It's Politics As Usual On Siegelman Appeal

Associated Press is reporting today that the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a hearing before the full court in the Don Siegelman case.

A three-judge panel earlier had upheld most of the convictions against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy. With today's ruling, denying an en banc review, the only recourse for Siegelman and Scrushy--at least through the courts--is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The chances for anyone having a case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court are slim. But attorneys for Siegelman and Scrushy, Vince Kilborn and Art Leach, say they are going to file a petition for review, and the issues at hand might be important enough to attract the Supremes' attention:

Leach said a centerpiece of the appeal to the Supreme Court will be the question of whether a crime was actually committed. Defense lawyers have argued there wasn't proof that Scrushy and Siegelman had an explicit deal to swap the campaign contributions for the appointment.

Kilborn said the case is of national importance because it involves the level of proof required to show campaign contributions were bribes.

"The Supreme Court, in my opinion, will take a long look at that," Kilborn said.

Nothing much surprises us here at Legal Schnauzer about our broken justice system. And we certainly are not surprised by today's ruling.

I have reviewed the three-judge panel's ruling, and other relevant documents, and it clearly is unlawful on numerous levels. We plan to start a series of posts next week that will show exactly how the 11th Circuit cheated Siegelman and Scrushy on appeal.

It's not even a close call that both the trial and appellate courts got this case wrong. But the sad truth is that our courts no longer are about justice; they are about politics--and nothing about that has changed in the first four months of the Barack Obama administration.

The judges on the 11th Circuit have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that our courts are honest. And if Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy have to pay a price for keeping that myth alive, so be it.

Here's the truly sick thing about the 11th Circuit's handling of the Siegelman appeal: If the trial court had botched it just a little, I suspect the appellate judges would have overturned it. But trial judge Mark Fuller is so corrupt, and botched it on so many grounds, that there is almost no way to correct the decision without making it clear that the federal courts have a sleazebag in their midst.

Remember that Mark Fuller owes his judgeship to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Here is how Scott Horton reported it at Harper's:

One of the charges against Siegelman, on which he was convicted, was that he had accepted gifts from an Alabama lobbyist. When that lobbyist testified, he made the point that he done the same thing–except in a much larger way—with Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions, without the Justice Department raising any questions about it. Now, as we have already noted, Judge Fuller owes his judgeship in part to Jefferson Sessions, moreover, he was an active supporter and campaign donor to Sessions’s senatorial campaign.

Horton goes on to point out the critical role that Sessions former deputy, Bill Pryor, played in the Siegelman investigation. And where is Pryor now? On the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as a George W. Bush appointee:

Moreover, Sessions’s deputy and successor as Alabama Attorney General was Bill Pryor, who played a key role in directing the prosecution of Siegelman. When Sessions’s name came up, the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section lawyer objected, asking that this evidence be excluded, and Fuller complied. No charges were ever brought against Sessions, nor was any investigation ever undertaken. Yet Siegelman was convicted on this charge.

The bottom line? A serious review of the Siegelman case would show that trial judge Mark Fuller acted in a corrupt, possibly criminal, manner. And any review of Fuller is going to lead to scrutiny of Bill Pryor, Jeff Sessions, Karl Rove, and George W. Bush.

Somebody has decided that the country "can't handle the truth" about the Siegelman case. So it is being covered up.

Starting next week, we will show you exactly how the 11th Circuit is participating in the cover up.

Obama Continues to Look the Other Way on Crimes of the Bush Administration

Why does the Obama administration seem to be covering up crimes of the Bush administration?

That is one of many important issues Larisa Alexandrovna raises in a powerful report at Raw Story.

Writes Alexandrovna:

Why is no one being held accountable? It is one thing to overlook a series of bad choices made in good faith. But the issues at hand have nothing to do with good faith or even bad choices. The allegations of criminal activity and extreme and willful abuses of power by officials of the Bush administration fall directly under the very definition of high crimes. . . .

The Watergate break-in, for example, appears insignificant against the backdrop of the Bush-Cheney legacy. No, the crimes are not small or even limited to a single genre or type of crime. From the outing of a CIA officer for political payback, to the massive illegal domestic surveillance program, to a policy of torture that resulted in multiple homicides; high crimes were committed and more startling, no one has been held to account.

Alexandrovna is particularly outraged at this week's news that federal prosecutors are seeking a 20-year sentence for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, almost triple his original sentence:

Attorney General Holder stepped into former Senator Ted Steven’s corruption case on the grounds that federal prosecutors behaved unethically and possibly in a criminal way. This was the right decision, but why Stevens and no one else? Why are federal prosecutors demanding harsher sentencing in a case where the prosecutorial misconduct was far worse than it was in the Stevens’ case?

I might be able to answer Alexandrovna's last question; at least I have a theory about it.

