Can you believe that there is a debate in this country about whether it is OK to buy judges?
Just check out recent coverage about Caperton v. Massey, a West Virginia case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Caperton boils down to this question: Is it OK for someone to buy a judge on a state supreme court? More specifically, is it OK for a donor to spend several million dollars to help elect a judge and then have that judge vote to overturn a jury verdict against the donor?
The frightening answer is that, as of now, it is perfectly fine--and right wingers on the U.S. Supreme Court apparently want to keep it that way.
And get this: The West Virginia case is not the most egregious case of business interests buying appellate judges. That "honor" almost certainly belongs to Alabama.
Reporter Gretchen Mae Stone of the Charleston (WVa) State Journal has written an excellent overview of the Caperton case. The West Virginia case attracted our attention in February 2008.
Here are the basics: Harman Mining, owned by Hugh Caperton, won a $50 million judgment against Massey Coal Co. on claims that Massey had taken unlawful steps to run Harman out of business. The judgment twice was reversed by the West Virginia Supreme Court. After the first reversal, photos turned up of the chief justice vacationing on the French Riviera with the CEO of Massey. The justice, Elliott Maynard, had ruled for Massey in the first case. Hmmm, wonder why he ruled for Massey.
On the second reversal, the deciding vote came from Justice Brent Benjamin, who won his seat with the help of $3 million spent by the CEO of . . . Massey Coal.
Fortunately for folks who care about justice, Hugh Caperton has a spine. And he took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it.
At recent oral arguments, conservatives on the court, led by Antonin Scalia, appeared to side with Massey. Liberals and moderates appeared to side with Caperton. Scalia argued that the court should not be "adopting out of nowhere" a position that the appearance of bias is enough to violate a party's right to due process.
Scalia conveniently sidesteps this inconvenient truth: Most states have recusal standards that state the appearance of bias is to be avoided. The Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics state, "A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety."
Is there an appearance of impropriety when a judge benefits from huge sums of money spent by a party and then overturns a jury verdict against that party? The "reasonable man" who is so famous in legal circles surely would say yes.
As the National Law Journal points out, however, state judicial canons are widely unenforced, particularly at the appellate level.
If Governor Bob Riley had the kind of spine that Hugh Caperton possesses, an Alabama case on this very issue might be headed toward the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, a case in our state involving oil giant ExxonMobil makes the Caperton case look like a warm-up act.
In West Virginia, business interests helped overturn a verdict that ranged in the tens of millions of dollars. And that verdict would have benefitted an individual business. In Alabama, business interests helped ensure the reversal of a verdict of $3.6 BILLION--and that verdict was in favor of the State of Alabama and would have benefitted all of the state's citizens.
The Alabama Supreme Court, however, overturned the jury finding of fraud against ExxonMobil. The vote was 8-1, with the court's lone Democrat providing the dissent.
Scott Horton, of Harper's, reported that ExxonMobil interests had given $5.5 million to the campaigns of Republicans running for the Alabama Supreme Court. Looks like that turned out to be an excellent investment.
So did Bob Riley stand up for his constituents the way Hugh Caperton stood up for his company? Not on your life. The same business interests that bought the Alabama Supreme Court also helped put Riley in office. So the governor did not even seek a rehearing of the ExxonMobil ruling. And he certainly did not seek an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's why corruption on the West Virginia Supreme Court is in the national spotlight--and corruption on the Alabama Supreme Court is locked safely away in a Republican closet.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Alabama Republicans Are Eating Their Young
As we noted in our previous post, a rift appears to have developed between two prominent camps of the Alabama Republican Party.
Now it looks like Alabama GOPers are about to eat one of their own. This should be fun.
Bob Gambacurta, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that a grand jury met last week to hear testimony from witnesses in an apparent investigation of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.
King, who was appointed by Governor Bob Riley, is Republican through and through. But now we discover that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is investigating "Rapid Troy the AG Boy" (a tip of the hat to the late, great Jim Croce). Martin, of course, is a Bush appointee who owes her position to Karl Rove and Business Council of Alabama honcho Bill Canary.
So what gives with this investigation of Troy King? The folks at Doc's Political Parlor, a prominent Alabama political blog, are baffled. And so are we.
But one thing is for certain: Any investigation of Troy King, like most everything else Alice Martin has done during her tenure, probably is about politics, not facts and the law. I'm not one to defend Troy King, but I find it hard to believe that he committed some kind of wrongdoing that only now came to Martin's attention. If King did something remotely unlawful. and Martin is just now taking action, it's probably for political reasons.
What might those reasons be? Let's take a few guesses:
* Alice Martin's career arc--This almost certainly is driven by the fact that Alice Martin is obsessed with her next career move. If the Obama administration ever gets around to booting Alice out on her conservative fanny, she's going to need another job. Doc's Political Parlor wonders if Martin is going after King in an effort to stay on as U.S. attorney, by showing the Obama folks she can nail a Republican. I think this is unlikely. A source tells us that Martin craves the Alabama AG job. And what better way to get it than by running off Troy King? That sounds more likely to us.
* The gambling angle--Gambacurta reports that the investigation involves King's relationship with gambling interests in the state and allegations of selective prosecution of some electronic-bingo operators. The Birmingham News notes: "King has butted heads with Gov. Bob Riley on gambling--particularly over the question of whether some electronic bingo machines in operation around the state are legal." Riley has appointed a task force to shut down electronic bingo machines within the state's jurisdiction, but King has said those machines are legal under state law. Riley's hypocrisy on gambling is boundless, considering that he and several close associates have clear ties to gaming. But the governor has been known to sic the feds on those who cross him (see Goff, John W.), and perhaps that has led to King's difficulties.
Now it looks like Alabama GOPers are about to eat one of their own. This should be fun.
Bob Gambacurta, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that a grand jury met last week to hear testimony from witnesses in an apparent investigation of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.
King, who was appointed by Governor Bob Riley, is Republican through and through. But now we discover that Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, is investigating "Rapid Troy the AG Boy" (a tip of the hat to the late, great Jim Croce). Martin, of course, is a Bush appointee who owes her position to Karl Rove and Business Council of Alabama honcho Bill Canary.
So what gives with this investigation of Troy King? The folks at Doc's Political Parlor, a prominent Alabama political blog, are baffled. And so are we.
But one thing is for certain: Any investigation of Troy King, like most everything else Alice Martin has done during her tenure, probably is about politics, not facts and the law. I'm not one to defend Troy King, but I find it hard to believe that he committed some kind of wrongdoing that only now came to Martin's attention. If King did something remotely unlawful. and Martin is just now taking action, it's probably for political reasons.
What might those reasons be? Let's take a few guesses:
* Alice Martin's career arc--This almost certainly is driven by the fact that Alice Martin is obsessed with her next career move. If the Obama administration ever gets around to booting Alice out on her conservative fanny, she's going to need another job. Doc's Political Parlor wonders if Martin is going after King in an effort to stay on as U.S. attorney, by showing the Obama folks she can nail a Republican. I think this is unlikely. A source tells us that Martin craves the Alabama AG job. And what better way to get it than by running off Troy King? That sounds more likely to us.
* The gambling angle--Gambacurta reports that the investigation involves King's relationship with gambling interests in the state and allegations of selective prosecution of some electronic-bingo operators. The Birmingham News notes: "King has butted heads with Gov. Bob Riley on gambling--particularly over the question of whether some electronic bingo machines in operation around the state are legal." Riley has appointed a task force to shut down electronic bingo machines within the state's jurisdiction, but King has said those machines are legal under state law. Riley's hypocrisy on gambling is boundless, considering that he and several close associates have clear ties to gaming. But the governor has been known to sic the feds on those who cross him (see Goff, John W.), and perhaps that has led to King's difficulties.
* The gay angle--Rumors have persisted since last summer that King has a gay problem. The story goes that King's wife caught him in a compromising position with a male aide. Is it possible that Riley, Martin, and others have decided those rumors make King a political liability?
* The Riley/Martin rift angle--This is perhaps the most delicious angle of all. News accounts indicate that Riley and Martin might be ganging up on King--and that certainly is possible if they have repaired their rift. But what if the rift has not been repaired? What if this is a warning shot from Alice Martin to Riley: "If you don't appoint me to the position I want on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, I'm going to do to you what I'm doing to Troy. I'm going to drag you in front of a grand jury and expose all of the dirty laundry I know about you."
Wouldn't that be something? Heck, I actually would be rooting for Alice Martin in that one.
