Riley's Anti-Gambling Czar Proves to be a World-Class Hypocrite

What kind of Republican is most likely to have an extramarital affair? The one who screeches the loudest about family values, of course.

What kind of Republican is most likely to be caught making curious advances in a men's room? The one who is stridently "anti gay," natch.

Republican hypocrisy is the blogging gift that keeps on giving. That's why the latest example of it caused us to have a true LOL (laugh out loud) moment here at Legal Schnauzer.

The news comes from Alabama, where former prosecuting attorney David Barber was serving as head of Governor Bob Riley's anti-gambling task force. Barber resigned from his post last week because he--brace yourself--won a $2,300 jackpot while gambling in . . . Mississippi.

You heard that right, folks: The man who was trying to shut down gambling sites in Alabama was spending his spare time gambling next door.

And here is something particularly delicious: Barber didn't hit the jackpot in, say, Las Vegas or New Jersey. He went to Mississippi, where gaming interests reportedly supported Governor Riley's 2002 candidacy to the tune of $13 million.

It has been widely reported that Riley is taking extraordinary steps to stop gambling in Alabama because he is beholden to his Mississippi Choctaw boosters. Is it possible that Riley has been doing more than protecting the Choctaws market by scaring off competition in Alabama? Is he actively sending them business, in the form of his anti-gambling czar?

Excuse us while we try to stifle a fit of the chuckles.

The Barber story leaves several questions unanswered:

* How did Barber's winnings come to public attention? I don't know much about gambling, but I assume that it normally doesn't become news when someone wins a $2,300 jackpot. Is it possible that pro-gaming interests in Alabama conducted a private investigation and caught Barber in the act? Is that what caused Barber to turn in his resignation letter? If so, I have the utmost admiration for the pro-gaming interests. That's the kind of hardball you have to play against Republican hypocrites. When will the Democratic Party ever learn that lesson?

* At exactly which casino in Mississippi was Barber playing? That has not been reported, to my knowledge. Was it a Mississippi Choctaw casino? Was Barber, indeed, patronizing a casino run by the group that helped put Bob Riley in office?

Must . . . stop . . . chuckles.

Barber's resignation was not the only gambling-related news in recent days. The Alabama Supreme Court cleared the way for Riley's task force to make another attempt at raiding the new Country Crossing development in Dothan.

Country Crossing responded by seeking a restraining order in federal court, and it went ahead with its grand opening over the weekend--which apparently was a smashing success.

Will Barber's public gaffe squelch the enthusiasm of Riley's task force? Houston County District Attorney Doug Valeska responded by writing a letter to Riley to "uninvite" the task force from the county. Reports the Dothan Eagle:

Houston County Commission Chairman Mark Culver applauded Valeska’s letter.

“We’re just glad someone stepped up and put some civility in this craziness,” Culver said. “It needs to be addressed in a civil manner and now it will be.

“It’s a shame that (Barber) has been down here trying to put more than a thousand people out of work while doing the things he has been doing. The hypocrisy of this whole thing has been evident from the beginning,” Culver added.

Country Crossing attorney Will Matthews said Valeska’s letter should prevent the Task Force from raiding Country Crossing.

“They have no Constitutional authority to be here without the invitation of the district attorney,” Matthews said.

Does the University of Alabama Benefit from Insurance Fraud?

University of Alabama defensive coordinator Kirby Smart last week turned down an offer from his alma mater, the University of Georgia, that would have roughly doubled his salary. Smart decided to stay in Tuscaloosa reportedly because Alabama quickly matched the offer. One report said the big raise for Smart is likely to cause a ripple effect in salaries for all of Alabama's assistant coaches, coming off a national-championship season.

Is Alabama able to open its checkbook in such a nimble and generous fashion partly because its most prominent booster, Paul W. Bryant Jr., has ties to insurance fraud? Bryant, a member of the university's board of trustees and the son of famed coach Paul "Bear" Bryant, is president of Greene Group Inc. One of his companies, Alabama Reassurance, was implicated in a $15-million fraud scheme that helped send a Pennsylvania man named Allen W. Stewart to federal prison.

Alabama's athletics program undoubtedly has strong cash flow these days from ticket sales, merchandise sales, television deals, etc. But does it help to have a trustee whose company clearly has been willing to break the law--and managed to get away with it?

Consider Alabama's courtship in 2007 of Head Coach Nick Saban. Various reports indicate that a private plane owned by Paul Bryant Jr. was used to help secure the highly paid, and ultra successful, coach.

In September 2008, Forbes magazine labeled Saban "the most powerful coach in sports." Reporter Monte Burke wrote:

On New Year's Day in 2007 Mal Moore, the athletic director at the University of Alabama, boarded a private plane bound for Miami. A little over a month earlier the university had fired Mike Shula, its fourth football coach in eight mediocre years. The pursuit of a new coach to that point had been bungled badly--the once proud program was reportedly turned down by Steve Spurrier, from South Carolina, and Rich Rodriguez, at the time the coach at West Virginia. Moore was on his way to Miami to try to woo Nick Saban, then the coach of the NFL's Dolphins. It was all-or-nothing, with no real backup plan. "I told the pilots when they dropped me off in Miami that if I didn't come back to this plane with Nick Saban, they should just go on and take me to Cuba," Moore says.

