NCAA Shines Light on University of Alabama's "Abysmal" Ethics

The NCAA calls the University of Alabama's compliance record in athletics "abysmal," according to news reports out today.

A big question is this: Why would anybody be surprised?

The institution, and its fabled football program, are run by the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. The best known member of the board--and probably its most powerful force--is Paul Bryant Jr., the son of the late football coaching icon, Paul "Bear" Bryant.

Bryant Jr. is the president of Greene Group Inc., and at least one of his companies has engaged in highly shady financial transactions, which helped lead to a 15-year prison sentence for a Pennsylvania man several years ago. Bryant and his colleagues managed to escape punishment--and even scrutiny in the mainstream press.

But they have not escaped scrutiny here at Legal Schnauzer. And in a series of upcoming posts, we will show you why no one should be surprised that an organization involving Paul Bryant Jr. would be found to have "abysmal" ethics.

Irony abounds in today's reports about the University of Alabama. They come as cross-state rival Auburn University is receiving some unwelcome attention, due to the financial difficulties of high-profile board member Bobby Lowder and his failed Colonial Bank.

Lowder's latest woes are examined in a story titled "The Man Behind 2009's Biggest Bank Bust" in the current Fortune magazine. Senior Editor Brian O'Keefe exhibits splendid reporting and writing skills on the piece, and we will be taking a closer look at it in the coming days.

But first, let's look at how the Lowder story dovetails with today's reports about the University of Alabama--in which the NCAA says the institution has an "appalling and unprecedented recent infractions history."

Lowder's cross-state counterpart is Paul Bryant Jr. Both have long been considered the key heavyweights on the state's two major university boards. Both have backgrounds in banking--Lowder at Colonial and Bryant at (what else?) Bryant Bank. Both reportedly are fanatical about their respective college football programs.

Here's a major difference between the two men: Whatever Lowder's faults--and O'Keefe reports that he could wind up facing criminal charges--the Auburn trustee's business activities have been quite well known. He has been involved in businesses--banking, real-estate development--that at least appeared to be solid on the surface.

But Bryant? He tends to operate in the shadows--in enterprises like casino management, dog tracks, catfish, ready-mix concrete, and reinsurance.

It's that last field that has attracted our attention at Legal Schnauzer. One of Bryant's companies is called Alabama Reassurance. And it was implicated in at least eight counts of a massive fraud case in the late '90s involving a Philadelphia lawyer named Allen W. Stewart.

Stewart is serving a 15-year federal prison sentence, and in 2003, he coughed up $17 million in criminal forfeiture proceedings.

Our sources say that, after the Stewart conviction, the U.S. Department of Justice was prepared to launch a heightened investigation of Alabama Reassurance. But someone in the DOJ's power structure called off the dogs.

In the coming weeks, we will be looking closely at the Allen W. Stewart case, the role of Alabama Reassurance in it, and the government's decision to call off its investigation of Paul Bryant Jr.'s company.

Can you avoid scrutiny of your "funny finances" when your name is Paul Bryant Jr. in Alabama? Sure looks that way.

How Low Will Debt Collectors Go--in Alabama and Beyond?

Just when you think you've heard the worst from bottom-feeding debt collectors, the industry takes itself to a new, even lower, level.

We have reported several times about the debt-collection industry, most recently with this post about an expose by Dateline NBC. Now we have two cases of even more egregious activity--one from afar and one that is up close and personal.

The distant case comes to us from Buffalo, New York, where state attorney general Andrew Cuomo has arrested 12 workers at a debt-collection agency on charges of grand larceny and extortion.

Let's be clear about this: These folks are not charged with civil violations of the pathetically weak Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA); they are charged with crimes. Andrew Cuomo, who was prominently featured in the Dateline NBC story, means business. Let's hope his approach to law enforcement spreads to other states. It's needed badly in Alabama.

How bad was it at the Buffalo firm, owned by Tobias Boyland? The Buffalo News reports:

The individuals, who are accused of extortion, allegedly participated in improper and illegal debt-collection practices, posing as law enforcement officials and threatening to have consumers thrown in jail unless they immediately paid off debts they supposedly owed, state Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced.

Cuomo did not go after just the executives or owners of the firm. He went after the workers:

"The tactics allegedly used here are some of the worst of the worst in the debt collection business," Cuomo said in a press release. "The defendants' alleged lies, deceit and intimidation caused many innocent people to pay money they didn't owe just to stop the terrifying calls."

How is this for irony? In a Buffalo News photo of the workers being led away in handcuffs, one is wearing a University of Alabama sweatshirt. Check it out:

Which brings us to the case that we've experienced in an up close and personal way. A little more than a year ago, Mrs. Schnauzer and I filed a lawsuit alleging multiple violations of the FDCPA. The alleged debt was from American Express, and the defendants in the debt-collection lawsuit are Pennsylvania-based NCO Financial Services and Birmingham law firm Ingram & Associates LLC.

