Conservationists Earn a Hollow "Victory" in Gulf State Park Case

Alabama conservationists appeared to have won a surprising verdict recently when the state Supreme Court blocked plans by the Bob Riley administration to build a luxury resort hotel at Gulf State Park.

But the Republican-dominated high court left a clear path for Riley to get the hotel built, meaning any victory for conservationists might be short lived.

That is one of the key findings in "Riley's Raid for the Rich on Gulf State Park Beach Continues," a major investigative report at Locust Fork News-Journal.

Glynn Wilson and yours truly teamed up to show that Riley still has plans to use state land for a privately run Ritz Carlton-style hotel. And the Alabama Supreme Court, while temporarily blocking the plan, cleared the way for the governor and his cronies to eventually get their way. And it might not take long.

The report spotlights several themes that have become familiar since Riley took office in 2002. These include:

* Efforts to favor and enrich Riley supporters, at the expense of the general public;

* A pliant and lackluster mainstream press, which tends to accept Team Riley's version of events without asking hard questions;

* A GOP-dominated court system that tends to ignore legal precedent by favoring Riley and his corporate buddies--even when judges appear to vote against them.

Who are some of Riley's supporters who stand to benefit from the Gulf State Park hotel? No. 1 on the list is Auburn University, which would lease the land and help operate the facility. And who helped get Auburn involved, pushing the project into the "luxury" category? According to depositions filed in the case, it was none other than Dr. Susan Hubbard, an Auburn faculty member who just happens to be the wife of Alabama Rep. Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn). Hubbard happens to be chair of the Alabama Republican Party and one of Bob Riley's staunchest political allies.

What about the somnolent Alabama press? It reported the following about Hurricane Ivan and its impact on Gulf State Park:

After the old lodge was wrecked beyond repair, Gov. Bob Riley’s administration came up with a plan to build an upscale park hotel in a partnership between Auburn University and Atlanta-based West Paces Hotel Group.

Court documents, however, show Riley had plans for the luxury hotel long before Ivan hit.

As for the Alabama Supreme Court, records show that it backs Riley even when it appears to be voting against him.

Press reports focused on one aspect of the recent Gulf State Park ruling, which blocked Riley's plans--for now. But the press did not show how the Supreme Court left a clear path for Riley, or a future governor, to get the hotel built.

How did it happen?

A trial court in Montgomery had ruled against the Riley plan on five grounds, saying it violated three state laws and two provisions of the Alabama Constitution. But the Alabama Supreme Court overruled the trial court on four of the five grounds.

The high court found that the Riley plan did violate the State Park Concession Act because it involves a lease for a term greater than six or 12 years. But the Supreme Court found for Riley on every other point.

The Supremes ruled that the Riley plan:

* Did not have to comply with the competitive bid provisions of the State Land Sales Act;

* Did not have to consider the per-capita income and average family income of Alabamians, as provided by the Gulf State Park Improvement Act;

* Did not violate Section 93 of the Alabama Constitution by creating a state interest in private enterprise or by engaging in works of internal improvements or the lending of money or credit without specific constitutional authority;

* Did not have to comply with Section 213.32 of the Alabama Constitution, which requires that any facility constructed on property at Gulf State Park be operated exclusively by employees of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Based on the Alabama Supreme Court ruling, the only thing standing between the Riley administration and the luxury hotel is the State Park Concession Act. If the state legislature changes the act to allow a 70-year lease that Riley seeks, the hotel project could be a go.

At first glance, the Supreme Court ruling appeared to be a victory for those who want to protect Gulf State Park from private enterprise. But a closer look shows that the Republican-dominated court brought the Riley administration to the edge of victory.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, the Riley plan had to clear five legal hurdles. Now it only has to clear one.

Basketball Coach Reportedly Will Plead Guilty in Assault Case

University of Mississippi basketball coach Andy Kennedy is expected to resolve the assault case against him by pleading to a lesser charge, according to published reports.

The case is scheduled for a jury trial on Monday in Cincinnati, where Kennedy was alleged to have assaulted a cab driver last December. News outlets in Mississippi are reporting that a Kennedy guilty plea, possibly to disorderly conduct, means the case probably will not go to trial.