In the Stevens case, a federal judge helped point out prosecutorial misconduct. In the Siegelman case, a federal judge was part of the misconduct. And based on the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' flawed ruling that upheld much of the Siegelman conviction, it now appears that appellate judges are involved in a cover up of what really took place in Montgomery, Alabama.

My guess is that Attorney General Eric Holder has no problem pointing out, and dealing with, wayward prosecutors. But you can't deal with the Siegelman fiasco without looking into the conduct of corrupt judges. And that goes to the very heart of our justice system.

The Siegelman case shows that our justice is corrupt to its core, that even some of those we call "your honor" are, in fact, dishonorable.

My guess is that Holder simply does not want to deal with that--or, in a best-case scenario--he has not yet figured out how to deal with it.

Barack Obama unquestionably inherited an unholy mess from the Bush administration. And it's unfair to expect it to be solved in four months.

But the crimes in the Bush Justice Department simply must not be papered over. I can understand if Holder needs time to figure out how to tell the American people that their justice system is corrupt from top to bottom.

But he needs to get on the stick. A former governor in Alabama, who committed no crime, is looking at going to prison for the rest of his life.

HealthSouth Lawsuit Provides Some Comic Relief

Lawsuits with $2.6 billion on the line are not known for producing moments of levity.

But such a moment occurred the other day in the HealthSouth lawsuit that is wrapping up its first week here in Birmingham.

Former chief financial officer Weston Smith testified via videotaped deposition in Jefferson County Circuit Court that former CEO Richard Scrushy knew about the accounting fraud. Smith said he shared his concerns about signing false financial certifications with former HealthSouth legal counsel Bill Horton.

According to Smith, Horton told him to sign the document anyway, adding, "You can't walk away from the mafia."

The alleged discussion between Smith and Horton has its comic elements. But it's also serious, alarming stuff--on several levels.

For one thing, if proven, the allegation against Horton probably would result in his disbarment.

Second, it's interesting to note that Horton has since landed at the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter. I love some of the information provided in Horton's bio at the firm's Web site. Consider this:

A nationally recognized speaker and author on healthcare, corporate and securities law, and professional responsibility topics, Mr. Horton has held leadership positions for several years with the American Health Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association's Health Law Section.

Are you kidding me? This guy was chief counsel at a company where one of the largest frauds in U.S. history was going on under his nose. He evidently was clueless about what took place, but now he's an expert on healthcare law and professional responsibility? What does he tell people at these speaking engagements? How not to be a general counsel?

Haskell Slaughter is developing quite a cadre of lawyers with connections to our Legal Schnauzer story. And I've yet to see one acquit himself in an honorable way.

You've got Jesse P. Evans III, the first lawyer I hired to defend me against a neighbor's bogus lawsuit. Evans could not even manage to get a case dismissed when we filed properly executed and supported motions for summary judgment that the other side did not respond to. By law, summary judgment must be granted in such cases, but Evans repeatedly lied to me in an effort to cover up the corrupt activities of Shelby County Judge J. Michael Joiner. Evans even told me that Joiner is "one of the best judges in this part of the country." I still want to vomit when I think of that.

Evans' sidekick, Michael Odom, has joined him at Haskell Slaughter. Odom handled most of the actual work on my case, and under normal circumstances, I suspect he's a pretty decent guy and maybe even a good lawyer. But at Evans direction, I suspect he had little choice (if he wanted to advance in his career) but to lie his ass off about what was taking place in my case.

Evans is so immersed in the sleazy legal culture that I'm not sure he has a conscience. But in my interactions with Odom, he showed signs of at least having had a conscience at one time. And I wonder sometimes how he sleeps at night, knowing what his firm did to my wife and me. But it seems a lot of folks check their consciences at the door when they enter law school, so maybe that's how Michael Odom sleeps just fine.

If the law was not a self-regulated profession, if the field had real oversight, Horton, Evans, and Odom all probably would be disbarred. Of course, if the field had real regulation, they probably wouldn't pull such stunts in the first place. Horton might have actually headed off the fraud at HealthSouth, and Evans/Odom might have dealt with me honestly.

Finally, the Haskell Slaughter roster also includes former Clinton-era U.S. attorney Doug Jones. We know that Jones has formed an alliance with sleazebag GOP attorney Rob Riley in a massive federal lawsuit involving HealthSouth. And we have learned that Jones doesn't seem the least bit concerned that court documents indicate that a physical-therapy company owned by Riley apparently is acting in a fraudulent manner.

All of this makes me wonder about the culture of Haskell Slaughter. Sounds like the place could use a good scouring--or perhaps a massive injection of ethics.

Bill Horton evidently thought he was in the "mafia" at HealthSouth. To me, looks like he's still in the mafia at Haskell Slaughter.