Over the past month or so, we have been engaged in the discovery process, trying to get at the facts about the alleged violations and who is responsible for them. Are debt collectors, and the law firms that represent them, happy about turning over such information?

Not exactly. In fact, substantial evidence suggests that they have taken some astounding steps to threaten us into accepting a bad settlement and shutting down our discovery efforts.

Why would they do that, particularly in our case? One, this is not a "he said, she said" case. I audiotaped my conversations with debt-collectors, so we have hard proof of their violations. Second, I suspect the tactics revealed in our audiotapes are used by numerous debt collectors--and perhaps encouraged by credit-card companies--to unlawfully separate consumers from millions of dollars.

My guess is that we are close to uncovering some ugly industry secrets. And that is why, I suspect, the debt collectors have waged a fierce attack on Mrs. Schnauzer and me--using tactics that might be criminal and certainly violate federal civil-rights law.

Who are the suspects in this dirty deed? Well, you have several lawyers representing NCO Financial Services--including Laura Nettles of Lloyd Gray & Whitehead (Birmingham) and Dayle Van Hoose of Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel (Tampa). You have a lawyer representing Ingram & Associates--Wayne Morse Jr. of Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick (Birmingham). God only knows how many executives at NCO might be involved, driving the sleazy train.

Here is what's really interesting: It appears that entities from outside the lawsuit have been enlisted to help apply pressure to us. We are talking specifically about Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation, a Birmingham-based insurance company that has taken some highly irregular and unethical steps in our direction.

What are these folks trying to hide? Whatever it is, they seem to be trying mighty hard to hide it. And I wouldn't be surprised if it involves American Express itself, even though the company is not a party to the lawsuit.

As we have reported in previous posts, original creditors often wind up selling their bad debt to third-party debt collectors. There are all kinds of legal and tax incentives that encourage original creditors to do this. But we are being told in our lawsuit that American Express did not do that in our case, that it owned our alleged debt all along. If that's true, why did American Express do that? And does the company handle all of its accounts that way? If so, why?

A curious note: American Express just happens to be in the Property and Casualty business, through its subsidiaries AMEX Assurance and IDS Property Casualty. Infinity wouldn't be trying to provide cover for a fellow traveler in the P & C insurance business, would it? Hmmm.

Mucho more details are to come. But for now, let's revisit this question: How low will debt collectors go?

Our experience says the answer is, "Real, real low."

That Buffalo story might be nasty. But you ain't read nothing yet.

(To be continued)

Here's One Way a Corrupt Alabama Judge Will Cheat You

I raised the hackles of a few readers several weeks back when I stated that Alabama state judge Robert Vance Jr. is corrupt.

It pained me to write those words because Vance is a Democrat, who was appointed by former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. And as regular readers know, I have been one of the louder voices in the blogosphere stating that Siegelman was the victim of a political and unlawful prosecution.

Ironically, Vance is in the news these days because of an electronic-bingo case in Walker County. He is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the matter today.

Vance isn't fit to preside over a corner lemonade stand, much less a court case of any substance.

To state that a public official is corrupt is serious business--and I don't use such terms lightly. It's particularly difficult when that official is a Democrat who, theoretically at least, should share my generally progressive views.

Robert Vance Jr., unfortunately, is a phony. Not so much because he acts in decidedly unprogressive ways. But mainly because he acts in unlawful ways, and as a judge, he took an oath to uphold the law.

I wrote about Vance a few weeks back because his wife, Joyce White Vance, was Barack Obama's choice as the new U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. I stated that Joyce White Vance undoubtedly will be an improvement on the abominable Alice Martin, who served under George W. Bush. But I also voiced my concerns that Joyce Vance has ties to the Birmingham legal establishment and noted that her husband is a judge--a bad one.

Let me explain one of the basic ground rules we use here at Legal Schnauzer. We operate under the assumption that if a judge acts unlawfully in one case, he probably has acted unlawfully in others. That's why I paint Robert Vance Jr. with a broad brush. He definitely cheated me, and I find it hard to believe he hasn't cheated other litigants.

How did Vance Jr. cheat me? Let me explain:

It involved a legal malpractice claim I filed against Jesse P. Evans III and Michael B. Odom, the lawyers who originally defended me in the lawsuit filed by my troublesome Shelby County neighbor, Mike McGarity.

At the time, Evans and Odom were with the Birmingham firm of Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson. They since have moved to Haskell Slaughter. Evans is well known as a property lawyer and even has written a textbook on the subject. I sought him out because the lawsuit against me involved real-property issues, and a friend had told me that Evans was an expert in the field. Odom was Evans' assistant and handled most of the actual work on my case.