A recent column from Bob Martin at the Montgomery Independent hinted at the kind of dirty laundry Bob Riley is sitting on. Martin also notes the irony of Riley pushing ethics reforms as his term is winding down:
The governor leaves office in 2010 and many Democratic lawmakers believe he is trying to set up opposition-party lawmakers who will continue in office. In retaliation they point to Riley's political use of his office, charging that he raised campaign funds from Mississippi casinos and other pay-for-play schemes. One of those schemes was in 2005 when Riley committed $50 million in taxpayer funds to help build the Hudson-Alpha Institute for Biotechnology at Cummings Research Park in Huntsville.
Soon afterward, on December 16, 2005, a Political Action Committee (PAC) was created and immediately was infused with $325,000 in cash. It was a 527 PAC, named for the section of the law permitting it, which means it could make unlimited contributions to political candidates. The two founders and an executive of the institute provided $300,000 to the PAC. On December 19, 2005 the PAC gave $300,000 to Riley's re-election campaign. Not much subtlety there was there....but now the governor appears to want to culminate his governorship as a champion of ethics.
Was this little caper legal? I don't know, but had the Ethics Commission had the powers then that the governor wants them to have now, perhaps they could have made that determination.
Snakes Alive! A Rift Develops in the Alabama GOP
Have you ever wondered what it's like when two snakes turn on each other? Folks who follow politics in Alabama might be about to find out.
A source tells Legal Schnauzer that a rift has developed in the Alabama Republican Party between Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin.
Evidence of the rift came from a peculiar column written recently by John Archibald of The Birmingham News. The piece, titled "So how did Collins avoid GOP censure," ostensibly was about Jefferson County Commission President Bettye Fine Collins, who has been under fire from members of her own Republican Party.
Archibald noted that Birmingham lawyer Matt Lembke defended Collins before the Republican Executive Committee. And the columnist stated that both Collins and Lembke had been known to "carry water" for Gov. Riley and that Lembke had worked with Riley's son, Rob Riley, on the bitter 2002 election contest that ended with a concession from incumbent Governor Don Siegelman.
Then Archibald dropped this curious piece of information:
"For what it's worth, the County Commission on Jan. 20 voted to pay Rob Riley's firm $725,000 to represent the sheriff's department.
"For what it's worth."
Strange, very strange. Here was a decidedly conservative, pro-Riley newspaper taking a thinly veiled shot at the governor on an issue--his children receiving plum contracts under his regime--where he is vulnerable.
Our source says the Archibald column is another example of the extraordinary sway Alice Martin has over The Birmingham News. And it's an indication that Martin is sending a threat toward the governor and his son.
Why would she do that? Our guess is that it's because Martin is known to covet a vacant seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Despite her claims that she will cling to her U.S. attorney's spot and force Barack Obama to fire her, Martin knows her days are numbered in the Justice Department.
That means she needs a new appointment--to avoid having to get a real job--and she wants Riley to appoint her to the vacant Criminal Appeals seat.
But our guess is that Riley is reluctant to appoint Martin because of the considerable baggage she has acquired in her eight years in the Bush Justice Department. After all, Martin is under investigation by multiple federal agencies.
Riley probably is concerned that if he appoints Martin, it could turn scrutiny onto him--and his own considerable ethical baggage.
Could Martin be threatening to reveal some of the Rileys' vast dirty laundry if she does not get her way with the court appointment?
Stay tuned. The snakes are coiled up and hissing at each other. This could get fun.
A source tells Legal Schnauzer that a rift has developed in the Alabama Republican Party between Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin.
Evidence of the rift came from a peculiar column written recently by John Archibald of The Birmingham News. The piece, titled "So how did Collins avoid GOP censure," ostensibly was about Jefferson County Commission President Bettye Fine Collins, who has been under fire from members of her own Republican Party.
Archibald noted that Birmingham lawyer Matt Lembke defended Collins before the Republican Executive Committee. And the columnist stated that both Collins and Lembke had been known to "carry water" for Gov. Riley and that Lembke had worked with Riley's son, Rob Riley, on the bitter 2002 election contest that ended with a concession from incumbent Governor Don Siegelman.
Then Archibald dropped this curious piece of information:
"For what it's worth, the County Commission on Jan. 20 voted to pay Rob Riley's firm $725,000 to represent the sheriff's department.
"For what it's worth."
Strange, very strange. Here was a decidedly conservative, pro-Riley newspaper taking a thinly veiled shot at the governor on an issue--his children receiving plum contracts under his regime--where he is vulnerable.
Our source says the Archibald column is another example of the extraordinary sway Alice Martin has over The Birmingham News. And it's an indication that Martin is sending a threat toward the governor and his son.
Why would she do that? Our guess is that it's because Martin is known to covet a vacant seat on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Despite her claims that she will cling to her U.S. attorney's spot and force Barack Obama to fire her, Martin knows her days are numbered in the Justice Department.
That means she needs a new appointment--to avoid having to get a real job--and she wants Riley to appoint her to the vacant Criminal Appeals seat.
But our guess is that Riley is reluctant to appoint Martin because of the considerable baggage she has acquired in her eight years in the Bush Justice Department. After all, Martin is under investigation by multiple federal agencies.
Riley probably is concerned that if he appoints Martin, it could turn scrutiny onto him--and his own considerable ethical baggage.
Could Martin be threatening to reveal some of the Rileys' vast dirty laundry if she does not get her way with the court appointment?
Stay tuned. The snakes are coiled up and hissing at each other. This could get fun.
Taylor Hicks Measures The Distance
Regular readers know that we occasionally like to take a break from justice issues and write about "rock and/or roll" (to borrow a phrase from Reverend Lovejoy, of The Simpsons).
Perhaps in another life, we will come back as a writer for Rolling Stone.
In this life, our taste and knowledge of popular music is limited to artists who made their names in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Our musical heroes include John Fogerty and Creedence Clearwater Revival, Don Henley and the Eagles, and Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac.
As for modern rock acts, well, I'm pretty much clueless. I do know a little about John Mayer and Matchbox Twenty. I like some stuff I've heard from Sister Hazel. And I heard a great tune one time by Barenaked Ladies, but I don't remember the name of it.
We do, however, "get" one modern artist--and maybe that's because he's a throwback to another era. It might also be because he's from right here in Birmingham, and Mrs. Schnauzer thinks he's cute.
We're talking, of course, about Taylor Hicks, a 1995 graduate of Hoover High School. Hicks is best known as the 2006 American Idol, but we have anointed him the "official musician of Legal Schnauzer," a title we are sure he will treasure always. (Actually, Hicks--or perhaps his publicist--sent us a nice note after one of our posts about him. The artist known as "Gray Charles" still has a hometown touch.)
We've covered some interesting territory with our guy Taylor. We noted that he was a pretty fair high school basketball player in his day and deserves a spot among the best known "sports stars of Hoover." We gave a "shout out to the Soul Patrol," Hicks' devoted fan base. We noted the debt Hicks owes to the rootsy music of Otis Redding. We predicted a possible "Idol" future for another Birmingham musician with a sports background.
We even concocted an imaginary conversation between two of Hoover's finest--Hicks and infamous former football coach Rush Propst.
For good measure, Hicks helped inspire us to write about the many things we like about Birmingham and Alabama--in spite of all the legal crap we've had to put up with.
So it's with great pleasure--and a big dose of hometown pride--that we announce to Schnauzer readers that Taylor Hicks is set to release his second post-Idol album. The CD, titled "The Distance," is due in stores today.
Those of us who have heard Hicks' two independent, pre-Idol recordings know that he has serious writing chops. And those are on display on The Distance, with Hicks sharing writing credits on seven cuts. Mary Colurso, of The Birmingham News, has a nice overview of the new CD.
The first single, "What's Right is Right," is a soulful number that is right in Hicks' wheelhouse. And the video has a bluesy feel, shot in the clubs and on the streets of Chicago. Enjoy.
What's Right Is Right
Perhaps in another life, we will come back as a writer for Rolling Stone.
In this life, our taste and knowledge of popular music is limited to artists who made their names in the '60s, '70s, and '80s. Our musical heroes include John Fogerty and Creedence Clearwater Revival, Don Henley and the Eagles, and Lindsey Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac.
As for modern rock acts, well, I'm pretty much clueless. I do know a little about John Mayer and Matchbox Twenty. I like some stuff I've heard from Sister Hazel. And I heard a great tune one time by Barenaked Ladies, but I don't remember the name of it.
We do, however, "get" one modern artist--and maybe that's because he's a throwback to another era. It might also be because he's from right here in Birmingham, and Mrs. Schnauzer thinks he's cute.
We're talking, of course, about Taylor Hicks, a 1995 graduate of Hoover High School. Hicks is best known as the 2006 American Idol, but we have anointed him the "official musician of Legal Schnauzer," a title we are sure he will treasure always. (Actually, Hicks--or perhaps his publicist--sent us a nice note after one of our posts about him. The artist known as "Gray Charles" still has a hometown touch.)
