Judges came into being and has developed a nationwide following. If lawyers effectively policed themselves, a movement like J.A.I.L., with its focus on removing the immunity that protects judges from most lawsuits, probably would have never happened.
But lawyers have proven that they are incapable of policing themselves. That's why anyone who takes a reasonably objective look at the J.A.I.L. movement is likely to say, "You know, these folks have a point."
That's an issue we are intimately familiar with here at Legal Schnauzer. And it helps explain why a national reform movement called JAIL 4 Judges has grabbed a foothold.
Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, the whistleblower who testified under oath that Republican operatives were behind the Siegelman prosecution, has filed a complaint with the Alabama State Bar against lawyer Stephen Glassroth.
Simpson hired Glassroth to represent her in a tax matter, but he failed to take action on her behalf. The Alabama State Bar suspended Glassroth's license when he failed to answer Simpson's complaint.
Glassroth perhaps is best known as the attorney who filed the original complaint to force former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.
Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White also has problems with a lawyer. White recently fired his lawyer and said he is having trouble finding a new one because of the volume of public-corruption cases in Birmingham.
(That's good to know; the Bush economy might be imploding, but by golly, criminal defense lawyers are doing a gold-rush business.)
White was convicted in January on corruption charges, but the conviction was voided and a new trial granted. White's wife stated in an affidavit that federal prosecutors targeted him after he refused to provide false testimony against Siegelman.
According to court documents, White said he had paid lawyer Walter Braswell an upfront fee, but Braswell failed to filed a notice of appearance and missed a deadline for filing a brief. After firing Braswell, White eventually got his money back.
I have considerable empathy for Simpson and White because I have been down a similar road.
When my neighbor (Mike McGarity) and his corrupt lawyer (Bill Swatek) filed a fraudulent lawsuit against me, I hired Jesse P. Evans III to defend me. Evans then was with the Birmingham firm of Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson, and he assigned most of the work to an associate Michael Odom. Evans and Odom since have both left for the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter.
Evans and Odom filed two motions for summary judgment and a number of other documents on my behalf. But they did not truly represent my best interest, even though I paid them about $12,000.
For example, they refused to file a counterclaim on my behalf, even though Evans notes from my initial meeting with him showed a notation about a counterclaim. He had immediately filed a counterclaim in a similar property-related dispute in Shelby County, but the opposing counsel in that case was not named William E. Swatek and did not have family ties to the Alabama Republican Party.
When Shelby County Circuit Judge J. Michael Joiner twice denied properly executed and supported Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJ) when the other party did not respond--an MSJ under such circumstances must be granted--Evans and Odom had to know Joiner was cheating me. But they did nothing about it.
They filed no interlocutory appeal to overrule Joiner's unlawful findings. They filed no Motion to Recuse to get a corrupt judge off my case. When I fired them and demanded my money back, they refused.
Evans and Odom, best I can tell, generally have a good reputation. Evans even has written a book about property law in Alabama. So why did they mishandle my case? Evidence suggests that they sold their client down the river in order to placate a judge they knew was corrupt.
My second attorney, a solo practitioner named Richard Poff, appears to have done pretty much the same thing. I paid him $4,500 up front, and he did virtually nothing on my case. When I fired him and demanded a refund, he, too, refused.
Like Simpson, I am dealing with the Alabama State Bar over the actions and inactions of my attorneys. I'm pleased to see that the bar seems to be taking appropriate action in the Simpson matter. I've seen no evidence, so far, that they will hold Evans and Odom accountable, and I still have time to file a complaint against Poff.
Much more is coming here at Legal Schnauzer about Evans, Odom, and Poff, and their many failings in my case.
Interestingly, both Evans and Poff were going through ugly divorces at roughly the same time they were representing me. Did that have an impact on how they handled my case, considering that both were about to take serious financial hits in family court?
We will be examining that question, along with details from their rather juicy divorce cases.
Court records indicate that both Evans and Poff are trying to get reductions in payments they owe through their divorce settlements. (You ladies should enjoy reading about the legal reasoning these two gentlemen use in an effort to get off the financial hook to their ex-wives and children.)
For good measure, Poff is engaged in an intriguing case involving bankruptcy court and charges of legal malpractice. We will dive into that situation with both feet.
You will learn about the steps some lawyers will take to avoid accountability--and the steps the justice system will take to protect them.
We also will be looking at one of the most fundamental problems of our legal system--the fact that law is a self-regulating profession.
If you--like Jill Simpson, Gary White, and me--have problems getting your money's worth from an attorney, how is your complaint likely to be handled? It will be handled by another lawyer.
It's a classic "fox guarding the hen house" situation, and that explains much of what is wrong with American justice.
It also explains why an organization like Jail 4 Judges came into being and has developed a nationwide following. If lawyers effectively policed themselves, a movement like J.A.I.L., with its focus on removing the immunity that protects judges from most lawsuits, probably would have never happened.
But lawyers have proven that they are incapable of policing themselves. That's why anyone who takes a reasonably objective look at the J.A.I.L. movement is likely to say, "You know, these folks have a point."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)