To be blunt, Evans and Odom cheated me raw. In the Shelby County case, we filed two motions for summary judgment, which were properly executed and supported with affidavits regarding material facts. On the first, McGarity did not respond as required by law, meaning summary judgment had to be granted and the case dismissed. On the second, McGarity did not respond at all--and that's because he had no case and his corrupt lawyer, William E. Swatek, surely knew it. Again, summary judgment had to be granted.

Judge J. Michael Joiner denied both summary judgment motions, contrary to clear, black-letter law. Evans and Odom had to know the judge was cheating me, but they did nothing about it. They even refused to file a counterclaim on my behalf, even though McGarity had built a fence on our property, enclosing about 400 square feet of our yard. It's hard to imagine a more egregious example of trespass.

Evans and Odom, however, did nothing to protect my rights, ensuring that I was on the defensive throughout the proceeding. So I fired them--and then sued them. Acting pro se, I filed the legal-malpractice lawsuit in Jefferson County Circuit Court on September 4, 2003--case number CV03--5627.

My original complaint was 12 pages long and outlined four counts against Evans and Odom--legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent suppression, and fraudulent deceit. The action was brought pursuant to the Alabama Legal Services Liability Act, sections 6-5-570, et. seq., Code of Alabama. That's the catch-all statute for actions against legal services providers, and my complaint was filed well inside the two-year statute of limitations.

The Birmingham firm of Starnes & Atchison represented Evans and Odom and promptly filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming that I had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

In an order dated December 5, 2003, Vance granted the Motion to Dismiss. I filed a Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate under Rule 59(e), but it was denied on January 5, 2004. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed Vance's ruling, without an opinion, and the Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear the case.

Here's the key to understanding how Vance cheated me: When you read in the newspaper about a lawsuit being dismissed, it almost always means that summary judgment has been granted, under Rule 56. (Note: Summary judgment is handled under Rule 56 in federal cases, too.)

Summary judgment means that both parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery, and one party or the other has shown that, based on the facts and the law presented, there is no reason for the case to go to trial.

That is very different from a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Such a motion, if granted, cuts off a case before it even gets started. It claims that the plaintiff's complaint, on its face, is insufficient--and the case should be dismissed without any discovery being conducted.

Most honest Alabama lawyers will tell you that filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a waste of their time--and their client's money--because the motion almost never can be granted under the law.

Why? Federal courts and most state courts, including Alabama, operate under a "notice pleading" rule. What does that mean? Here is one definition:

[The] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."

To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, I only needed to give Evans and Odom notice of what the claim was and the grounds for supporting it. I met that burden with this one sentence in my complaint, under "Count One--Legal Malpractice":

13. The actions and inactions of Defendants, as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 11 above, fall below that level of such reasonable care, skill and diligence that other similarly situated legal services providers in the same general line of practice as Defendants and in the same general locality ordinarily have and exercise in like cases.

That one sentence, noting that I had set forth 11 paragraphs of facts to support my claim, was sufficient to overcome Evans and Odom's Motion to Dismiss. In all, I provided 12 pages worth of facts and law--when only one sentence was sufficient. And Vance still could not get it right!

Jerome Hoffman, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, has written a book called Alabama Civil Procedure, and he probably is the foremost authority on that topic. What does he say about a Motion to Dismiss?

Courts do not favor motions to dismiss. As a Rule of thumb, Rule 12(b)(6) motions will almost never be granted by trial courts, and those that are will almost always be reversed by appellate courts.

Couldn't be more simple, could it? I've got a stump in my backyard that could have gotten it right on Starnes & Atchison's Motion to Dismiss--by denying it. But Robert Vance Jr. could not get the simplest of rulings correct under the law.

Hoffman makes it clear that this is not just his opinion of the law. He cites numerous Alabama cases, including Strain v. Hinkle, 457 So. 2d 394 (Ala., 1984); Sanders v. Judson College, 514 So. 2d 890 (Ala., 1987); and Butts v. Weiss, 346 So. 2d 422 (Ala. 1977).

For good measure, Hoffman gives examples of the rare instances where a Rule 12(b)(6) motion might properly be granted:

* When the complaint cites a grievance that is not covered under substantive law. Hoffman cites the example of a lawsuit brought because of a social snub.

* When certain affirmative defenses--such as statute of limitation, absolute immunity from suit, and qualified immunity from suit--are raised. For example, what if my complaint had stated that Evans and Odom had committed legal malpractice while representing me from January to June 1998, but my lawsuit was filed in 2003? On its face, my complaint would have missed the statute of limitations by a longshot and would properly be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

That, however, was not the situation with my case. Evans and Odom did not even argue that I missed the statute of limitations (SOL). They did not argue any other affirmative defense. And they certainly did not argue that legal malpractice is not a legitimate cause of action.