We've covered some interesting territory with our guy Taylor. We noted that he was a pretty fair high school basketball player in his day and deserves a spot among the best known "sports stars of Hoover." We gave a "shout out to the Soul Patrol," Hicks' devoted fan base. We noted the debt Hicks owes to the rootsy music of Otis Redding. We predicted a possible "Idol" future for another Birmingham musician with a sports background.
We even concocted an imaginary conversation between two of Hoover's finest--Hicks and infamous former football coach Rush Propst.
For good measure, Hicks helped inspire us to write about the many things we like about Birmingham and Alabama--in spite of all the legal crap we've had to put up with.
So it's with great pleasure--and a big dose of hometown pride--that we announce to Schnauzer readers that Taylor Hicks is set to release his second post-Idol album. The CD, titled "The Distance," is due in stores today.
Those of us who have heard Hicks' two independent, pre-Idol recordings know that he has serious writing chops. And those are on display on The Distance, with Hicks sharing writing credits on seven cuts. Mary Colurso, of The Birmingham News, has a nice overview of the new CD.
The first single, "What's Right is Right," is a soulful number that is right in Hicks' wheelhouse. And the video has a bluesy feel, shot in the clubs and on the streets of Chicago. Enjoy.
What's Right Is Right
Monday, March 9, 2009
Siegelman Team Probably Expected to Get Cheated on Appeal
Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and his lawyers probably expected to get shafted by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. And they did.
In a decision announced last Friday afternoon, a three-judge panel upheld most of Siegelman's convictions and all of codefendant Richard Scrushy's convictions on corruption charges.
As we noted in late November, things didn't look promising for Siegelman when an all-Republican panel was announced to hear his appeal. One can only wonder at the arrogance and tone deafness of a justice system that allows an all-Republican panel to hear a case involving a Democratic politician who claims he was the victim of a political prosecution.
At the time, Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said he had no problem with the makeup of the panel; that's the kind of thing a lawyer has to say for public consumption. But The Birmingham News article on the subject hinted that the Siegelman team was mighty concerned about the panel and its GOP leanings. As we noted here at Legal Schnauzer, the News article included curious references to a number of controversial decisions the judges had been involved in:
I find it hard to believe that News reporters Kim Chandler and Mary Orndorff would, on their own, go to the trouble of looking up controversial decisions these judges have been involved in. It looks to me like someone fed them that information, and it probably was someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy team. Why would someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy side feed that information to the reporters? Because they think the makeup of this panel stinks to high heaven--but they feel they can't say that publicly.
Muriel Kane has written an excellent overview of the three judges on the Siegelman panel. She notes that Gerald Bard Tjoflat and James C. Hill both originally were appointed to the federal bench by Richard Nixon and to the appellate court by Gerald Ford. The third, J.L. Edmondson, was appointed first by Ronald Reagan and named chief judge of the 11th Circuit by George W. Bush in 2002.
Let me repeat: One of the Siegelman panelists owes his title as chief judge to George W. Bush--and it's reasonable to assume that Karl Rove played a hand in making that appointment!
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would raise concerns about the impartiality of this panel.
Perhaps most alarming is the role Tjoflat played in Karl Rove's ascendancy to political prominence. Tjoflat was part of a three-judge panel that weighed in on the 1994 election contest for Alabama Supreme Court chief justice between Republican Perry Hooper Sr. and Democrat Sonny Hornsby.
The panel upheld a lower-court ruling that threw out 1,700 unwitnessed absentee ballots, making Hooper the winner.
Karl Rove was intimately involved in the Hooper/Hornsby race, and his efforts to get Hooper elected under controversial circumstances signaled a sea change in Alabama courts, which once were all Democratic and now lean way to the right.
Rove used his success in the Hooper/Hornsby race as a springboard to national political prominence.
The only way the deck could have been stacked more against Siegelman would have been for the panel to include William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who initiated the state investigation of Siegelman. Pryor did that, of course, after winning a campaign that was managed by . . . Karl Rove.
What can citizens take from the 11th Circuit's ruling on the Siegelman case? That our federal courts are corrupt at both the trial and appellate levels.
Sadly, the Obama administration has shown no signs yet that it has the stomach for helping to clean up the mess. And Obama's White House counsel, Greg Craig, appears to be doing his best to protect Rove.
The Siegelman case, from the outset, has been about politics and not facts or the law. The 11th Circuit panel ensured that it would remain on a political track.
In a decision announced last Friday afternoon, a three-judge panel upheld most of Siegelman's convictions and all of codefendant Richard Scrushy's convictions on corruption charges.
As we noted in late November, things didn't look promising for Siegelman when an all-Republican panel was announced to hear his appeal. One can only wonder at the arrogance and tone deafness of a justice system that allows an all-Republican panel to hear a case involving a Democratic politician who claims he was the victim of a political prosecution.
At the time, Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said he had no problem with the makeup of the panel; that's the kind of thing a lawyer has to say for public consumption. But The Birmingham News article on the subject hinted that the Siegelman team was mighty concerned about the panel and its GOP leanings. As we noted here at Legal Schnauzer, the News article included curious references to a number of controversial decisions the judges had been involved in:
I find it hard to believe that News reporters Kim Chandler and Mary Orndorff would, on their own, go to the trouble of looking up controversial decisions these judges have been involved in. It looks to me like someone fed them that information, and it probably was someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy team. Why would someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy side feed that information to the reporters? Because they think the makeup of this panel stinks to high heaven--but they feel they can't say that publicly.
Muriel Kane has written an excellent overview of the three judges on the Siegelman panel. She notes that Gerald Bard Tjoflat and James C. Hill both originally were appointed to the federal bench by Richard Nixon and to the appellate court by Gerald Ford. The third, J.L. Edmondson, was appointed first by Ronald Reagan and named chief judge of the 11th Circuit by George W. Bush in 2002.
Let me repeat: One of the Siegelman panelists owes his title as chief judge to George W. Bush--and it's reasonable to assume that Karl Rove played a hand in making that appointment!
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would raise concerns about the impartiality of this panel.
Perhaps most alarming is the role Tjoflat played in Karl Rove's ascendancy to political prominence. Tjoflat was part of a three-judge panel that weighed in on the 1994 election contest for Alabama Supreme Court chief justice between Republican Perry Hooper Sr. and Democrat Sonny Hornsby.
The panel upheld a lower-court ruling that threw out 1,700 unwitnessed absentee ballots, making Hooper the winner.
Karl Rove was intimately involved in the Hooper/Hornsby race, and his efforts to get Hooper elected under controversial circumstances signaled a sea change in Alabama courts, which once were all Democratic and now lean way to the right.
Rove used his success in the Hooper/Hornsby race as a springboard to national political prominence.
The only way the deck could have been stacked more against Siegelman would have been for the panel to include William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who initiated the state investigation of Siegelman. Pryor did that, of course, after winning a campaign that was managed by . . . Karl Rove.
What can citizens take from the 11th Circuit's ruling on the Siegelman case? That our federal courts are corrupt at both the trial and appellate levels.
Sadly, the Obama administration has shown no signs yet that it has the stomach for helping to clean up the mess. And Obama's White House counsel, Greg Craig, appears to be doing his best to protect Rove.
The Siegelman case, from the outset, has been about politics and not facts or the law. The 11th Circuit panel ensured that it would remain on a political track.
Jury Treats Workplace Retaliation as Serious Business
A federal jury in Boston has struck a major blow for victims of workplace retaliation. And that is an issue at the heart of my wrongful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
A jury awarded a female neurosurgeon $1.6 million, finding that she had been subject to a hostile work environment and that a hospital retaliated against her when she complained about it.
After a seven-week trial, the jury found for Dr. Sagun Tuli and against Brigham and Women's Hospital and its chairman of neurosurgery, Dr. Arthur Day. Tuli testified that Day repeatedly made demeaning comments to her and that she was forced to work in an environment that included harassment, intimidation, and other forms of abusive conduct.
The jury found that the hostile work environment was driven in part by Tuli's gender and national origin, or both, and about $1 million of the award was to compensate her for working in such conditions.
The jury awarded Tuli about $600,000 for its finding that the hospital retaliated against her for complaining, by requiring her to be evaluated by outside physicians to determine if she was fit to continue practicing at the hospital.
All of this resonates here at Legal Schnauzer because I've been the victim of gross workplace retaliation at UAB.
In essence, UAB engaged in multiple unlawful schemes. First, the university engaged in standard employment discrimination, based on age, and this apparently was driven from within UAB. Second, the university violated my First Amendment rights, firing me because of what I wrote on my blog, and this almost certainly was driven by forces external to UAB.