Mike Allen, Kennedy's lawyer, told the Cincinnati Enquirer that the case is expected to be resolved by Monday. Allen would not elaborate on that comment and refused to confirm or deny reports about Kennedy's intentions to plead to a lesser charge.

We have followed the Kennedy case here at Legal Schnauzer for several reasons. One, Kennedy is an alumnus of, and former star player for, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), my former employer. Two of Kennedy's assistant coaches, Bill Armstrong and Torrey Ward, are UAB graduates, and they also were involved in the fracas--Armstrong to the point that he joined Kennedy in being arrested.

For good measure, I know Kennedy, Armstrong and Ward from my days of covering UAB athletics and have always found them to be pleasant, likable people. But as the victim of a felony assault myself, one that was hushed up and mishandled by law enforcement here in Alabama, I tend not to brush off stories about assault allegations. I'm also keenly aware that our justice system tends to cut breaks for people who are well known or powerful, while giving the shaft to regular people--like university editors, bloggers, and cab drivers.

We've followed the Kennedy case partly because it makes for splendid legal theater, filled with intriguing characters and subplots. The case is a textbook example of the wild twists and turns a seemingly simple matter can take when it enters the legal arena. The case includes:

* An eye witness who could have remained uninvolved, but stepped forward to give his version of events (and got sued for his trouble);

* A strong civil component, with lawsuits and countersuits;

* Questionable legal tactics from Kennedy's lawyer;

* A loss-of-consortium lawsuit from Kennedy's wife, Kimber, claiming the stress of dealing with the assault charge had adversely affected the couple's sex life. (As a public service, I feel obligated to report that Kimber Kennedy is smoking hot.)

* A videotape of Andy Kennedy being arrested, pleading with a police officer not to turn the situation into a criminal matter.

Put it all together, and you could call this case "Sex, Lies, and Videotape."

The legal problems could have a profound impact on Kennedy's coaching career. The Jackson Clarion-Ledger recently reported:

Kennedy could face up to six months in jail if convicted, but probation and a fine appear to be a much more likely punishment in this case.

There is nothing in his employment contract with the state of Mississippi that indicates a guilty verdict for a misdemeanor would automatically trigger his dismissal. But a clause does say the school could terminate a contract if the crime "causes notorious and public scandal."

Matt Steffey, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, said Kennedy's case certainly seems to reach that threshold.

"Anytime you have an assault involving alcohol and racism, especially in Mississippi, it's not going to look good for an employer," Steffey said. "In this case, it appears that if he's found guilty, it's up to the discretion of the Ole Miss administration.

"At that point, the question becomes, how much do they like him?"

A trial would be fraught with risk for Kennedy, the Clarion-Ledger reported:

Still, Steffey said there's a chance that something happens during the trial that's so explosive, Ole Miss might be left with little choice.

"That's the risk of going to trial," Steffey said. "A trial may prove that the cab driver's story was a complete fabrication, but it might not. If the trial looks damning, there's going to be some pressure on the university to take action."

Meanwhile, this has not been a good week for on-the-court news in the Ole Miss basketball program. Two of the Rebels best players, David Huertas and Malcolm White, announced they are not returning to the program.

For the next few days at least, Ole Miss fans likely will be focused on Kennedy's legal drama. The Clarion-Ledger indicates the coach and his representatives are looking for a way to put the case behind them. Even if the criminal matter is settled by Monday, several civil cases are still out there:

Steffey said firing Kennedy wouldn't be the school's only option for punishment. Ole Miss could issue a reprimand or ask him to go through diversity training and anger management classes. . . .

There also is the option that Kennedy could plead guilty or no contest before the trial starts. A no contest plea means he would not contest the charges brought by the state, but also does not admit guilt.

Kennedy wouldn't comment on the details of the case, but said he looks forward to the day when this is behind him. There is also a pending civil suit no matter what happens in the criminal trial.

"I'm listening to the advice of my lawyers and am prepared to go to trial," Kennedy said. "I don't know much about this stuff, and since they're in Cincinnati and I'm down here, I haven't had a lot of day-to-day dealings with it. Obviously, I hope this gets resolved as quickly as possible."

Paul Minor's Wife Dies While "Justice" System Dawdles

We just received word that Sylvia Minor, the wife of Bush Justice Department victim Paul Minor, died late yesterday afternoon after a long battle with breast cancer.