I should note that many legal-malpractice cases get dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. The SOL in Alabama used to be six years. But 20 years ago or so, the Alabama Legislature (which is controlled by lawyers) changed the SOL to two years. That made it much more difficult to sue corrupt lawyers. Because legal malpractice often does not become apparent to the client until long after it has been committed, many cases get kicked on SOL grounds.

But even those are almost always dismissed on summary judgment, not on a Rule 12(b)(6). That's because discovery often is needed to determine when the statute of limitations clock lawfully began to tick.

Why did Evans and Odom, Starnes & Atchison--and Vance--want my case covered up at the Motion to Dismiss stage? Because discovery--interrogatories, depositions, production of documents, etc.--would have shown that Evans and Odom indeed committed legal malpractice against me. It also would have shown that they defrauded me. And the only way to keep that under wraps was to dismiss my lawsuit before it even got started, denying me fundamental rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Want to know a sign that a judge might be cheating you? He issues an order without citing any law. Or he makes some vague statement regarding the law, without providing any specifics. Consider this statement from Vance's order granting the Motion to Dismiss:

For the reasons stated in the defendants' motions, the plaintiff's complaint, as amended, fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, is hereby GRANTED.

For the reasons stated in the defendants' motions? Doesn't sound like Vance even looked at my complaint, does it? That's because he probably didn't. Sounds like he pretty much took his marching orders from Starnes & Atchison, doesn't it? That's because he probably did.

Did the defendant's motion make any reference to the actual law regarding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Of course not. That's because the lawyers from the esteemed Starnes & Atchison almost certainly knew the fix was in.

Want to know why our justice system is so screwed up? Under rules of the bar, the lawyers for Starnes & Atchison--not to mention Evans & Odom--were required to report a judge that they had to know was violating the law. The law is a self-regulating profession, so the rules required Evans & Odom (and their lawyers) to report a judge who was cheating.

But the judge was cheating in their favor. So what were the chances that they were going to uphold their responsibility under the law and report him? You know what they say about a snowball in hell.

Moral of the story? Corruption is not limited to Republican judges. And just because a judge has the word "Democrat" by his name, do not assume that he is going to be interested in the cause of regular people--or even the law. He might be mainly interested in protecting the interests of the legal profession--even its most corrupt practitioners.

Robert Vance Jr., sadly, is exactly that kind of judge.

Greg Craig Is Hunkering Down in the Obama Administration

Greg Craig, White House Counsel for President Barack Obama, is under fire for mishandling the politics of the Guantanomo Bay detention-facility closing. He should be under fire for his cozy relationship with Karl Rove, his indirect connections to the George W. Bush administration, and his ties to organizations that are anything but progressive.

Either way, Craig tells the National Law Journal, he has no plans to resign. Writes reporter David Ingram:

"I have no plans to leave whatsoever," Craig said. "The rumors that I'm about to leave are false. The reports that I'm about to leave are wrong. I have no plans to leave."

Craig, a fixture of Washington's legal and political establishments for decades, has faced a drumbeat of news reports since August that he is on his way out as President Barack Obama's top in-house lawyer. His dismissal of those reports is his first public comment on the matter, though he repeatedly declined to elaborate. Later in the interview, he described his relationship with Obama as "excellent."

Ironically, Craig is under fire for a decision that he probably got right. Guantanomo should be closed, but the White House is feeling heat from the plan--not because it is wrong, but because it has generated political fallout:

One of Obama's first hires as president-elect, Craig, 64, arrived with a long and varied resume. He has held top positions on Capitol Hill and in the U.S. State Department, served as special impeachment counsel to President Bill Clinton, and represented high-profile clients such as Kofi Annan, then secretary-general of the United Nations.

But for months, and especially the past two weeks, Craig has been fighting questions about whether he'll resign. Administration officials, quoted anonymously in news reports, second-guessed Craig's support of a one-year deadline to shutter Guantanamo. They accused him of causing a diplomatic rift while helping to transfer four detainees to Bermuda, and they described his role in the overall effort as diminished.

Progressives, the folks who put Obama in the White House, should be concerned about Craig on other fronts. As we have reported here at Legal Schnauzer, Craig has myriad ties to Republicans of the Bush/Rove variety.

Jill Simpson, an Alabama attorney and key whistleblower in the Don Siegelman case, has led the way in pointing out Craig's conflicts of interest. Simpson has experienced those conflicts firsthand. Before her testimony to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in October 2007, Simpson spoke at length with Craig about possibly retaining his legal services.

After hearing Simpson's full story, Craig backed out, claiming he had a conflict connected to U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). Simpson later learned that Craig and Rove were personal friends, and Craig even had represented the former Bush adviser on a book deal. Simpson becamse suspicious that Craig took privileged information she gave him and fed it to Rove.