Striking a Nerve With a Key Figure in the Don Siegelman Case

Have you ever said or written something and then wondered why it seemed to strike a nerve with a certain person?

We recently had such an experience here at Legal Schnauzer. It involved a central character in the Don Siegelman case. And it left me wondering about possible conflicts of interest involving the Siegelman criminal case and an ongoing federal lawsuit against people and entities connected to HealthSouth Corp.

For what it's worth, it also raised a number of questions in my mind about my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

It started with a post we titled "Does Rob Riley Engage in Fraud While He 'Fights' Fraud?" And it ended with a heated missive from Doug Jones, a prominent Alabama Democrat who served as lead counsel on Siegelman's defense team for roughly three years. Jones did not represent Siegelman during the trial.

Jones also happens to be one of the chief plaintiffs' lawyers in the massive federal lawsuit involving HealthSouth. Chief among the defendants in that case is former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, who was Siegelman's codefendant in a criminal case that landed both of them in federal prison.

Progressives in our state have tended to see Doug Jones as one of the "good guys," even an heroic figure at times. Jones served as U.S. attorney under Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. He received national attention in 2001 when he reopened and successfully prosecuted the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing case of 1963. He testified before a subcommittee of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in October 2007 about selective prosecution in the Bush Justice Department.

Doug Jones and I would seem to be political "brothers in arms." On the same day that Jones testified before Congress, documents were entered that contained numerous references to my reporting on the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, a political prosecution with many similarities to the Siegelman case.

From the tone of Jones' response to my post about Rob Riley and the HealthSouth lawsuit, we don't seem to be on the same wavelength at this point. Maybe that's because Jones, like Riley, is one of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers in a case against Scrushy and others that has generated more than $500 million in settlements--with more to come. You can only imagine what kind of attorney fees that case might generate.

Why did Doug Jones react to my post about Rob Riley in a fairly hostile way? What does his response say about a Birmingham legal environment that seems to be awash with conflicts of interest?

First, let's consider the post in question. It ran on March 31, 2009, and noted the curious lead role Rob Riley had assumed in the massive HealthSouth lawsuit. Rob Riley, a Homewood attorney, is the son of Alabama Republican Governor Bob Riley, one of Don Siegelman's primary political adversaries.

My post noted that, because of his ties to the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case, it appears Rob Riley had access to inside information that he was able to use to his advantage in the civil case against Scrushy and others.

Sam Stein, of Huffington Post, first raised this issue in a report in March 2008, noting that Rob Riley engaged in what amounted to "legal-political insider trading." My post borrowed heavily from Stein's work, and I added some original reporting, highlighted by this:

Riley is a curious choice to be lead counsel in a lawsuit alleging health-care fraud. That's because, according to our sources, he is an officer in a company that appears to have engaged in health-care fraud--and perhaps still is.

Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that Riley is an owner and officer in a Birmingham-based company that provides physical-therapy services. The company is facing allegations that it has repeatedly defrauded federal health-care programs.

Jones, in a response at a progressive listserv run by Pam Miles of Huntsville, Alabama, made it clear he didn't much care for my post. He proceeded to trash me, saying I knew "nothing about" the events covered in my Legal Schnauzer post. He labeled my work as "innuendo and speculation" and said I had jumped to "absurd conclusions" out of what appear to be "purely political motivations."

Those are strange words for Doug Jones to be hurling at a progressive blogger/citizen journalist, someone who has repeatedly stood up for one of Jones' former clients--Don Siegelman. It's even more strange when you consider that strong evidence indicates I lost my job at UAB because my blog has been supportive of Siegelman and critical of the Bush Justice Department.

Jones' response went from strange to alarming, in my mind, when I realized that he has legal connections to UAB. In fact, Jones' words raised troubling questions on a number of fronts, including:

* Jones' actions in his defense of Siegelman;

* Jones' motives and alliances connected to the HealthSouth lawsuit;

* Jones' motives and alliances regarding Rob Riley, who is an owner of Performance Group LLC, a fledgling physical-therapy company that stands to gain from a weakened HealthSouth, even though Riley's company faces allegations of health-care fraud that so far have been covered up by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama;

* Jones' motives and alliances regarding UAB, the place where I was fired under curious circumstances, roughly a month after first writing about Rob Riley's role in the HealthSouth litigation. Jones has represented UAB in at least one high-profile legal matter, and two of Riley's partners in Performance Group are on the staff at UAB.

We will soon be raising a number of questions about these and related matters. But first, let's take a look at Jones' response to my piece.

Why did our post strike such a nerve with Jones? What do Jones' words reveal about the tight rope he has walked between the Siegelman/Scrushy criminal case and the HealthSouth civil case?