Paul Minor is a Mississippi attorney who was wrongfully prosecuted and convicted by the Bush Justice Department in a case with many similarities to the Don Siegelman case in Alabama.

Minor's attorneys had sought an emergency release so their client could be with his wife of 41 years in her last days. But government lawyers filed a 77-page motion opposing the release, claiming that Minor was a threat to the community.

Judges on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals bought that argument and denied the release. Minor's attorneys had filed a request with the Justice Department for an emergency furlough. But any action taken on that request now will come to late.

The Paul Minor case has stunk on a legal level for quite some time. This is just one of many posts we've written that illustrate that.

But now the people who ramrodded the case--primarily U.S. Attorney Dunn Lampton and U.S. Judge Henry Wingate--have sunk to a level of human depravity that is hard to comprehend.

Paul Minor was targeted not because he had committed any crimes but because he was a generous supporter of Democratic causes and candidates. He was a particularly strong supporter of John Edwards, who at one time figured to be George W. Bush's main obstacle to re-election in 2004.

That's why Karl Rove and Co. wanted to shut down Paul Minor's financial support. And Lampton and Wingate have to know that. They also have to know that Minor was convicted only because Wingate concocted jury instructions that do not remotely reflect actual law in the case.

Now, Paul Minor's wife has died--and he was not able to be with her. This shows that corruption in the Bush Justice Department hasn't just had legal and financial costs. It's had dreadful human costs, as well.

Will this spark a sense of outrage about the depths our justice system has reached? If it doesn't, our country might be too far gone to save.

The Curious Case of Rob Riley and HealthSouth

The connections between Alabama attorney Rob Riley and HealthSouth Corp. just get curiouser and curiouser. And they are yielding some possible clues about my unlawful termination at UAB.

Riley, the son of Alabama governor and former Don Siegelman opponent Bob Riley, recently announced a $109-million settlement in a fraud lawsuit involving Birmingham-based HealthSouth. Investors had alleged that the accounting firm Ernst & Young failed to detect a pattern of fraud at HealthSouth.

We noted that, in what appeared to be a case of "legal insider-trading," Riley had maneuvered himself into a hugely profitable role as lead counsel in the massive HealthSouth lawsuit. Now we learn that Riley's conflicts might be even more alarming than we thought. Follow us on this timeline:

* According to Sam Stein at Huffington Post, Rob Riley abruptly joined the HealthSouth lawsuit on January 13, 2005, representing the New Mexico State Investment Council.

* Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that a few months after entering the HealthSouth case, Riley and two partners formed a company called Performance Group LLC.

* Performance Group, our sources say, is a Birmingham-based corporation that provides physical-therapy services. The company has clinics in Birmingham, Cullman, and Albertville.

* Performance Group apparently has plans to grow. Our sources say Riley and his partners sold ownership interests in the company to some 20 Alabama physicians who referred patients to the Performance Group entities for physical therapy.

* This arrangement, in which physicians refer patients to an entity in which they have a "compensation relationship," appears to violate federal law, our sources tell us.

* That's not the only way Riley and his partners seem to be skirting the law. They also are filing false claims for reimbursement with federal health-care programs, sources say.

What could be at stake in all of this? A whole lot of money--so much that some 150 plaintiffs' lawyers involved in the HealthSouth case seem willing to overlook Riley's conflicts of interest (and lack of experience in complex securities cases) as long as the governor's son helps secure favorable settlements. And so far, he is doing just that--with two settlements totaling more than $500 million (and more to come).

So let's step back and assess what seems to be going on. Rob Riley becomes involved in the HealthSouth lawsuits even though he has little experience in securities litigation. But Riley, through his connections to the governor's office and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller, appears to have access to inside information about the criminal prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Did that information prove useful in the HealthSouth civil case? It sure looks like it. Riley somehow becomes lead local counsel in the HealthSouth lawsuit and helps secure more than $500 million worth of settlements--so far.

But now we have learned about a second prong to the story. Months after signing on in the HealthSouth civil case, Riley started a company that focuses on rehabilitation medicine. That just happens to be the field in which HealthSouth has made its name. And by enlisting some 20 physicians as owners in the company, and playing fast and loose with federal health-care law, Riley appears to have plans for growing Performance Group into a substantial organization.