Simpson learned that Williams & Connolly, Craig's former firm, represents numerous figures from the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George W. Bush himself. She also discovered that Craig had financial ties to a Republican-oriented government relations firm in Washington, D.C. As we reported here:

Greg Craig's most recent financial-disclosure form shows that he was paid by Ogilvy Government Relations, says Alabama attorney Jill Simpson. The firm had been known as the Federalist Group before changing its name in 2007 after Democrats took over the U.S. House of Representatives.

Simpson's revelations come on the heels of a report yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that Craig might soon step down from his role in the Obama White House.

Simpson has firsthand knowledge of Ogilvy/Federalist Group. She served as a Republican opposition researcher and participated in a conference call about GOP plans to coordinate a political prosecution of Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. Simpson testified under oath that Alabama Republican operatives, led by Business Council of Alabama CEO Bill Canary, had worked out the plan with Bush White House strategist Karl Rove.

Barack Obama has been an across-the-board improvement on his predecessor--which isn't saying much. But his administration, so far, has been a colossal failure on justice matters. And the blame for that should be placed at the feet of Greg Craig and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Craig might wind up being ousted because of the Guantanomo controversy--a matter he actually got right. Progressives should be much more concerned about the utter ineptitude he and Holder have shown on justice issues.

Legal Schnauzer Visits the Jeff Farias Show

It was our pleasure recently to drop in on the Jeff Farias Show, a syndicated progressive radio program from Phoenix, Arizona.

I told Farias how heartening it was for an Alabama blogger to appear on a radio show that espouses progressive views, something that pretty much doesn't exist here.

And I found it ironic that Jeff invited me to discuss the Don Siegelman case, recent events connected to Montgomery, Alabama, whistleblower Tamarah Grimes, and the ugly prosecution of Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi--while Alabama talk radio largely ignores those stories right in its own backyard.

We even discussed my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and Farias seemed amazed that I could be fired from a public institution for writing, on my own time, about matters of public concern--such as the Siegelman case. In Alabama, people tend to shrug at such actions--if they react at all.

I appeared on the October 6 show, and you can check out the segment by visiting the Jeff Farias archives. Just scroll down to the October 6 section and click on the "listen now" podcast icon. My segment starts at about the 57:40 mark.

Jeff was kind enough to invite me back for future visits, and I look forward to it. Interesting that Alabama events are worthy of serious discussion in Arizona--but not in Alabama.

The Cyril Wecht Case: When Faxing Becomes a Felony

Victims of the Bush Justice Department surely found nothing amusing about being targeted by rogue federal prosecutors. But as more information gradually emerges about the Bush DOJ cesspool, you sense an element of dark comedy.

Perhaps nothing symbolizes that quite like the absurd case of Cyril Wecht, the former Pennsylvania coroner who became famous for his discussions of forensic pathology on cable news programs. Attorney/Journalist Andrew Kreig examines the Wecht case in a new piece at Huffington Post titled "Why Did Feds Persecute Celebrity Expert Cyril Wecht? Who's Next?"

Kreig's conclusion? A growing number of Americans, from both the left and the right, are concerned about a justice system gone wrong:

Cases like this are creating bipartisan alarm nationally among legal experts who believe that DoJ increasingly abuses its vast powers. I've seen the change after covering DoJ fulltime as a newspaper reporter from 1976-1980 in DoJ's better days, and now as a researcher of such cases nationally.

Why should Americans care about what happened to Cyril Wecht? A Democrat, Wecht had chaired his party's county committee in the Pittsburgh area and even run for the U.S. Senate. Wecht had made a number of enemies in political circles with his blunt comments on local issues. Not long after taking office, Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan got Wecht in her sights.

Kreig notes that Wecht sometimes sent faxes from his office on personal matters. One of those, in February 2002, was an invoice to a New Jersey group for a speech. Here's how Kreig describes the charges against Wecht:

Four years later, the Justice Department used that fax for one of 84 felony charges against Wecht, thereby forcing his resignation after 20 years. The charges included 27 felonies for sending personal faxes, along with allegations over mileage vouchers, office stationary, permission for students to study autopsies, and requests for staff help.

How desperate were the feds to get Cyril Wecht? Kreig tells us:

Court rulings and prosecution errors ended Wecht's ordeal last June. By then, the 78-year-old had spent $8 million on legal fees over three years, putting him $6 million in debt currently. Authorities dropped the majority of charges against him just before trial in 2008. Thus, most of the charges were about 23 faxes, whose total out-of-pocket cost to the county was calculated by the defense as $3.96.

You read that correctly. Cyril Wecht spent $8 million to defend charges that largely involved $3.96 worth of faxes. God only knows how much money the government spent to bring the case.