Some brief background: For roughly the last five months I worked at UAB, my supervisor (Pam Powell) waged a harassment campaign against me based on my age. In the spring of 2007, Powell held individual meetings with each member of our staff and told us that she probably would retire in two or three years and intended to develop a succession plan. That plan involved promoting one of my coworkers to her chief assistant and then trying to ensure that he was named director of our office upon her retirement.
I was in my early 50s at the time, and her planned successor was in his early 30s, with roughly 20 years less experience than I had. When Powell promoted the designated successor to her chief assistant, I discovered later, she bumped his salary above mine.
I didn't raise a stink about Powell's plan at the time because I've been at UAB long enough to know that the university probably will favor external candidates when Powell retires, and no one within our group is likely to get the job. I did, however, think it was inappropriate for Powell to announce her plans to staff members.
When Powell retires, she will be out of the picture, and it will be none of her business who replaces her. But that's not how Powell saw it. She added to the unprofessional nature of her communications by stating to me, "I've worked too hard to let 'them' destroy this group when I retire."
I assumed she was referring to her superior, associate vice president Dale Turnbough, who likely will have responsibility for naming Powell's successor. The message Powell seemed to be sending: "The people above us are incompetent boobs, and I've got to 'save' you and the rest of the group from them." Doesn't seem like the kind of message a supervisor should be sending to her subordinates.
A few months after making this announcement, Powell began waging a harassment campaign against me. Suddenly, I couldn't do the simplest things right. Filling out a vacation sheet, compiling job notes, tracking my daily hours--stuff I had done fine for 12 years--now drew complaints and warnings from Powell. I was told that my job performance would be determined almost totally by whether my clients were "happy" or not, with any objective criteria being tossed out the window. When I asked my younger colleagues if this kind of criteria had been communicated to them--or if they had suddenly been subjected to hyper-strict overview of simple office procedures--they said "no."
As someone with 20 years more experience than Powell's preferred successor, and as a member of a legally protected class based on age (over 40), I clearly could be seen as an impediment to her plan. Powell's superiors, when presented with her plan, probably would say, "Hey, we'd be inviting a discrimination lawsuit by doing this. No dice."
So what was Powell's solution? To make my worklife so miserable that I would want to leave.
Powell's harassment got so bad that on or about April 23, I met with Dale Turnbough and told her I was being harassed and discriminated against because of my age. I also told her about Powell's succession plan, which seemed to be news to Turnbough. Finally, I told Turnbough that I was going to visit UAB Human Resources that day and file a formal grievance against Powell.
The meeting with Turnbough seemed to go well. She seemed to listen carefully and said, "Roger, I hear you saying that you are being treated differently from your coworkers, and you want to be treated the same as everyone else."
"That's right," I said.
Turnbough seemed to be concerned with my use of the terms "harassment" and "discrimination."
"Harassment sounds like too strong a term," she said. I suspect she was promoting a double standard for men and women when it comes to harassment. If a male supervisor had done to a female subordinate what Powell had done to me for five months, it clearly would be considered harassment. And I said as much to Turnbough.
"Well, I've been the target of it, and it sure feels like harassment to me," I said. "And I think it's because of my age, and her plans to eventually promote someone younger."
I didn't know if Turnbough knew about my blog, so for good measure, I told her about it and asked if that might be a partial cause for the harassment I was experiencing. Turnbough almost scoffed at that, ensuring me that my blog was not a problem as long as I wasn't writing it at work. I said I did the blog on my own time, away from work, so it seemed everything was squared away.
She said she would talk to Powell, and I figured everything would be resolved.
Instead, I was placed on administrative leave on May 7--almost two weeks to the day after I had complained to Turnbough about age discrimination and harassment and filed a grievance against Powell. On May 19, I was fired.
It's hard to imagine a more clearcut case of retaliation. Under UAB policy, an employee is to file a grievance without fear of reprisal. And under federal law, an employee is to complain about unlawful behavior (such as age discrimination and harassment) without fear of retaliation. UAB butchered federal law and its own policy in one fell swoop.
The Boston case did not involve termination, but the jury still sent a strong messsage about employers who tolerate harassment and engage in retaliation.
What will happen in my case? I have no idea. No two sets of facts, no two juries, and no two judges are alike. With the way "justice" is practiced in Alabama, a judge could cheat me by unlawfully dismissing my case on summary judgment. In fact, I recently learned about a Birmingham federal judge--a Republican appointee, natch--who is notorious for doing just that on discrimination cases. We will be writing about that judge in detail very soon.
For what it's worth, there is one connection between the Boston case and my experience at UAB. Cheryl E.H. Locke was head of UAB Human Resources during my wrongful termination, before leaving recently to take a job at Wake Forest University. Interestingly, Locke came to UAB from Boston--from Brigham and Women's Hospital, in fact.
Does Cheryl E.H. Locke bounce from one discriminating, retaliating employer to another, bolting when the heat under her chair gets too hot? Kind of makes you wonder.
A jury awarded a female neurosurgeon $1.6 million, finding that she had been subject to a hostile work environment and that a hospital retaliated against her when she complained about it.
After a seven-week trial, the jury found for Dr. Sagun Tuli and against Brigham and Women's Hospital and its chairman of neurosurgery, Dr. Arthur Day. Tuli testified that Day repeatedly made demeaning comments to her and that she was forced to work in an environment that included harassment, intimidation, and other forms of abusive conduct.
The jury found that the hostile work environment was driven in part by Tuli's gender and national origin, or both, and about $1 million of the award was to compensate her for working in such conditions.
The jury awarded Tuli about $600,000 for its finding that the hospital retaliated against her for complaining, by requiring her to be evaluated by outside physicians to determine if she was fit to continue practicing at the hospital.
All of this resonates here at Legal Schnauzer because I've been the victim of gross workplace retaliation at UAB.
In essence, UAB engaged in multiple unlawful schemes. First, the university engaged in standard employment discrimination, based on age, and this apparently was driven from within UAB. Second, the university violated my First Amendment rights, firing me because of what I wrote on my blog, and this almost certainly was driven by forces external to UAB.
Some brief background: For roughly the last five months I worked at UAB, my supervisor (Pam Powell) waged a harassment campaign against me based on my age. In the spring of 2007, Powell held individual meetings with each member of our staff and told us that she probably would retire in two or three years and intended to develop a succession plan. That plan involved promoting one of my coworkers to her chief assistant and then trying to ensure that he was named director of our office upon her retirement.
I was in my early 50s at the time, and her planned successor was in his early 30s, with roughly 20 years less experience than I had. When Powell promoted the designated successor to her chief assistant, I discovered later, she bumped his salary above mine.
I didn't raise a stink about Powell's plan at the time because I've been at UAB long enough to know that the university probably will favor external candidates when Powell retires, and no one within our group is likely to get the job. I did, however, think it was inappropriate for Powell to announce her plans to staff members.
When Powell retires, she will be out of the picture, and it will be none of her business who replaces her. But that's not how Powell saw it. She added to the unprofessional nature of her communications by stating to me, "I've worked too hard to let 'them' destroy this group when I retire."
I assumed she was referring to her superior, associate vice president Dale Turnbough, who likely will have responsibility for naming Powell's successor. The message Powell seemed to be sending: "The people above us are incompetent boobs, and I've got to 'save' you and the rest of the group from them." Doesn't seem like the kind of message a supervisor should be sending to her subordinates.
A few months after making this announcement, Powell began waging a harassment campaign against me. Suddenly, I couldn't do the simplest things right. Filling out a vacation sheet, compiling job notes, tracking my daily hours--stuff I had done fine for 12 years--now drew complaints and warnings from Powell. I was told that my job performance would be determined almost totally by whether my clients were "happy" or not, with any objective criteria being tossed out the window. When I asked my younger colleagues if this kind of criteria had been communicated to them--or if they had suddenly been subjected to hyper-strict overview of simple office procedures--they said "no."
As someone with 20 years more experience than Powell's preferred successor, and as a member of a legally protected class based on age (over 40), I clearly could be seen as an impediment to her plan. Powell's superiors, when presented with her plan, probably would say, "Hey, we'd be inviting a discrimination lawsuit by doing this. No dice."
So what was Powell's solution? To make my worklife so miserable that I would want to leave.
Powell's harassment got so bad that on or about April 23, I met with Dale Turnbough and told her I was being harassed and discriminated against because of my age. I also told her about Powell's succession plan, which seemed to be news to Turnbough. Finally, I told Turnbough that I was going to visit UAB Human Resources that day and file a formal grievance against Powell.