Could Performance Group hit it big by snagging a market that opens up when HealthSouth is weakened from shelling out massive sums in civil damages?

In sophisticated legal parlance, is Rob Riley trying to "have his cake and eat it, too"? That sounds like a question for reasonable minds to ask.

What about possible connections among Riley, the HealthSouth litigation, and my unlawful termination at UAB? Let's just say that Riley's partners in Performance Group have some interesting affiliations. And I happened to be blogging about a certain topic--one that could involve a whole lot of money for Rob Riley, his partners, and their affiliates--about the time I got fired.

Hmmm. Our Schnauzer curiosity is certainly piqued.

Much more on this coming soon. Stay tuned.

The Human Cost of Corrupt Judges

Is judicial corruption a serious problem in the United States? It might be interesting to run that question by Nathson Fields of Chicago, Illinois.

Fields was convicted of murder and sentenced to death 23 years ago by a judge who later was found to be corrupt in the infamous Operation Greylord case. Last week, Circuit Judge Vincent Gaughan acquitted Fields of the murder, closing a case that originally had been decided by a judge who fixed at least three murder cases.

Here is how Matthew Walberg, of the Chicago Tribune, described what transpired in the first trial, back in 1986:

Judge Thomas J. Maloney, a tough former boxer with a reputation as a law-and-order advocate during 13 years in Criminal Court, pocketed a $10,000 bribe to acquit Fields and a co-defendant. But during the trial, Maloney sensed authorities were onto the fix and handed the bribe money back to a corrupt lawyer at a side door to his courtroom, federal prosecutors contended. The judge then convicted Fields and co-defendant Earl Hawkins of both murders and sentenced them to death.

Maloney wound up being convicted and serving more than a dozen years in prison for fixing three murder trials. He died at 83 last October, a few months after his release from prison. Writes Walberg:

(Maloney's) 1993 guilty verdict grew out of a federal sting code-named Operation Greylord that led to the conviction of 15 corrupt judges, but Maloney's crimes were unprecedented. He is the only Cook County judge ever convicted of rigging murder cases.

Fields wound up serving almost two decades behind bars, 11 of them on Death Row. His retrial came more than a decade after his first conviction was overturned because of Maloney's corruption.

The Nathson Fields of 23 years ago evidently was not a terribly wholesome fellow. But even unwholesome people do not deserve to be cheated by loathsome judges.

New First Puppy Makes Quite a Splash at White House

Bo, the Portuguese water dog, has officially become the first puppy of the Obama White House.

We must confess that we are a tad disappointed the Obamas didn't choose a miniature schnauzer, as we strongly urged in a post a few weeks back. (And here we thought we had some pull at the White House.)

But doggone it, Bo is so darned cute that you can't help but say he was an excellent choice. Here is CNN's report about Bo's arrival:



Bo inspired a classic diary at Daily Kos: "Obama Puppy Nominee Faces Uphill Battle in Senate."

The diarist reports that several Republicans are set to block Bo's confirmation:

"The administration acknowledges that this is a Portuguese Water Dog," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). "The American people have a right to know whether American water dogs were passed over in the administration's rush to install their chosen candidate. And was the dog born here, or in Portugal? I, for one, would like to see a birth certificate."

One Republican said Bo must confront one of the most contentious issues of our age:

"We just don't know enough about Bo," agreed Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). "A water dog needs to have a clear idea about how its master should cross shallow bodies of water. But we have no indication of where Bo stands on the question of row versus wade."

Naturally, there was concern that Bo was a gift from that famed liberal, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA):

"This dog was a gift from Ted Kennedy," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), referring to the notably liberal senior senator from Massachusetts. "You have to wonder whether he shares Kennedy's soft-on-squirrels philosophy." A spokesman for Kennedy admitted that the senator rarely chases squirrels.

Is Alabama GOP Congressman Losing His Grip?

Have Republicans become so bereft of constructive ideas that they are on the verge of, shall we say, losing it?

If the recent behavior of U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) is any indication, the answer must be yes.

In a speech at the Trussville Civic Center in the Birmingham suburbs last week, Bachus said he has hopes for President Barack Obama but is concerned that certain members of the Democratic Party will pull the president too far to the left.