Democrats are not alone in their concern about prosecutorial abuses. Kreig writes about a recent conference hosted by the free-market Cato Institute. One of the speakers was Boston attorney Harvey Silverglate, author of Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Writes Kreig:

(Silverglate's) theme: The average U.S. professional unwittingly commits three felonies daily--thus enabling Feds to pick and choose whom to prosecute, with scant review by courts, defense attorneys and the news media. His book provides compelling case studies illustrated by defendants fighting to prevent their ruin from "creative" prosecutors using vague or seldom-enforced laws in health care, high-tech, legal affairs, financial services, labor, media and national security.

The system is rife with double standards, and Kreig cites Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, of Chicago, as an example:

Fitzgerald used his office fax machine this year to send HarperCollins a threat that he'd sue on a personal basis if the company failed to destroy copies of the book Triple Cross that contained criticism that he considered defamatory.

A personal fax? When questioned, DoJ says it approves incidental personal use of fax machines by government employees.

Did Richard Shelby Ignore Concerns From India About Discrimination at UAB?

Two government officials from India wrote letters in 2006 to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), expressing concern about discrimination against international medical residents at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

Shelby apparently took no action, and at least five international trainees--three from India, one from Pakistan, and one from Germany--eventually left UAB's Family Medicine Residency Program in Huntsville after charging that they had been victims of discrimination.

Dr. Seema Gupta, one of the residents from India, filed a lawsuit--and a federal jury in Birmingham recently found that UAB discriminated against her based on her Hindu religion. A second lawsuit, filed by a former resident from Germany, is pending. Birmingham attorney John Saxon represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

Shelby has been credited with funneling millions of dollars in research funds to UAB--for everything from bioterrorism to cognitive impairment. A major facility on the campus, the Shelby Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research Building, is named in honor of the senator and his wife, Annette.

A UAB press release states that Shelby helped secure much of the $90 million in funding for the building.

When government officials from India voiced concern about discrimination at UAB, however, Senator Shelby apparently became mute. Two letters, dated May 15, 2006, make it clear that Indian leaders felt discrimination was a serious problem at the UAB School of Medicine.

One of the letters is from R.L. Kureel, a former member of Parliament, a deputy leader of Lok Sabha in the Republic of India, and an advocate of the Supreme Court of India. Kureel also is Dr. Seema Gupta's father.

Supporting Kureel's document is a letter from Ashok Argal, a current member of the Parliament in Lok Sabha.

Kureel references his daughter in the letter to Shelby:

It is my understanding that she, as well as other foreign medical graduates, are regularly discriminated against by individuals at this program, due to the nation of origin, race, religion, and gender. (Seema) has documented and described to me several such instances. There has been an organized campaign to get rid of her at this institution.

Does Kureel consider this a serious matter? Sure sounds like it:

I have recently come to find out that Seema has been suffering emotional and verbal abuse in Huntsville during her training for the past several months. This is in addition to disregard for her religious beliefs, as well as forcing her to listen to several gender-based inappropriate comments by her supervisors. She has been denigrated to the extent to being called "stupid" in meetings. This is no way for educated people like physicians to act! Attempts have been made to embarrass her in front of her peers, as well as assassinate her character.

These acts are very disappointing and heartbreaking to me as a parent. In fact, such behavior is appalling and unpardonable.

When money is at issue, or his name is about to be put on a building, Richard Shelby apparently springs into action on UAB matters. But when the university is systematically discriminating against multiple international medical trainees? Doesn't look like that is worthy of Shelby's attention.

We will be addressing other issues raised in the letters from India. Here are the letters in their entirety:

India Letters to Richard Shelby

Who Will Benefit From Bob Riley's Deal With Paragon Source?

Alabama Governor Bob Riley is pushing for a $13-million computer-services contract with a Virginia-based company called Paragon Source LLC. Never mind that Paragon Source does not have a headquarters, phone listing, or Web site.

When Riley starts pushing for a fishy no-bid contract, that usually means a member of the extended Riley clan--or one of their close associates--stands to benefit.

Alabama Rep. Alvin Holmes apparently intends to find out what is up. He says he will seek a subpoena of Paragon Source CEO Janet Lauderdale. Holmes told Bob Lowry, of The Huntsville Times, that members of the Riley administration have been blocking his efforts to learn more about Paragon Source:

If Lauderdale doesn't honor the committee's subpoena to appear before the panel, Holmes said a lawsuit would be filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

Holmes has been rebuffed for nearly a month by Gov. Bob Riley's administration in his efforts to obtain more information about the firm. He has asked for the names, addresses, job descriptions and salaries for each employee.

"I know Bob Riley has been calling members on the committee," said Holmes. "He's trying to get them stop the subpoena."

Even the sleepy Alabama mainstream press, which normally gives Riley a free pass on most anything, has been paying attention to the Paragon Source story.