Here is Jones' full, unedited response, as posted on Pam Miles' listserv:

I try to limit my responses to most of the posts on Pam's distribution list, but when someone writes to something that they obviously know nothing about and hit hits close to home, then I am compelled to respond. Such is the case with Roger's post below. I have been involved as liaison counsel in the HealthSouth securities fraud case since the beginning of the case in August of 2002, even before the FBI raid that occurred in March of 2003. As such I have been privy to facts and not just innuendo and speculation. So let me try and clear the air on this once and for all:

To begin with I should explain that in any securities fraud case there are usually a number of complaints that are filed and both the plaintiffs and their lawyers seek appointment as "leads" from the court. The lead plaintiffs are usually large institutional investors with huge losses from the drop in the stock price. The law also states that there is a presumption that the investor or combination of investors with the largest loss should be appointed as the lead plaintiff to maintain the class action on behalf of all investors. The lead counsel is the law firm that brings that lead plaintiff to the table. Lead counsel will often have a local or liaison to assist in the case. Liaison counsel can and usually does do a good bit of work on the case, which is a all done on a contingency basis. To imply, however, that liaison counsel is some how a "lead" counsel is very misleading.

It is true that Rob Riley was not involved in the early stages of the litigation. His entry into the case, however, was more fortuitous than sinister. Until 2005, my former law firm and I were the sole liaison counsel in the case. The Coughlin Stoia firm from San Diego and the Lowey Danenberg firm from NYC were designated by the Court as the lead counsel and their clients were the lead plaintiffs. However, as the litigation progressed a conflict of interest developed for the institutional investor plaintiffs and they moved to withdraw from the case. At that time the Court opened up the lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointments again. A number of new institutional investors and their lawyers applied for the lead plaintiff and lead counsel positions, including the New Mexico Retirement Systems who had sought Rob Riley as their local counsel. The Court heard arguments from all plaintiffs and their lawyers seeking lead status. During the appointment process the primary lawyers for the New Mexico Retirement Systems, the Labaton Sucharow firm, and the Coughlin Stoia firm struck a deal whereby they would jointly put forth their respective clients as co-lead plaintiffs and the two firms as co-lead counsel. As part of the deal, Rob Riley (for the Labaton firm) and I (for the Coughlin firm) were named as co-liaison counsel. The appointment of Rob riley was solely the result of these negotiations by the lead counsel and had absolutley nothing to do with Siegelman, Scrushy or Judge Fuller. I tried to explain all of this to Mr. Stein of the Huffington Post. Anyone that was involved involved in the appointment of lead and liaison counsel will simply laugh at the suggestion that Rob Riley's entry into the case was somehow connected to Siegleman or the result of "legal-political insider trading." We both had to go through the appointment process with the court.

It is true that Riley had very little experience in securities fraud cases at time that he was selected by the Labaton firm as their local counsel. However, B'ham did not have many plaintiffs counsel that were experienced in this type litigation and all of those were already involved in the case and thus had conflicts. Moreover, while experience is helpful it is not a prerequisite for local counsel. All facets of the litigation are controlled by the lead counsel, which in the HealthSouth case was 2 of the best in the country. I will candidly say, however, that Rob Riley and his firm have provided assistance in all phases of the HealthSouth litigation and have done an outstanding job. It is a more than a stretch, however, to suggest that Rob Riley "engineered" the 445M dollar settlement paid by Healthsouth and their insurers.

I have no knowledge of whether or not Rob Riley has an interest in any health care related firm, but the fact is that the HealthSouth debacle was of Healthsouth's own making, not the plaintiff lawyers who brought the case for stockholders who lost literally billions of dollars, and certainly not Rob Riley. The settlement against HealthSouth was presented to the court for approval by lead counsel, not me or Rob Riley. The settlement against EY will be presented by lead counsel, not me or Rob Riley.

Rob Riley and I have many, many political differences, but the HealthSouth case and our duties to our clients and the stockholder class is not one of them. The bottom line here is before anyone decides to jump to absurd conclusions based on what appears to be purely political motivations they should check out facts from those involved and try and actually learn at least something about the legal proceedings they are writing about.

(To be continued)

Depression Runs Rampant Among Lawyers

A growing number of lawyers are grappling with depression and other emotional problems, according to a report in the National Law Journal (NLJ).

The growing pressure on attorneys was underscored by the apparent suicide on April 30 of Mark I. Levy, a prominent attorney in the Washington office of Atlanta-based Kilpatrick Stockton.

Some experts point to the stress caused by a slumping economy. But others say the problem goes deeper than that:

Administrators from a sampling of lawyer assistance programs report that laid-off attorneys, struggling solo practitioners, third-year law students without jobs lined up and others have been reaching out for help more than ever before. Lawyers who already had emotional problems or addictions are being pushed over the edge by the added stress of the slow economy and its ramifications, they said.