"Some of these guys I work with, the men and women in Congress, are socialists," Bachus said.

When a reporter asked him for clarification after the speech, Bachus provided some critical detail. He said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists, but he could produce only one name--that of Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who is a U.S. senator.

But get this: Mary Ann Akers of The Washington Post conducted some research and discovered that Bachus collaborates with socialists! Writes Akers:

That's right. In 2003, Bachus co-sponsored a measure with then congressman Sanders and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), which Sanders called a "tripartisan amendment." It sought to prevent credit card companies from jacking up interest rates on cardholders who have bad credit reports because of late payments and loans and such.

What could explain Bachus' strange comments before a home audience?

It certainly isn't fear of losing his seat in Congress. He is so ensconced in the House, serving his ninth term in Alabama's 6th District, that Democrats have pretty much given up running against him.

It also isn't that Bachus is your standard-issue Republican nut job--at least he hasn't been in the past. As Akers reports, Bachus has, at times, tried to help consumers. He has shown interest in hunger and poverty issues, including debt relief for Third World countries. He sponsored legislation to expand the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge. He even expressed some mild alarm about the prosecution of former Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.

I've heard it said more than once, in hushed, whispered tones, that Bachus is a RINO--Republican In Name Only. He has the heart, some say, of a Democrat. And Alabama suburbanites usually don't say that with an approving nod.

On a personal note, I once had a fascinating conversation with Bachus' cousin, Larry, who is founder of Bachus Company Inc. of Nashville, Tennessee. Larry Bachus is a graduate of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and before I was cheated out of my job at UAB last May, I once interviewed him for an article in one of our alumni magazines.

Larry Bachus, it turns out, is an expert on pumps and apparently has made a nice living with his company. Bet you had never pondered the critical role pumps play in making the world function--in everything from cars to refrigerators to air conditioners. Larry Bachus is known as "The Pump Guy," and he even has written books about pumps. He likes to say that pumps help produce everything from "Viagra to Ex-Lax."

I had a great interview with Larry Bachus. He speaks Spanish, lived in South America, worked in radio, even served as a foreign correspondent. We talked quite a bit about Spencer--and Larry didn't seem at all like a Republican whack job.

So what caused Spencer Bachus to spread paranoia about socialists to the fine citizens of Trussville, Alabama?

I suspect it indicates that semi-intelligent Republicans are fatigued after eight years of trying to defend George W. Bush. When your mind is drained, you probably are more likely to talk like a fruitcake. After all, what is Spencer Bachus going to say to a conservative Alabama audience? "Hey folks, isn't it great that we've finally got a competent president in the White House?"

That probably wouldn't go over well with "wingers" in the audience. So in searching for something to say, Spencer Bachus wound up stepping in doo-doo. Bachus probably stained his tightie whities when he realized there was a reporter in the crowd to hear his inane comments.

Also, I suspect that Spencer Bachus got a little too comfortable with his Trussville audience. Trussville once was a sleepy bedroom community east of Birmingham. But it has become a boom town as white folks who once lived in East Lake, Huffman, and Center Point have fled an encroaching black population.

Trussville is a lot like north Shelby County, where I live. It's a classic "white flight" area, populated largely by what I called DARs ("Dead Armadillo Republicans"). DARs would vote for a dead armadillo scraped up from a highway, if it identified as a Republican, over any Democrat.

Before that audience, I suspect Bachus got mentally lazy and decided to toss them some red meat.

A conservative icon, Pat Robertson, used to do the same thing. I can recall Robertson giving an interview on a mainstream network--I think it was CNN--and sounding amazingly rational and measured. A few days later, I saw him on his own network--preaching to the choir--and he was ranting like a mad man.

Spencer Bachus would be well advised to dial it back a little the next time he speaks to the converted.

Where's the Integrity in Siegelman and Minor Cases

You would think that an organization called the Public Integrity Section (PIS) would be filled with, well, integrity. But you would be wrong, particularly during the eight years of George W. Bush's reign over the U.S. Department of Justice.

Columbia University law professor Scott Horton makes that abundantly clear in a new article for American Lawyer magazine. Horton writes of a "victory-at-all-costs" attitude that seems to have permeated the PIS in recent years. I've seen evidence of that firsthand while studying transcripts from the Paul Minor trial.