The meeting with Turnbough seemed to go well. She seemed to listen carefully and said, "Roger, I hear you saying that you are being treated differently from your coworkers, and you want to be treated the same as everyone else."
"That's right," I said.
Turnbough seemed to be concerned with my use of the terms "harassment" and "discrimination."
"Harassment sounds like too strong a term," she said. I suspect she was promoting a double standard for men and women when it comes to harassment. If a male supervisor had done to a female subordinate what Powell had done to me for five months, it clearly would be considered harassment. And I said as much to Turnbough.
"Well, I've been the target of it, and it sure feels like harassment to me," I said. "And I think it's because of my age, and her plans to eventually promote someone younger."
I didn't know if Turnbough knew about my blog, so for good measure, I told her about it and asked if that might be a partial cause for the harassment I was experiencing. Turnbough almost scoffed at that, ensuring me that my blog was not a problem as long as I wasn't writing it at work. I said I did the blog on my own time, away from work, so it seemed everything was squared away.
She said she would talk to Powell, and I figured everything would be resolved.
Instead, I was placed on administrative leave on May 7--almost two weeks to the day after I had complained to Turnbough about age discrimination and harassment and filed a grievance against Powell. On May 19, I was fired.
It's hard to imagine a more clearcut case of retaliation. Under UAB policy, an employee is to file a grievance without fear of reprisal. And under federal law, an employee is to complain about unlawful behavior (such as age discrimination and harassment) without fear of retaliation. UAB butchered federal law and its own policy in one fell swoop.
The Boston case did not involve termination, but the jury still sent a strong messsage about employers who tolerate harassment and engage in retaliation.
What will happen in my case? I have no idea. No two sets of facts, no two juries, and no two judges are alike. With the way "justice" is practiced in Alabama, a judge could cheat me by unlawfully dismissing my case on summary judgment. In fact, I recently learned about a Birmingham federal judge--a Republican appointee, natch--who is notorious for doing just that on discrimination cases. We will be writing about that judge in detail very soon.
For what it's worth, there is one connection between the Boston case and my experience at UAB. Cheryl E.H. Locke was head of UAB Human Resources during my wrongful termination, before leaving recently to take a job at Wake Forest University. Interestingly, Locke came to UAB from Boston--from Brigham and Women's Hospital, in fact.
Does Cheryl E.H. Locke bounce from one discriminating, retaliating employer to another, bolting when the heat under her chair gets too hot? Kind of makes you wonder.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Appellate Court Butchers The Siegelman Ruling
A few quick Schnauzer thoughts after learning late yesterday about the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling to uphold most of the conviction against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and all of the conviction against his codefendant, former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy:
* Isn't it interesting that the opinion was issued on a Friday afternoon? And word apparently didn't start spreading widely until about mid afternoon in Alabama, which is on central time. Any PR expert will tell you Friday is the day that you release bad news, items that you want to receive as little press attention as possible. Friday evening TV ratings are the worst of the week, and Saturday newspapers are the least read. A quick check of the 11th Circuit's Web site shows the court issued opinions throughout the week. Interesting that it chose to hold the Siegelman opinion for Friday.
* Isn't it interesting that the opinion was issued less than 24 hours after Siegelman appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and essentially said the Congressional deal for Karl Rove's testimony is a crock of horse feces (which it is) and that Congress is going about its investigation in an ass backwards way (which it is)? Siegelman seemed to be saying that Congress, perhaps at the urging of the Obama Administration, doesn't appear to be making a serious effort to get at the truth. Kind of looks now like someone wasn't happy with him expressing those valid concerns.
* The opinion was issued "per curium," which Harper's Scott Horton says is an approach judges often take when they don't want to own up to their own writing. In other words, the 11th Circuit judges went into major CYA (cover your ass) mode with the Siegelman/Scrushy opinion. Horton also notes that the three-judge panel consisted of all Republicans, including two who have been highly active in partisan politics.
* I haven't had a chance to read the entire 68-page opinion yet, and I do intend to work my way through it. But I don't expect it to shine much light on the real issues involved in the Siegelman case. Politics, not law, ruled the day in the Siegelman affair, and Horton expertly points out that the appellate ruling focused on a narrow set of issues:
Nearly all the disclosures that undermined confidence in the fairness of the Siegelman trial occurred after the trial record was closed–and none of these disclosures were examined by the Court of Appeals. Even though the appeals court looked into jury misconduct, it did not have before it the much more powerful evidence of misconduct that a whistleblowing member of the prosecution team subsequently disclosed to the Justice Department—because the Bush Justice Department, in violation of its plain ethical duties, chose to keep all of that secret. So although an appeal has been taken and resolved, not one of the truly significant issues with the Siegelman case was ever briefed or argued. That remains for the future.
* On the political front, several sources say the Siegelman team has plans for addressing the myriad outside-the-courtroom issues in the case. Said one source:
It is vital that everyone understand that today’s ruling in Governor Siegelman’s case in no way has any effect or implication on the political circumstances that surround this case. Every significant development that has come to light--the 60 Minutes revelations about Nick Bailey’s coached testimony, Jill Simpson’s testimony, Karl Rove’s involvement, TIME magazine's investigative pieces on selective prosecution, the information from the employee in the U.S. Attorney's office regarding the prosecutions relationship with a juror and Leura Canary’s lies about her recusal--none of this was allowed to be part of the appeal because it all came to light after the trial. All of this information and material will be included in a Rule 33 motion for consideration of newly discovered evidence that will be filed in June.
* Aside from all of the political issues, the 11th Circuit almost certainly bungled this appeal. Ample evidence was available in the public square to show the Siegelman/Scrushy convictions had to be overturned by law. Perhaps the most compelling evidence was the pathetic memorandum opinion issued by trial judge Mark Fuller in an effort to show that Siegelman should remain imprisoned pending appeal. Fuller didn't come close to meeting his burden for showing that Siegelman should remain imprisoned. In the process, he showed that he could not justify the conviction, either. And this is the judge who oversaw the trial! Scott Horton said his colleagues in the legal profession considered Fuller's opinion "farcical" and the work of a "third-rate legal mind." Apparently, there are also some third-rate legal minds on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals--and like Fuller, they are Republicans.
* Want another sign that the 11th Circuit screwed up the appeal? It's undisputed that Fuller presented improper jury instructions on bribery at trial. This is the same thing that happened in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, although the judge in that case (another Republican appointee) was even more blatant about his chicanery than was Fuller. In both cases, defendants essentially were convicted for crimes that do not exist. And yet news reports indicate that the 11th Circuit found the jury instructions in the Siegelman case to be "sufficient." Sufficient? This is a criminal case, folks, where individuals' freedom is at stake. Criminal law is not supposed to be based on "sufficient." The big question should be: Did the defendants violate the law, as it actually reads, or not? Bribery law is not all that difficult, and Siegelman/Scrushy clearly did not violate it. But the 11th Circuit says it's OK for the jury to decide based on law that Fuller pulled out of his . . . well, that he made up.
* Can you take one final sign that the 11th Circuit screwed up? As we showed in a previous post, the statute of limitations clearly had run on the activity that prosecutors alleged was bribery. News reports indicate that the 11th Circuit found this argument was invalid because Siegelman and Scrushy failed to raise it at trial. But you can check Rule 29(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and see that Siegelman/Scrushy raised the issue in a timely and appropriate fashion.
Our conclusion for now? We are probably being charitable when we say the 11th Circuit screwed up. That language implies honest mistakes, and this almost certainly was an intentional cheat job.
While it's sad to see that Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy are going to have to continue to fight a bogus prosecution, yesterday's opinion does offer confirmation of the reasons I started this blog in the first place.
I started Legal Schnauzer in June 2007 because I had witnessed corruption in Alabama state courts firsthand. In our very first post, I stated that this corruption appears to go way beyond my little case.
Now we know just how far it goes. On our humble blog, we've shown that Alabama state courts are corrupt at the district, circuit, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court levels. We've shown, in the Siegelman and Minor cases, that federal trial judges are corrupt. Now we learn that federal appellate courts also are corrupt.
And that doesn't touch the big enchilada. Famed California prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi is one of several writers who have made compelling cases that the U.S. Supreme Court acted corruptly in its 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling that handed the presidency to George W. Bush.
More recently, we've seen evidence that the U.S. Supremes acted corruptly in the Alabama case that led to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. We plan to post soon about the Supreme Court's shenanigans in that case.
Here's perhaps the most disturbing part of our current predicament regarding justice: Our supposedly fresh, progressive leaders don't seem to get it. U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) says he hopes the Siegelman case will fade from view by 2010. (Doesn't look like that's going to happen, Congressman.)