Susan Riegler, a psychologist and clinical director of a lawyer-assistance program in Illinois, said she is starting a second weekly therapy session for depression:

"This really picked up in December," Riegler said. "I was getting more people than ever calling me in tears. By and large, what I see is depression and a feeling that things won't turn around, or I hear from people who had a lifestyle they can no longer afford."

An increasing number of frustrated law students have been calling, she said. So have solo practitioners who don't have enough work to keep the lights on, or are afraid to turn down cases and end up working around the clock. Some attorneys who have lost their jobs face something of an identity crisis as well. "People have always asked them, 'What do you do?' and they've said, 'I'm a lawyer,'" she said. "When they lose that role in life, it's pretty confusing."

Based on my experience, I think something deeper might be going on in the legal profession. Numerous lawyers in the Birmingham area have told me that they are well aware of rampant corruption in the profession, driven largely by bad judges, but they feel powerless to do anything about it. Try to stand up to a corrupt judge, and your career can be ruined. Report a bad judge to an oversight agency, and you are likely to be ignored.

Honest lawyers clearly are aware of incompetent colleagues who make very nice livings, and enjoy professional success, because they "are in bed with" certain judges. That has to be demoralizing. And to see deserving clients get cheated in court, and only be able to shrug your shoulders about it, has to be wearing.

A lawyer friend recently provided some interesting insight into the profession. "Lawyers have almost no control over their lives. Their schedules are set by judges, opposing counsel, availability of clients and opposing parties. For many lawyers, their lives are not their own."

For an alarming number of lawyers, that apparently takes quite an emotional toll.

Dax Swatek Lands in the Midst of the Troy King Investigation

Dax Swatek, an Alabama GOP consultant with ties to Bob Riley, Bill Canary, and Alice Martin, finds himself in the middle of a federal investigation of Alabama Attorney General Troy King.

Swatek is a lead character in our Legal Schnauzer story and certainly is a "person of interest" in my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

What does the King investigation mean for Republican politics in Alabama? The answer is unclear, but it could get real juicy. And it could be more signs of a major rift in the GOP ranks.

The Birmingham News reports today that federal prosecutors have subpoenaed records about King's travel, purchases, and any gifts he might have received while in office.

The News reports:

Sources familiar with the investigation said prosecutors are looking into a number of areas, including whether King used his office to investigate opponents of political allies and whether he violated the state's ethics law.

The report goes on to state that prosecutors are seeking all correspondence and communication related to certain lobbyists and companies. That's where Swatek's name--and a number of other interesting names--comes in:

The subpoena sought all documents related to communication with Alabama Power Co., the Atlanta Braves, the Montgomery Biscuits minor league baseball club, Auburn University, ALFA Insurance, the Alabama Nursing Home Association, the Business Council of Alabama, Republican political consultant Dax Swatek, AU lobbyist Sherry Fulford, gambling magnate Milton McGregor and others.

Whew, that's quite a crowd. While they apparently have ties to Troy King, many of them also have ties to Governor Bob Riley and his son, wheeling and dealing Rob Riley.

So who is really the target here--Troy King, Bob Riley, Rob Riley, or some unfathomed combo platter of GOP sleaze?

The King investigation has been curious from the outset. It originates in the Middle of District of Alabama, but it is being run by Alice Martin, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.

On the surface, King appears to have gotten crossways with Bob Riley on gambling issues. Martin, a long-time Riley ally, might be going after King for those reasons.

But we have reported about a possible rift between the Riley and Martin camps, apparently over Martin's deep desire to receive an appointment to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

As we learned earlier this week, that appointment went to state finance director Jim Main. Riley probably went with Main because Martin, the subject of multiple federal investigations, would be a controversial pick, possibly drawing unwanted scrutiny toward Riley.

Could Alice Martin be highly ticked that she was left out in the cold on the court appointment, considering that the Obama administration is likely to pull the plug on her U.S. attorney gig pretty soon?

Could Alice Martin be going after Troy King on the surface, with an eye toward information that could be damaging for Bob Riley?

Is it a mere coincidence that news of the King subpoena comes only days after news that Martin did not get the judgeship she wanted?

Some have speculated that Martin is going after King so that the attorney general position will open up and she can receive an appointment there. But if Riley passed her over for a court appointment, why would he go with her for attorney general?

How strange is this whole situation? Consider that Dax Swatek has been campaign manager for both Riley (2006 governor's race) and Martin (2000 race for Court of Criminal Appeals).

Here are a couple of things to always keep in mind regarding Alice Martin:

* When she opens an investigation, the law and facts probably have nothing to do with it. Politics almost always is front and center.