Horton focuses initially on misconduct by PIS lawyers in the prosecution of former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). But Horton's piece has profound implications for a number of political prosecutions, including the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.

The PIS once was a showcase operation, Horton writes, known for going after corrupt politicians and judges, while ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. But the PIS and its high-minded ideals somehow went off the tracks. Writes Horton:

Today, however, the public integrity section is reeling. Federal judges in Washington, D.C., and Maine have questioned the section's ethics and motivations. A special prosecutor is investigating whether cases brought by the section were politically motivated. The section is stonewalling a House Judiciary Committee investigation into its handling of a series of politically charged cases. And U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia recently ridiculed "honest services fraud"--the legal theory that has emerged as the hallmark of public-integrity corruption prosecutions.

The Stevens conviction fell apart when an FBI whistleblower said prosecutors withheld evidence, that one of his colleagues had an "inappropriate relationship" with a star witness, and another prosecutor had accepted improper gratuities.

Horton is not the only high-profile reporter taking a critical look at the Public Integrity Section. Carrie Johnson, of The Washington Post, takes an indepth-look at how the Stevens case crumbled. The myriad problems with the Stevens case probably were not a surprise to those who have followed the PIS closely, Johnson reports:

Indeed, during the presidential transition period, incoming Justice Department officials heard complaints about whether career lawyers properly understood their obligations to hand over materials to criminal defendants, prompting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last week to call for additional training and oversight. The Stevens case, perhaps the starkest example of the troubles, brought the severity of the problem into the national spotlight.

Such problems hardly are limited to the Stevens case, Horton reports:

The whistle-blower's accusations in the Stevens case suggest a victory-at-all-costs attitude, which is difficult to reconcile with the section's ostensible purpose of upholding ethics. That attitude was also apparent in the case of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, where the public integrity section suppressed another whistleblower's claims of jury tampering and political manipulation.

I saw that attitude in black and white while reviewing transcripts from the Paul Minor case. During arguments regarding jury instructions, federal prosecutors claimed that it was irrelevant that judges in underlying state cases had ruled correctly according to the facts and the law before them. The judges, and attorney Minor, still could be found to have committed criminal acts even if the cases had been correctly decided, the feds argued--and a corrupt federal judge (Henry Wingate) went along with them!

Federal prosecutors, led by representatives of the Public Integrity Section, had to know their argument was not correct under the law. Heck, I don't have the first day of law school behind me, and I looked up the correct law with just a little bit of effort.

PIS lawyers also tried to muddy the waters by arguing that information about Mississippi state bribery laws should be included in the jury instructions--and again, the judge went along with them. They had to know that state bribery laws were not an issue in the Minor case. But they made the argument anyway. And I suspect that helped confuse the jury enough that it convicted three innocent men--Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield.

This is just one example of the mess new Attorney General Eric Holder inherited with the Public Integrity Section. What will he do about it? Horton addresses that question:

How will Attorney General Eric Holder, who previously held a position in the public integrity section ["Making History," June 2008], deal with this dilemma? He has given no public indication so far, but in the confirmation process a number of congressional leaders expressed their concern about the charges surrounding the handling of public integrity cases. The public integrity section has had five heads in the last six years, and Holder is said to be considering a sixth.

As it stands now, however, the question Judge Sullivan asked in the Stevens case is still ringing in Washington, D.C.: "How does the court have confidence that the public integrity section has public integrity?"

Humanity Remains Absent in Paul Minor Case

We recently asked if any humanity remains in our justice system, particularly as reflected in the case of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor.

It did not take long to get an answer--and it was a resounding no.

Minor's attorneys recently sought an emergency release so their client could be with his wife, who is near death from a long battle with breast cancer. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request, meaning that Paul Minor probably will not see Syliva, his wife of 41 years, again.

Minor's only hope would be to petition the Federal Bureau of Prisons for a temporary release. He received such a furlough to spend a few hours with his wife in February.

How badly did federal prosecutors want to make sure that Minor did not receive an emergency release. They filed a 77-page response, opposing his petition. You heard right--77 pages. That's your tax dollars at work, folks!