President Barack Obama says he is more interested in looking forward rather than looking back at issues of injustice. And by appointing Greg Craig as White House counsel, Obama appears to have acquired a key advisor who is more interested in protecting Karl Rove than getting at justice. (What's going on, Mr. President?)
These are dark days for American justice. And they just got darker on Friday.
* Isn't it interesting that the opinion was issued on a Friday afternoon? And word apparently didn't start spreading widely until about mid afternoon in Alabama, which is on central time. Any PR expert will tell you Friday is the day that you release bad news, items that you want to receive as little press attention as possible. Friday evening TV ratings are the worst of the week, and Saturday newspapers are the least read. A quick check of the 11th Circuit's Web site shows the court issued opinions throughout the week. Interesting that it chose to hold the Siegelman opinion for Friday.
* Isn't it interesting that the opinion was issued less than 24 hours after Siegelman appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and essentially said the Congressional deal for Karl Rove's testimony is a crock of horse feces (which it is) and that Congress is going about its investigation in an ass backwards way (which it is)? Siegelman seemed to be saying that Congress, perhaps at the urging of the Obama Administration, doesn't appear to be making a serious effort to get at the truth. Kind of looks now like someone wasn't happy with him expressing those valid concerns.
* The opinion was issued "per curium," which Harper's Scott Horton says is an approach judges often take when they don't want to own up to their own writing. In other words, the 11th Circuit judges went into major CYA (cover your ass) mode with the Siegelman/Scrushy opinion. Horton also notes that the three-judge panel consisted of all Republicans, including two who have been highly active in partisan politics.
* I haven't had a chance to read the entire 68-page opinion yet, and I do intend to work my way through it. But I don't expect it to shine much light on the real issues involved in the Siegelman case. Politics, not law, ruled the day in the Siegelman affair, and Horton expertly points out that the appellate ruling focused on a narrow set of issues:
Nearly all the disclosures that undermined confidence in the fairness of the Siegelman trial occurred after the trial record was closed–and none of these disclosures were examined by the Court of Appeals. Even though the appeals court looked into jury misconduct, it did not have before it the much more powerful evidence of misconduct that a whistleblowing member of the prosecution team subsequently disclosed to the Justice Department—because the Bush Justice Department, in violation of its plain ethical duties, chose to keep all of that secret. So although an appeal has been taken and resolved, not one of the truly significant issues with the Siegelman case was ever briefed or argued. That remains for the future.
* On the political front, several sources say the Siegelman team has plans for addressing the myriad outside-the-courtroom issues in the case. Said one source:
It is vital that everyone understand that today’s ruling in Governor Siegelman’s case in no way has any effect or implication on the political circumstances that surround this case. Every significant development that has come to light--the 60 Minutes revelations about Nick Bailey’s coached testimony, Jill Simpson’s testimony, Karl Rove’s involvement, TIME magazine's investigative pieces on selective prosecution, the information from the employee in the U.S. Attorney's office regarding the prosecutions relationship with a juror and Leura Canary’s lies about her recusal--none of this was allowed to be part of the appeal because it all came to light after the trial. All of this information and material will be included in a Rule 33 motion for consideration of newly discovered evidence that will be filed in June.
* Aside from all of the political issues, the 11th Circuit almost certainly bungled this appeal. Ample evidence was available in the public square to show the Siegelman/Scrushy convictions had to be overturned by law. Perhaps the most compelling evidence was the pathetic memorandum opinion issued by trial judge Mark Fuller in an effort to show that Siegelman should remain imprisoned pending appeal. Fuller didn't come close to meeting his burden for showing that Siegelman should remain imprisoned. In the process, he showed that he could not justify the conviction, either. And this is the judge who oversaw the trial! Scott Horton said his colleagues in the legal profession considered Fuller's opinion "farcical" and the work of a "third-rate legal mind." Apparently, there are also some third-rate legal minds on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals--and like Fuller, they are Republicans.
* Want another sign that the 11th Circuit screwed up the appeal? It's undisputed that Fuller presented improper jury instructions on bribery at trial. This is the same thing that happened in the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, although the judge in that case (another Republican appointee) was even more blatant about his chicanery than was Fuller. In both cases, defendants essentially were convicted for crimes that do not exist. And yet news reports indicate that the 11th Circuit found the jury instructions in the Siegelman case to be "sufficient." Sufficient? This is a criminal case, folks, where individuals' freedom is at stake. Criminal law is not supposed to be based on "sufficient." The big question should be: Did the defendants violate the law, as it actually reads, or not? Bribery law is not all that difficult, and Siegelman/Scrushy clearly did not violate it. But the 11th Circuit says it's OK for the jury to decide based on law that Fuller pulled out of his . . . well, that he made up.
* Can you take one final sign that the 11th Circuit screwed up? As we showed in a previous post, the statute of limitations clearly had run on the activity that prosecutors alleged was bribery. News reports indicate that the 11th Circuit found this argument was invalid because Siegelman and Scrushy failed to raise it at trial. But you can check Rule 29(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and see that Siegelman/Scrushy raised the issue in a timely and appropriate fashion.
Our conclusion for now? We are probably being charitable when we say the 11th Circuit screwed up. That language implies honest mistakes, and this almost certainly was an intentional cheat job.
While it's sad to see that Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy are going to have to continue to fight a bogus prosecution, yesterday's opinion does offer confirmation of the reasons I started this blog in the first place.
I started Legal Schnauzer in June 2007 because I had witnessed corruption in Alabama state courts firsthand. In our very first post, I stated that this corruption appears to go way beyond my little case.
Now we know just how far it goes. On our humble blog, we've shown that Alabama state courts are corrupt at the district, circuit, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court levels. We've shown, in the Siegelman and Minor cases, that federal trial judges are corrupt. Now we learn that federal appellate courts also are corrupt.
And that doesn't touch the big enchilada. Famed California prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi is one of several writers who have made compelling cases that the U.S. Supreme Court acted corruptly in its 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling that handed the presidency to George W. Bush.
More recently, we've seen evidence that the U.S. Supremes acted corruptly in the Alabama case that led to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. We plan to post soon about the Supreme Court's shenanigans in that case.
Here's perhaps the most disturbing part of our current predicament regarding justice: Our supposedly fresh, progressive leaders don't seem to get it. U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) says he hopes the Siegelman case will fade from view by 2010. (Doesn't look like that's going to happen, Congressman.)
President Barack Obama says he is more interested in looking forward rather than looking back at issues of injustice. And by appointing Greg Craig as White House counsel, Obama appears to have acquired a key advisor who is more interested in protecting Karl Rove than getting at justice. (What's going on, Mr. President?)
These are dark days for American justice. And they just got darker on Friday.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Why Won't Rove Be Testifying Under Oath?
Why will Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers not be under oath when they testify before Congress? That's a question raised by Alabama attorney and GOP whistleblower Jill Simpson. And we think she has a darned good point.
Brad Friedman reports at BradBlog that Rove and Miers will not be under oath when they testify before Congress about the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
A source with the House Judiciary Committee tells Friedman that 18 U.S. Code 1001 makes it a crime to lie to Congress, whether there is an oath administered or not. Therefore, the source says, an oath is not necessary. It's a "non-issue," the source says.
That might be true technically, but it raises this question: If it's no biggie, why not administer an oath? Rove and Miers shouldn't mind, should they?
It also raises this question: If oaths are no big deal in Congress, why was Simpson under oath when she testified about the Siegelman case before the House Judiciary Committee in fall 2007?
Simpson raises that point, and others, in the following statement regarding testimony from Rove and Miers:
BradBlog has now broken the story that they will not have to take an oath to tell the truth. I find this most interesting that Congress would ask me to take an oath but will not ask either of these two people to take an oath.
After all, these two avoided a lawful congressional subpoena; you would think Congress would demand they take the oath to tell the truth. Instead Congress is claiming if they lie they can be charged with perjury, so no oath is necessary. Isn't that charming?
However, it is always a precaution to advise a person before they testify that they are swearing to tell the truth, so my question is: Why would Congress take the step to say they are not going to require these two folks to take an oath which would show they knew that what they said could have ramifications such as perjury? Are they above the rule of law? Does Congress apply different rules for people like me and you than people like Rove and Miers.
Why would Congress give them a possible out to say they were not advised properly? Further, why would they not want to take the oath to tell the truth before God if they were going to face perjury charges if they lied anyway? After all, what would it hurt?
If you were telling the truth, would you mind taking an oath? My question is also why would Congress ever want to take their testimony without them taking an oath to tell the truth? Yesterday, headlines were all over the Internet that suggested they had reached an agreement to testify and would face penalities of perjury. But not one single paper said that President Bush's lawyer, who was once partners with Mr Obama's lawyer, had agreed to allow Harriet Miers and Karl Rove to testify without taking an oath to tell the truth. I wonder what their next spin will be out of Williams & Connolly.