* The Birmingham News is almost certainly going to be in Alice's corner, cheering her on. The relationship between the newspaper and the Birmingham prosecutor is strange, unprofessional, and borderline creepy. If Alice Martin feels wronged about something, you can bet the Birmingham newspaper probably feels wronged, too.

The News' account says that "others" were named on the subpoena. But it chose to name a number of Riley allies, including Dax Swatek, Auburn University, and the Business Council of Alabama. I suspect there is a reason for that.

Is it possible that Alice Martin, getting the cold shoulder after years of carrying water for the Alabama GOP, is now determined to shine light on some Republican dirt? If so, she surely knows where to look.

Is it possible that hell hath no fury like a prosecutor scorned?

How will this investigation play out? Hard to say. But I suspect it's about more than any wrongs that Troy King may or may not have committed.

Miss California Isn't The Only Conservative Female Hypocrite Out There

Thanks to Carrie Prejean, Miss California in the Miss USA contest, conservative female hypocrisy has become front-page news.

But Ms. Prejean, who it was announced yesterday will keep her crown, is hardly alone when it comes to women who are phony balonies about their "conservative values."

In fact, we know of a wannabe movie star who has Alabama roots and probably is a far bigger phony than Carrie Prejean could ever think of being. For good measure, our "Hollywood conservative" has strong connections to our Legal Schnauzer story.

Prejean stepped in doo-doo when, after declaring herself a gold-plated Christian and trashing the idea of gay marriage, semi-nude photographs of her showed up on the Web.

That didn't look so good. But when it comes to female conservative hypocrisy, Ms. Prejean is a minor leaguer compared to Barret Swatek.

Who is Barret Swatek? You've probably never heard the name because she is a 32-year-old "actress" with hardly a decent credit to her name. Perhaps she is best known for a recurring role in the television series 7th Heaven from 2000 to 2003.

She was in the hit movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, as "bar girl." I haven't seen the movie, but I understand Swatek shared billing with a potted plant. I hear that if you bent down to take a sip of your Coke, you missed her "star turn."

What are her connections to our Legal Schnauzer tale? Swatek grew up in Birmingham, and her father is William E. Swatek, the sleazebag attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me on behalf of our criminally inclined neighbor, Mike McGarity. Daddy Swatek has a 30-year history of ethical violations with the Alabama State Bar, including a suspension of his license and a criminal trial on perjury charges.

Barret Swatek's brother is Dax Swatek, a Republican "consultant" in Montgomery with ties to Bill Canary, Karl Rove, and other GOP "luminaries." Interestingly, news comes today that Dax's name appears in a subpoena as part of an investigation of Alabama Attorney General Troy King. That could get interesting. More on that coming up pronto. I'm hearing that Dax has some other potentially major legal woes on his plate. Hmmm.

Another brother, Chace Swatek, reportedly flunked the California bar exam and flopped as a real-estate developer on Alabama's Gulf Coast before returning home to try his hand in Daddy's slimy law practice.

Since Barret Swatek has a scant track record and little discernible talent, her main claim to fame seems to be that she is a "Hollywood conservative." Gee, she's even appeared with Sean Hannity. What a gal!

How does Swatek display her bedrock conservative values? Well, she has an interesting way of doing that.

The New York Post reported in 2004 that Swatek and Hollywood producer Mike DeLuca had been an item for about a year. Calling DeLuca a "tomcat," the Post reported:

FORMER New Line and DreamWorks mogul Mike DeLuca (now an independent producer) has a new girlfriend -- "7th Heaven" actress Barret Swatek , 27. To many people's surprise in Hollywood, DeLuca, who is known as a tomcat, has dated Swatek for almost a year. They've been through a lot. In a romantic mishap six months ago, "Mike was carrying her down the stairs of his home and missed a step," a source reports. The two went tumbling down the stairs "and they both broke their ankles. They were seen all around town in matching casts and crutches." Swatek is said to be a die-hard pro-George Bush Republican like DeLuca.

How cute! They were both for Dubya.

Is DeLuca really a tomcat? You might say that--if you want to give tomcats a bad name.

DeLuca has had his share of hits on the big screen--The Mask, Dumb and Dumber, Seven, Boogie Nights, Wag the Dog. But he seems to have a fondness for receiving oral sex--in public places. As one reporter put it:

Michael De Luca is best known for receiving a blowjob at age 32 from the sister of actor Cary Elwes and producer Cassian Elwes in front of guests (such as ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGER, EMMA THOMPSON, JOHN MALKOVICH and QUENTIN TARANTINO) at a pre-Oscar party thrown by then head of the William Morris motion picture division, Arnold Rifkin at his home in March, 1998. De Luca and the woman were escorted from the party by security guards.

DeLuca's "tomcat" ways don't end there:

At his surprise 32nd birthday party at Lucky Cheng's in New York, De Luca was photographed having a transvestite lick whipped cream off his bare chest for a photo spread in Creme & SuGar magazine.