Not only did the Fifth Circuit show no humanity in its ruling, it also showed no intellectual honesty. Consider this paragraph from the Associated Press story:

The three-judge panel of 5th Circuit judges denied the request for bond, pointing out that another member of the court had rejected a similar request in the past. That judge, Priscilla Owen, has since recused herself from the case.

Do we have this straight? The panel based its denial primarily on a finding by a judge who since has recused herself because of her obvious conflicts in the case? And that judge, Priscilla Owen, recused herself only after Minor's attorneys filed a motion noting her numerous connections to Republican strategist Karl Rove, who almost certainly played a role in engineering the bogus Minor prosecution?

That's justice at work in the good old USA. That's how it worked under George W. Bush. And apparently little has changed under Barack Obama.

In recent oral arguments for Minor's appeal, even Fifth Circuit judges asked questions that indicate there are clear and serious questions about the Minor conviction--questions that would merit his release pending appeal even if his wife were healthy.

That he is not being released to be with his dying wife is an outrage--one that Obama attorney general Eric Holder apparently is not concerned about.

What's the real reason for denying Paul Minor's emergency release? I suspect it is this: If Minor were released for more than a few hours, a reporter might get to him and ask some questions about his prosecution. Minor's honest answers probably would raise serious issues about our justice system--and they also would put a human face on the issue of political prosecutions under the Bush Justice Department.

Certainly loyal Bushies don't want to have light shined on their misdeeds. It's starting to look like the Obama crowd feels the same way.

I realize Eric Holder is fairly new to the game, but these lawyers who wrote a 77-page motion opposing Minor's emergency release are federal employees. They work for Holder, do they not? Couldn't he take a peek at what they are doing in the name of "justice?"

Bob Riley is Blowing Smoke About Bingo Ads

We probably will see Sheryl Crow bear Karl Rove's love child before Alabama Governor Bob Riley makes good on his threat to sue television stations for running ads that link the governor to Mississippi Choctaw gambling money.

Even Bob Riley is smart enough to know that when you sue people, they tend to fight back--particularly when you have no case. And that means Riley would have to answer questions under oath about his sources of campaign funding.

Riley was so desperate to avoid answering such questions in a lawsuit filed by Montgomery businessman John Goff that, according to Scott Horton of Harper's magazine, he pushed the Bush Justice Department to initiate a criminal investigation of Goff--on a matter that already had been decided in an administrative case.

That's how low Riley will go to avoid answering questions about his ties to disgraced Republican lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. And it's doubtful the guvnah wants to invite questions about his son Rob and Junior's myriad ties to gambling--particularly not with Junior trying to bring home serious amounts of bacon from lawsuits against HealthSouth Corp.--all the while hiding his own connections to a company that allegedly practices health-care fraud.

So the idea of Bob Riley suing TV stations and opening himself up to depositions from opposing lawyers is laughable.

Shows you that Riley has no respect for the people he governs. He thinks Alabamians are a bunch of rubes who will believe anything he says.

News reports give no indication under what tort Riley would sue the TV stations. I assume he's talking about some form of defamation.

But the governor would have a slight problem in bringing such a case: Truth is an absolute defense against a defamation claim. And the TV ads are based on news reports that grew from a U.S. Senate committee report--and Riley never has produced a shred of evidence to refute that report.

Is Riley going to sue the Senate committee, and the numerous news organizations who ran stories about the report, long before the bingo ads appeared?

In fact, an e-mail that has drawn almost no attention in the Alabama press proves Riley's ties to Abramoff. As Sam Stein of Huffington Post reported in February 2008, the e-mail showed that Abramoff expected Riley to take favorable action for the Mississippi Choctaws in exchange for their generous financial support. That expected action included fighting gambling initiatives in Alabama that would provide competition for the Choctaws next door.

The e-mail in question can be viewed here. And we're supposed to believe that Bob Riley is going to bring lawsuits with that kind of evidence out there showing that the ads are, in fact, true? Hah.

Tiffany Craig, a broadcast investigative reporter in Mobile, has produced an excellent report on the Riley threats.

You can check out the three ads that have Riley so exorcised here.

Someone who has spent a lot of time around the Rileys once told me that lying is almost a congenital defect in the family. They simply cannot help themselves.

Bob Riley's bluster about the bingo ads is the just the latest indication that my source was right on target.