They have used smoke and mirrors on the press all over the United States and are probably laughing now. But this is not a funny matter. I had to testify under oath to tell the truth, and Mr Rove and Mrs Miers should have to do the same.
Otherwise we have become a country that does not treat people equally before Congress. That is a sad day in America, and today is that day.
I am asking (concerned citizens) to call (John) Conyers and ask his office why Karl Rove and Harriet Miers do not have to take an oath to tell the truth. Tell them you want them to take an oath.
Brad Friedman reports at BradBlog that Rove and Miers will not be under oath when they testify before Congress about the U.S. attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
A source with the House Judiciary Committee tells Friedman that 18 U.S. Code 1001 makes it a crime to lie to Congress, whether there is an oath administered or not. Therefore, the source says, an oath is not necessary. It's a "non-issue," the source says.
That might be true technically, but it raises this question: If it's no biggie, why not administer an oath? Rove and Miers shouldn't mind, should they?
It also raises this question: If oaths are no big deal in Congress, why was Simpson under oath when she testified about the Siegelman case before the House Judiciary Committee in fall 2007?
Simpson raises that point, and others, in the following statement regarding testimony from Rove and Miers:
BradBlog has now broken the story that they will not have to take an oath to tell the truth. I find this most interesting that Congress would ask me to take an oath but will not ask either of these two people to take an oath.
After all, these two avoided a lawful congressional subpoena; you would think Congress would demand they take the oath to tell the truth. Instead Congress is claiming if they lie they can be charged with perjury, so no oath is necessary. Isn't that charming?
However, it is always a precaution to advise a person before they testify that they are swearing to tell the truth, so my question is: Why would Congress take the step to say they are not going to require these two folks to take an oath which would show they knew that what they said could have ramifications such as perjury? Are they above the rule of law? Does Congress apply different rules for people like me and you than people like Rove and Miers.
Why would Congress give them a possible out to say they were not advised properly? Further, why would they not want to take the oath to tell the truth before God if they were going to face perjury charges if they lied anyway? After all, what would it hurt?
If you were telling the truth, would you mind taking an oath? My question is also why would Congress ever want to take their testimony without them taking an oath to tell the truth? Yesterday, headlines were all over the Internet that suggested they had reached an agreement to testify and would face penalities of perjury. But not one single paper said that President Bush's lawyer, who was once partners with Mr Obama's lawyer, had agreed to allow Harriet Miers and Karl Rove to testify without taking an oath to tell the truth. I wonder what their next spin will be out of Williams & Connolly.
They have used smoke and mirrors on the press all over the United States and are probably laughing now. But this is not a funny matter. I had to testify under oath to tell the truth, and Mr Rove and Mrs Miers should have to do the same.
Otherwise we have become a country that does not treat people equally before Congress. That is a sad day in America, and today is that day.
I am asking (concerned citizens) to call (John) Conyers and ask his office why Karl Rove and Harriet Miers do not have to take an oath to tell the truth. Tell them you want them to take an oath.
Is Obama Aide Trying to Protect Karl Rove?
By almost all accounts, Barack Obama and his team ran one of the most effective presidential campaigns in American history.
So how could Team Obama, which clearly is made up of many smart people, be dumb enough to select Greg Craig as White House counsel?
Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, says Craig has serious conflicts regarding certain members of the Republican Party. And we're not talking about reputable, mainstream Republicans like Richard Lugar or Olympia Snowe. We're talking Dr. Evil himself--Karl Rove.
A February 22 letter, from Simpson attorney Priscilla Black Duncan to Craig, outlines several serious charges against the White House counsel. He has represented Rove in a book deal. His close associate and mentor represents the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues regarding the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
But most troubling is the possibility that Craig violated multiple ethical rules of the legal profession in his direct conversations with Simpson. The letter states that Craig held extensive discussions with Simpson about the possibility of representing her for her testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. After hearing a complete account of Simpson's story, Craig informed her that he had a conflict involving U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and could not represent her.
The tone of the letter makes it clear that Simpson suspects Craig took privileged information he gleaned from her and shared it with Rove or individuals close to him. Such action would represent a serious breach of legal ethics, and my understanding is that Craig could face sanctions, perhaps disbarment, if such a breach were proven.
In the letter, Simpson asks that Craig withdraw from any representation of Obama in matters involving the Bush administration. A New York Times report, however, indicates that Craig was involved in negotiations that resulted in an agreement to have Rove testify in a non-public proceeding before Congress.
Also, Simpson demands that Craig turn over any material related to disclosure of information he received from Simpson, along with the identities of any people to whom he disclosed it.
The February 22 letter asks that Craig respond to these requests within three business days. So far, there is no indication that he has responded.
The complete Simpson letter can be viewed here.
Meanwhile, word seems to be spreading that Rove's deal with Congress is a raw deal for justice. Reports indicate that Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will be questioned about the firings of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Siegelman appeared last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, and the first question to him was, "Are you optimistic that this particular form of testimony by Karl Rove is going to be appropriate for learning the truth about your case?"
Siegelman responded by comparing Rove to a "double-headed rattlesnake" and "an infected wound." But he adroitly avoided answering the question. In fact, Siegelman's answer indicates that he is not high on Rove's agreement with Congress and he thinks Congress is going about its investigation in a backward way.
Consider this reply from Siegelman:
"Rushing through this is not going to instill faith in the American people that we've done a good job. I would encourage Congress to take time and look at other people who can lay a foundation to put Karl Rove in check. . . .
"Congress needs to first subpoena, for example in my case, telephone records and e-mail communications between Karl Rove and the attorney general of Alabama (William Pryor) who started the investigation of me. They need to subpoena e-mail and phone records of Bill Canary, the husband of the prosecutor in my case and Karl Rove's best friend in Alabama . . . so we can have a foundation on which to have questions.
"Also, there are other people in Alabama who have knowledge of this prosecution. Those people should be brought before the committee and asked to the tell the truth under oath and penalty of perjury."
As a former state attorney general, Siegelman knows how a criminal investigation should be handled. Does it sound like he thinks Congress is going about this in the right way? Nope. Does it sound like he's pleased by an agreement that means Rove will not testify under oath? Nope.
Siegelman is a shrewd politician, and he's not about to blast this Rove deal and risk offending House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and others. It's possible that Siegelman suspects the Rove/Miers testimony will mainly be for show--that other activities will take place behind the scenes to get at the truth.
Finally, it's possible that Siegelman suspects that someone--Jill Simpson perhaps--will pull the mask off Greg Craig and show that a Rove "friendly" is up to dirty deeds within the Obama White House.
Here is the full Siegelman interview from last night's Rachel Maddow Show:
So how could Team Obama, which clearly is made up of many smart people, be dumb enough to select Greg Craig as White House counsel?
Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, says Craig has serious conflicts regarding certain members of the Republican Party. And we're not talking about reputable, mainstream Republicans like Richard Lugar or Olympia Snowe. We're talking Dr. Evil himself--Karl Rove.
A February 22 letter, from Simpson attorney Priscilla Black Duncan to Craig, outlines several serious charges against the White House counsel. He has represented Rove in a book deal. His close associate and mentor represents the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues regarding the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.
But most troubling is the possibility that Craig violated multiple ethical rules of the legal profession in his direct conversations with Simpson. The letter states that Craig held extensive discussions with Simpson about the possibility of representing her for her testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. After hearing a complete account of Simpson's story, Craig informed her that he had a conflict involving U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and could not represent her.
The tone of the letter makes it clear that Simpson suspects Craig took privileged information he gleaned from her and shared it with Rove or individuals close to him. Such action would represent a serious breach of legal ethics, and my understanding is that Craig could face sanctions, perhaps disbarment, if such a breach were proven.
In the letter, Simpson asks that Craig withdraw from any representation of Obama in matters involving the Bush administration. A New York Times report, however, indicates that Craig was involved in negotiations that resulted in an agreement to have Rove testify in a non-public proceeding before Congress.
Also, Simpson demands that Craig turn over any material related to disclosure of information he received from Simpson, along with the identities of any people to whom he disclosed it.
The February 22 letter asks that Craig respond to these requests within three business days. So far, there is no indication that he has responded.
The complete Simpson letter can be viewed here.
Meanwhile, word seems to be spreading that Rove's deal with Congress is a raw deal for justice. Reports indicate that Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will be questioned about the firings of U.S. attorneys and the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
Siegelman appeared last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, and the first question to him was, "Are you optimistic that this particular form of testimony by Karl Rove is going to be appropriate for learning the truth about your case?"