The Gadsden Times addressed the subject in an editorial titled "No Bid Contract? No Way!" Wrote the Times:

Something smells with this company, and it is about to receive a big chunk of taxpayer money. Our money. Money that is desperately needed to run the state’s business.

Any state agency has a phone number, an office and probably a Web site. So what gives with this firm with no office, no phone or Web site. At least, Paragon should have a Web site!

The president of Paragon, Janet Lauderdale, says the company “relies on referrals from previous clients and peers, rather than using mass marketing channels such as the Internet.”

Well, the referrals must be impressive, because the firm was awarded a $5.9 million contract last year. Those involved attempted to increase that bid by $6.9 million, the legislature stepped in and stopped it, pending closer scrutiny.

A lot of things smell about the Bob Riley administration. It's nice to see the Alabama press paying attention for a change.

Alabama's GOP Governor Has a Kissing Cousin on the Federal Court

Alabama Governor Bob Riley went into crowing mode when a federal judge recently made a ruling that appears to be contrary to gambling interests in Alabama.

But Riley failed to mention a couple of items for public consumption: (1) The ruling was not nearly as unfavorable toward gambling interests as Riley would have you believe; and (2) The judge who issued the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith, is Riley's cousin.

Yes, you heard that right. A federal judge, who ruled on a case in which the governor had a clear interest, is the governor's cousin. You can't get more Alabama than that.

This is just the latest evidence that Riley's hypocrisy knows no bounds. The Republican "anti-gambling governor" is the same guy who cruised into office in 2002 with the help of $13 million in Mississippi gambling money, freshly laundered by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Riley continues to serve his Mississippi gambling supporters by trying to ensure that they do not have competition next door in Alabama.

After Smith's ruling that bingo machines at a Huntsville facility were "akin" to illegal slot machines, Riley's office pounced with a quick press release. It quoted Riley as saying, "The federal judge's ruling could not be clearer about the illegality of these so-called bingo machines in Alabama."

Bob Martin, of the Montgomery Independent, reports that the governor is essentially full of it. Writes Martin:

The case, involving gaming in the town of Triana in Madison County, only relates to Constitutional Amendment No. 387; one of 16 constitutional amendments which permit bingo across Alabama. "The opinion addressed itself solely to the constitutional amendment permitting bingo in Madison County," said Madison County attorney Julian Butler, who represented the county's sheriff.

The opinion also did not rule on the legality of the machines in question. Here's what U. S. District Judge Lynwood Smith wrote about the machines: "Although this court finds that the electronic bingo gaming machines at issue in this case are more akin to slot machines than the game commonly known as bingo, this court does not decide in this ruling the question of whether the electronic machines constitute bingo."

For good measure, Martin provides more information about the limitations of Smith's rulings--and includes a little dig about the judge's "family ties" to Riley:

The judge made the ruling to shut down the gaming operations on violations of other provisions in Amendment 387; it has absolutely no bearing on any other constitutional amendment authorizing bingo in Alabama. It would have been impossible for Smith, who is the governor's cousin, to make a lawful ruling on the machines without an evidentiary hearing on whether or not the machines were electronic bingo machines or slot machines.

Supporters of the planned Country Crossing development near Dothan joined Martin in jumping on Riley's misstatements--and his ties to Judge Smith. Attorneys for Country Crossing Developer Ronnie Gilley issued a statement to the Dothan Eagle:

Before one delves into the details of the Houston County amendment, it should be recognized that, despite what Governor Riley says, the opinion does not hold that electronic bingo machines are slot machines. Instead, it opines that the machines resemble slot machines, and then says that the court does not need to reach that question, because the operations of the Texas VFW in Triana were not conducted in compliance with Amendment 387.

Country Crossing, by contrast, will be conducted in strict compliance with Amendment 569, as well as with all applicable resolutions of the Houston County Commission. For example, unlike the Madison County Amendment, the Houston County Amendment has a provision that allows “special permits,” and the Houston County Commission has specifically granted the Houston Economic Development Association a special permit to operate electronic bingo games in Houston County. Moreover, these games will be actually conducted by the Houston Economic Development Association, which is an Alabama nonprofit corporation."

Jay Walker, a spokesman for Country Crossing, addressed the larger issue: Why was Riley's cousin hearing the case in Huntsville?

“I commend the court for acting justly in regards to illegal bingo operations in our state,” says Jay Walker, spokesman for Country Crossing. “However, the governor totally misrepresented the judge’s order.”

Walker asks the question, “Since the governor and Judge Smith are related, did Riley and his cousin speak before the ruling, and should Judge Smith have recused himself because they are related? As we all know, blood is thicker than water.”

UAB Discriminates Against Medical Trainee From India

A federal jury in Birmingham has found that the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) discriminated against a medical resident from India, based on her Hindu religion.