And you gotta love these conservative values:

De Luca exudes a don't-give-a-damn attitude. He has a record of public fistfights and drunken driving. He prefers to wear denim and leather over suits and ties and enjoys riding a Harley.

Heck, this guy would have been a perfect fit in the Family Swatek. But alas, it appears he and Barret went their separate ways. Maybe he was too conservative for her.

At last report, our gal Barret is starring in an Internet sitcom called My Two Fans. (Sounds like an appropriate title.) The Swateks must have connections at The Birmingham News because the newspaper goes to almost comic lengths in an attempt to portray Barret as a legit movie star.

The paper recently tabbed her "Queen of the World Wide Web."

I've got news for our local fishwrapper. Being called "Queen of the World Wide Web" ain't exactly a compliment. Quite a few "queens of the Web" probably draw far bigger audiences than Barret Swatek ever will. They are called amateur porn stars.

Mike De Luca probably would like to meet them.

Federal Prosecutors Want Siegelman To Get a Longer Sentence

Federal prosecutors will seek a 20-year prison sentence for former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman when he receives a new sentencing hearing in federal court in Montgomery, according to a report just out from Associated Press.

Siegelman originally received a sentence of roughly seven years following his conviction on federal corruption charges. The new recommendation comes after a panel of three appellate judges dismissed two of the seven charges the former governor was convicted of and ordered a new sentencing hearing.

AP reports:

Prosecutors made the recommendation in a letter to federal probation officers. The probation officers will prepare a report recommending a new sentence to U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller.

Siegelman and his attorneys noted the absurdity of prosecutors asking for an extended sentence after an appellate court had thrown out two felony counts.

Today's report is alarming for a couple of reasons:

(1) It lends credence to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that upheld most of the convictions against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy. Our research of the ruling, and the relevant law and facts, indicates the 11th Circuit's ruling was flawed, unlawful, and a continuation of the politics that have permeated the case from the outset.

(2) It indicates that federal prosecutors are acting as brazenly under the Barack Obama administration as they did under George W. Bush. We now have Eric Holder as attorney general, but today's news indicates that makes zero difference to the prosecutors who ramrodded the Siegelman case.

Is the 11th Circuit's ruling flawed? The answer is yes. You certainly won't hear about that from federal prosecutors, and no one in the mainstream press is likely to examine the ruling closely enough to determine whether it is legit or not.

But we have studied the ruling and found it be full of holes. Our findings are coming soon.

Here is How Republicans Practice "Financial Terrorism"

Today marks the one-year anniversary of our house being stolen by corrupt Republican officials in Shelby County, Alabama.

Actually, that statement is not 100 percent accurate. (More on that in a moment.) But it illustrates a common tactic that Republicans use against their perceived enemies.

I call it "financial terrorism."

I'm hardly alone as a target of financial terrorism, as practiced by America's right wingers. Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a GOP whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, has been the target of a mysterious automobile "accident" (her car was run off the road) and an even more mysterious fire at her home.

The goal of the GOP crowd that orchestrated the Siegelman (Alabama) and Paul Minor (Mississippi) cases in the Deep South probably involved more than possible prison sentences. My guess is that Karl Rove & Co. wanted to ruin the men financially. And they probably have come close to succeeding.

In some cases, the GOP resorts to what you might call "techno/financial terrorism." One Alabama Web journalist has seen his servers attacked on more than one occasion. A major national Web journalist recently has seen her e-mails and other electronic data mysteriously disappear.

Mrs. Schnauzer and I are convinced that Alabama GOPers have tracked our phone records and used that information to cost her several jobs. We also have little doubt that our bank and other personal records have been checked. This is particularly easy with us because our situation involves multiple corrupt judges. And who signs orders to produce bank and phone records? Judges, of course.

So what about our house? Longtime readers will remember the saga from last spring, which involved several steps:

* Writ of execution--We received this document from a sheriff's deputy, threatening to seize our cars and/or house in order to satisfy a "judgment" against me in the amount of $1,525. The "judgment" was the result of a lawsuit brought by our troublesome neighbor, Mike McGarity. The judgment was not remotely lawful (long story), but Shelby County Circuit Judge G. Dan Reeves signed it, so that apparently gave the sheriff the authority to conduct a harassment campaign regarding our property. The judgment, by the way, had sat idle for three years, with no one ever sending a demand letter. But McGarity's attorney, William E. Swatek, suddenly became interested in the money when I started this blog, telling the world about the sleazebags who run the Shelby County Courthouse.

* Notice of Levy--We received this document after threats to seize our cars didn't fill us with the desired amount of fear. The notice of levy specifically threatened seizure of our home and the lot it sits on. Trust me: You haven't lived until you come home to find a Notice of Levy taped to your garage door.