Siegelman responded by comparing Rove to a "double-headed rattlesnake" and "an infected wound." But he adroitly avoided answering the question. In fact, Siegelman's answer indicates that he is not high on Rove's agreement with Congress and he thinks Congress is going about its investigation in a backward way.
Consider this reply from Siegelman:
"Rushing through this is not going to instill faith in the American people that we've done a good job. I would encourage Congress to take time and look at other people who can lay a foundation to put Karl Rove in check. . . .
"Congress needs to first subpoena, for example in my case, telephone records and e-mail communications between Karl Rove and the attorney general of Alabama (William Pryor) who started the investigation of me. They need to subpoena e-mail and phone records of Bill Canary, the husband of the prosecutor in my case and Karl Rove's best friend in Alabama . . . so we can have a foundation on which to have questions.
"Also, there are other people in Alabama who have knowledge of this prosecution. Those people should be brought before the committee and asked to the tell the truth under oath and penalty of perjury."
As a former state attorney general, Siegelman knows how a criminal investigation should be handled. Does it sound like he thinks Congress is going about this in the right way? Nope. Does it sound like he's pleased by an agreement that means Rove will not testify under oath? Nope.
Siegelman is a shrewd politician, and he's not about to blast this Rove deal and risk offending House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and others. It's possible that Siegelman suspects the Rove/Miers testimony will mainly be for show--that other activities will take place behind the scenes to get at the truth.
Finally, it's possible that Siegelman suspects that someone--Jill Simpson perhaps--will pull the mask off Greg Craig and show that a Rove "friendly" is up to dirty deeds within the Obama White House.
Here is the full Siegelman interview from last night's Rachel Maddow Show:
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rove Deal Is A Raw Deal For Justice
After hearing that former White House advisor Karl Rove is set to answer questions before a congressional committee about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, many progressives might be tempted to shout, "Hallelujah!"
But here's a word of caution from our justice team at Legal Schnauzer: Not so fast.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday evening that it had reached an agreement for Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. News reports indicate the testimony also is expected to cover the Siegelman case, the best known of several apparent political prosecutions under the Bush Department of Justice.
Rove and Miers are to sit for transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury, with the committee reserving the right to seek public testimony. The agreement also states that invocations of official privileges will be limited.
All of that sounds good, right? Well, we're not so sure.
For one, why is the Siegelman case the only political prosecution on the agenda? There appear to be many others, perhaps most notably the case of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. That is the only documented case where the Bush prosecutor--Dunn Lampton--was on a list to be fired but was removed when he pursued a specific prosecution.
For another, news reports indicate that the Obama White House was deeply involved in negotiations for the Rove testimony. And White House Counsel Gregory Craig apparently represented the Obama camp. A New York Times report states that Craig sent House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers a letter saying, "President Obama is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably."
But is Craig committed to seeing that former Bush officials are held accountable for politicizing the Justice Department? News out of Alabama this week indicates that Craig might be more interested in protecting Rove than in seeing that justice is done.
Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a GOP whistleblower in the Siegelman case, says Craig has a conflict in matters involving Rove and perhaps other former Bush officials. In a letter dated February 22, 2009, Simpson's attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, asked Craig to step down from all matters involving the Bush administration.
As justification for this request, the letter states:
* Craig represented Rove in a recent book deal;
* Emmet Flood, Craig's former close associate and mentor, is representing the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues in a case involving the U.S. attorneys firings;
* Craig was in contact with Jill Simpson on the pretense of representing her regarding her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, but declined representation only after hearing her entire case against Rove.
In the letter, Duncan states that Craig had a duty to disclose his relationship with Rove to Simpson, and he has a duty now to disclose with whom he shared information gleaned from his discussions with Simpson.
In short, Simpson alleges that Craig violated multiple rules of professional conduct for lawyers. These are the kinds of violations that, if confirmed, could get a lawyer in serious trouble. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I suspect disbarment could be on the table for Mr. Craig if he indeed took privileged information from Ms. Simpson and disclosed it to Karl Rove or others.
So is the Rove deal a step forward for justice? I don't think so. And that's because I smell a foul odor coming from the Obama White House. And it seems to be coming from the vicinity of Gregory Craig.
As we have stated before here at Legal Schnauzer, I suspect the Obama presidency could go down in flames if he does not "get it right" on justice issues. The Bill Clinton administration chose to give corrupt Republicans a free pass and lived to regret it. With the help of Gregory Craig, Obama appears to be headed down the same slippery slope.
Does Obama need to make a change in his White House counsel? I would say the answer is yes, and that's because I've read the complete Jill Simpson letter. I invite Legal Schnauzer readers to do the same.
Here is the complete Simpson letter to Mr. Craig, as first reported by Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork New-Journal. The letter includes intriguing information about a number of Alabama GOP luminaries, including Governor Bob Riley and his son Rob, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller (the judge in the Siegelman case):
Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500
February 22, 2009
RE: Your position regarding advising the President on the pending testimony of Karl Rove
Dear Attorney Craig:
I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.
She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.
For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.
In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:
1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.
2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.
3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”
4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”
5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.
6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.
7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn't represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.
8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”
9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.
Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.
You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.
Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.
We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.
Sincerely,
Priscilla Black Duncan
Attorney for Jill Simpson
But here's a word of caution from our justice team at Legal Schnauzer: Not so fast.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday evening that it had reached an agreement for Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. News reports indicate the testimony also is expected to cover the Siegelman case, the best known of several apparent political prosecutions under the Bush Department of Justice.
Rove and Miers are to sit for transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury, with the committee reserving the right to seek public testimony. The agreement also states that invocations of official privileges will be limited.
All of that sounds good, right? Well, we're not so sure.
For one, why is the Siegelman case the only political prosecution on the agenda? There appear to be many others, perhaps most notably the case of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. That is the only documented case where the Bush prosecutor--Dunn Lampton--was on a list to be fired but was removed when he pursued a specific prosecution.
For another, news reports indicate that the Obama White House was deeply involved in negotiations for the Rove testimony. And White House Counsel Gregory Craig apparently represented the Obama camp. A New York Times report states that Craig sent House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers a letter saying, "President Obama is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably."
But is Craig committed to seeing that former Bush officials are held accountable for politicizing the Justice Department? News out of Alabama this week indicates that Craig might be more interested in protecting Rove than in seeing that justice is done.
Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a GOP whistleblower in the Siegelman case, says Craig has a conflict in matters involving Rove and perhaps other former Bush officials. In a letter dated February 22, 2009, Simpson's attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, asked Craig to step down from all matters involving the Bush administration.
As justification for this request, the letter states:
* Craig represented Rove in a recent book deal;
* Emmet Flood, Craig's former close associate and mentor, is representing the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues in a case involving the U.S. attorneys firings;
* Craig was in contact with Jill Simpson on the pretense of representing her regarding her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, but declined representation only after hearing her entire case against Rove.
In the letter, Duncan states that Craig had a duty to disclose his relationship with Rove to Simpson, and he has a duty now to disclose with whom he shared information gleaned from his discussions with Simpson.
In short, Simpson alleges that Craig violated multiple rules of professional conduct for lawyers. These are the kinds of violations that, if confirmed, could get a lawyer in serious trouble. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I suspect disbarment could be on the table for Mr. Craig if he indeed took privileged information from Ms. Simpson and disclosed it to Karl Rove or others.
So is the Rove deal a step forward for justice? I don't think so. And that's because I smell a foul odor coming from the Obama White House. And it seems to be coming from the vicinity of Gregory Craig.
As we have stated before here at Legal Schnauzer, I suspect the Obama presidency could go down in flames if he does not "get it right" on justice issues. The Bill Clinton administration chose to give corrupt Republicans a free pass and lived to regret it. With the help of Gregory Craig, Obama appears to be headed down the same slippery slope.
Does Obama need to make a change in his White House counsel? I would say the answer is yes, and that's because I've read the complete Jill Simpson letter. I invite Legal Schnauzer readers to do the same.
Here is the complete Simpson letter to Mr. Craig, as first reported by Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork New-Journal. The letter includes intriguing information about a number of Alabama GOP luminaries, including Governor Bob Riley and his son Rob, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller (the judge in the Siegelman case):
Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500
February 22, 2009
RE: Your position regarding advising the President on the pending testimony of Karl Rove
Dear Attorney Craig:
I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.
She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.
For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.
In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:
1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.
2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.
3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”
4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”
5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.
6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.
7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn't represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.
8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”
9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.
Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.
You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.
Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.
We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.
Sincerely,
Priscilla Black Duncan
Attorney for Jill Simpson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)