Dr. Seema Gupta filed a discrimination lawsuit after she was dismissed from the UAB Family Medicine Residency Program in Huntsville. Dr. Allan Wilke, then director of the residency program, gave Gupta a notice of nonrenewal as she was about to complete the second year of the three-year program.

If UAB is any indicator, discrimination against international medical students must be widespread. Testimony at the Gupta trial indicated that she was one of at least five students--three from India, one from Pakistan, one from Germany--who left the program after alleging that they had been victims of discrimination.

Wilke apparently was a central figure in all five cases. Not long after Gupta filed her lawsuit, UAB removed Wilke from his role as residency director.

The problem, however, does not appear to be limited to Wilke. Dr. Marcia Chesebro and Dr. Melissa Behringer played key roles in Gupta's complaint. And the multiple charges of discrimination raise questions about the leadership of Dr. Robert Rich, dean of the UAB School of Medicine, and Dr. Robert Centor, an associate dean who is responsible for the Huntsville program.

And where was UAB President Carol Garrison while international students were facing multiple incidents of discriminatory treatment? As we have reported at Legal Schnauzer, Garrison's record on human-resources issues is dismal, and she apparently was missing in action throughout Seema Gupta's ordeal.

Rich came to UAB in 2004, touted for his ability to secure research grants while serving as executive associate dean at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. The Gupta case raises this question about the current leadership at UAB: If Rich is busy trying to bring in money, who is supposed to ensure that medical students can study in an environment free from discrimination and mistreatment?

Testimony in the Gupta trial indicates that no one at UAB is paying attention to such issues. And what kind of price do the victims of discrimination pay?

Seema Gupta had to spend more than $30,000 to find another residency program, and she wound up completing a program in preventive medicine and public health. Career prospects in those fields are much more limited than they are in family medicine, a field in which she had completed almost two-thirds of her training before Allan Wilke intervened.

Two of Gupta's colleagues from India had to leave the United States and return to their home country after facing alleged discrimination at UAB. A former medical resident from Germany has a lawsuit pending in federal court. And Dr. Rehan Puri, from Pakistan, filed a complaint against UAB with the U.S. Department of Labor, alleging that the university did not properly pay its residents.

Patrika, one of India's leading newspapers, has reported on the difficult times international skilled workers can face in the United States:

India Newspaper Discrimination


Reporter Dinesh Sharma writes from New Delhi:

For outsiders, the United States could be a dream destination. But the bitter experience of a large number of Asians, especially Indians, Chinese, and Pakistanis, tell a different story--and a sad one indeed.

Tens of thousands of skilled workers, like software engineers and doctors holding graduate degrees who go to the United States on H-1B visas every year, are having real tough times because of their abject exploitation by employers.

Sharma goes on to cite UAB as one employer that exploits international workers. He quotes one expert in India, who says that many H-1B visa holders are "treated like indentured servants."

I covered the Seema Gupta trial in Birmingham and came away realizing that international workers and trainees can not only be exploited in the workplace; they can be treated unfairly in U.S. courts.

Seema Gupta, represented by Birmingham attorney John Saxon, prevailed on her claim of religious discrimination. But an Alabama jury, contrary to the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, found against her on claims of national-origin discrimination and constructive discharge--and awarded a paltry sum in monetary damages that probably did not even cover Dr. Gupta's travel expenses to attend the trial.

While UAB was found to have discriminated, the overall outcome of the Seema Gupta trial raises serious questions about the fundamental fairness of the U.S. federal court system.

And it also raises serious questions about the ethics of UAB's current administration--and the University of Alabama Board of Trustees. The board is the legal entity responsible for all three campuses of the University of Alabama System--and as such, is the primary defendant in most lawsuits involving UA. The Gupta case involved the Birmingham campus, so we will be referring to UAB as the opposing party in her lawsuit. But technically, the primary defendant was the University of Alabama Board of Trustees.

New documents in the court file indicate that UAB, apparently with the support of the trustees, is contesting an award of attorney fees to Seema Gupta. According to our understanding of the law, Gupta is entitled to an award of attorney fees, based on having prevailed on at least one claim of discrimination.

We will be taking a detailed look at the Seema Gupta case in a series of upcoming posts. What will we learn? The central message is this: Based on Seema Gupta's experience, UAB is prone to mistreat international workers from start to finish--in the workplace, in the courtroom, even after the trial is over.

And UAB's hypocrisy is overwhelming. While it treats skilled workers from India in an unlawful and shabby fashion, the university clearly is mindful of certain booming economies around the world--places where money can be made.

In fact, at roughly the exact time Seema Gupta was on the receiving end of a grossly unjust verdict in an Alabama courtroom, articles appeared in the local press about UAB trying to form business relationships with a certain large, South Asian country, one that rivals China for economic growth.

What South Asian country was that? Take a wild guess.

(To be continued)