* Notice of Sheriff's Sale--This little baby, also taped to our garage door, informed us of the date and time that our house was scheduled to be sold, on the courthouse steps in Columbiana, Alabama.

The corrupt folks who run Shelby County gave us the impression that our entire house was going to be sold, and we were going to be thrown into the streets. Only after conducting our own research did we realize that they could not do that for several reasons: (1) My wife jointly owns our house, and she was not a party to the judgment, so they could not touch her portion of our house; (2) They could only touch my portion of our house in roughly the amount of the judgment; (3) The result of a sheriff's sale is a document called a sheriff's deed, which is similar to a lien and sits quietly on the property until the owner tries to sell it. At that point, the sheriff's deed must be dealt with.

That's what I meant when I said they didn't actually steal our entire house. But they did steal the full ownership rights to our house. And in the process, they violated our civil rights in multiple ways and probably committed several federal crimes. If the Obama Justice Department ever appoints real U.S. attorneys in places like Alabama, perhaps they will do something about it. I'm definitely going to try to do something about it in a civil matter.

For good measure, Mrs. Schnauzer and I were on hand last May 12 to videotape the bogus sheriff's auction of our house. Bill Swatek, our neighbor's dirtbag lawyer, was the "winning bidder"--and we now occasionally get mail for him at our house. Think I'm going to call and have him come over and mow "his" lawn.

Swatek, by the way, is about as sleazy a lawyer as they come--and that's saying something. He's been disciplined by the Alabama State Bar three times, including a suspension of his license, and he's been tried for perjury. But he still has a bar card and is able to pull off stunts like the one you see in this video, which is kind of a cross between High Noon and Smokey and the Bandit.

Just how sleazy is Bill Swatek? Here is an overview. Want to get a feel for his sleaziness in all of its glory? Check out our three-part video series:

* Bushies Protect Alabama Attorney With an Unsavory Past

* An Alabama Portrait of Sleaze in the Age of Rove, Part II

* An Alabama Portrait of Sleaze in the Age of Rove, Part III

What have we learned from our encounter with GOP financial terrorism? Many things. But a couple of things stand out:

(1) Republican bad guys tend to be stupid--I often hear Karl Rove referred to as a "genius." Nothing could be further from the truth. Rove and his minions are dumb criminals, who make very little effort to cover their tracks. I don't have the first day of law school, and I figured out how they operated a long time ago. Other Americans can do the same thing.

(2) Republican bad guys are unbelievably arrogant--I'm convinced these people believe no one will ever really fight back against them. I think they believe progressives, Democrats, liberals, and moderates are a bunch of wusses, who will let them get away with most anything. I can't speak for all progressives, but I know some individuals who aren't going to sit around forever and just take it.

I get the feeling that GOP bad guys have never asked themselves this question: "What if we pushed the wrong person too far? What if that person decided to push back in a rather painful way?"

Maybe it's time they started thinking about that.

Have You Hugged Your Kitty Kat Today?

Our kitty kats, the brother-and-sister combo Baxter and Chloe, are not hurting for affection. In fact, they probably get more "ooey gooeys" than they really want.

But Mrs. Schnauzer and I have decided we are going to give them a few extra hugs every day. It's the least we can do since they are helping to keep us healthy.

Scientists have known for awhile that there are health benefits to pet ownership, that people who interact regularly with animals are healthier than people who don't.

But now we learn that cats especially seem to have positive effects on health. One study found that cat owners are significantly less likely to die from a heart attack than people who don't own cats.

Interestingly, the study did not find such a protective effect for dog owners.

What is it about cats that cause them to promote good health? Neurologist Adnan Qureshi and others have several theories:

Some suggest that a cat's unique and soothing purring may be the key. Others say it's a matter of the owner's personality, not the cat itself: Cat owners contend that "people who own cats tend to have easy going and accepting personalities because cats don't go by anyone's vision, they do what they want," Qureshi said. Dog owners, on the other hand, tend to be more controlling, and thus prone to unhealthy anxiety, the theory goes.

Maybe it's just that cats don't get too riled up about anything (hat tip to LOL Cats and the "Pooties and Woozles" diaries at Daily Kos):



As you can tell from the title of our blog, we are dog lovers and always will be. In fact, our little corner of cyber space is inspired by Murphy (1993-2004), our wonderful miniature schnauzer who kept us more or less functional during the worst of our legal travails.

One of our big goals in life is to someday have another miniature schnauzer--and maybe a mixed breed. But we sure are thankful to have Baxter and Chloe around.

We like to think we have given them a good home, at a time when they needed one. We have long suspected, though, that they probably do more for us than we do for them. Now it looks like we were right about that.