Hmmm, so a private plane did play a major role in landing Nick Saban. Wonder who that private plane belonged to.

It almost certainly was Bryant's plane. And here are some questions to ponder: How is Bryant's plane financed? Does his company's participation in insurance fraud help him own and maintain a private plane? Did insurance fraud, in a roundabout way, help the University of Alabama land Nick Saban?

Away from the football field, consider the University of Alabama's Birmingham campus (UAB), which Bryant helps oversee from his seat on the board of trustees. Not long after Bryant was appointed to the board, reports surfaced about massive research fraud at UAB.

We have reported that a whistleblower, a forensic accountant, estimated the fraud at $600 million. The George W. Bush Department of Justice let UAB off with a wrist slap, settling the case for $3.4 million, less than 1 percent of the actual fraud.

It's possible that Paul Bryant Jr. knew nothing about the research fraud at UAB, which was based largely on double and triple billing of Medicare. As a former 19-year employee of UAB, I often had the impression that Bryant and most of his fellow board members didn't give a rip about the Birmingham campus--particularly its football program, undergraduate programs, etc.

But the UAB research enterprise is the cash cow of the University of Alabama System. And evidence strongly suggests that, where cash is involved, Paul Bryant Jr. definitely is interested.

The bottom line? Public documents suggest the following: Whenever Paul Bryant Jr. becomes involved in an organization, signs of fraud can sometimes follow--and the U.S. government is likely to look the other way.

Are Obama and Artur Davis Creating a Train Wreck in Alabama?

A lawyer who played a critical role in helping the government achieve unlawful convictions in the Don Siegelman case has received a thumbs up from former Congressman Artur Davis as new U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama.

George Beck is the third lawyer that Davis has recommended for the post, which remains in the hands of George W. Bush appointee Leura Canary. The Obama White House eliminated Michel Nicrosi and Joseph Van Heest after they ran into opposition from Alabama's Republican senators, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions.

The Beck recommendation is the latest indication that Davis primarily is interested in courting Alabama's white/corporate power structure for his gubernatorial campaign. If Obama moves forward with a Beck nomination, it will be one of the strongest signals yet that the White House intends to do nothing about justice-related crimes during the Bush administration.

In our view, it also will be a strong signal that Obama might be headed for a one-term presidency.

Jill Simpson, Alabama lawyer and key Siegelman-case whistleblower, has made it clear that she sees Beck as a terrible choice for the U.S. attorney position. For one, she says, Beck's firm (Capell & Howard) often serves as Karl Rove's home base when he visits Alabama. The firm also represents Bill Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama and the man Simpson has identified as central to a GOP plot to prosecute Siegelman for political reasons.

Perhaps more alarming than that is Beck's behavior in the Siegelman case, where he represented key government witness Nick Bailey. Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy were convicted largely on the testimony of Bailey, who had served as Siegelman's chief administrative assistant. Simpson says Beck allowed the government to browbeat his client:

Mr. Beck is the gentleman who represented Nick Bailey and let him be questioned 70 times and be bullied by Leura Canary's team of lawyers. And George never saw a conflict here even though his firm represents Mr. Canary who was causing (the Siegelman case to be brought).

Numerous reports have indicated that government prosecutors had Bailey write down portions of his statement in order to help him keep it straight. Those notes should have been turned over to defense counsel, but they were not.

Was Beck aware that this exculpatory material was withheld from the defense? If so, why did he quietly let it happen? Is this a serious breach of legal ethics? Does it approach a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

Montgomery, Alabama, was Ground Zero for Bush-era corruption in the U.S. Department of Justice. It could be argued that this is one of Obama's most important justice-related appointments--at least if he gives a rip about the concerns of progressives, the people who put him in office.

In fairness to Artur Davis, he presented two recommendations--Nicrosi and Van Heest--who seemed to draw strong marks from Democrats across the board. But the White House refused to fight for them, allowing Shelby and Sessions more power than they actually have through the Senate's "blue-slip" procedure. Now, as Obama approaches his first anniversary in office, it appears he is about to blow the Alabama appointment big time. Says Jill Simpson:

In recent weeks, Alabamians have seen numerous articles appearing across the state that suggest Senator Shelby can single-handedly block the appointment of the new Middle District United States Attorney by turning in a blue slip. For this reason, I decided to research the Senate blue-slip procedure to see if this was true. And I found that it is not true.

What did Simpson discover?

The Senate blue slip is an opinion written by a senator from the state of residence of a federal judicial-position nominee, such as a United States Attorney. Apparently, both senators, any time there is a new appointment, are sent blue slips to fill out to tell their fellow senators what they think about the appointment. At that point, they are able to submit a favorable report and opinion, or an unfavorable report and opinion, of a nominee. They may also choose to not return the blue slip at all. It is then the option of the Senate Judiciary Committee to determine what weight it will give the blue slip when considering whether or not to recommend to the Senate to confirm a nominee. The blue slip is considered a senatorial courtesy. But it is not a unilateral right for a senator to be vexatious in the appointment of a judicial-position nominee.

A law-journal article shines more light on the blue-slip procedure:

In fact, during President George W. Bush's reign, a professor at Cumberland School of Law in Alabama named Brandon Denny, wrote an article called, "The Blue Slip: Enforcing the Norms of Judicial Confirmation Process." The article appeared in The William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 10, 2001. In that article Professor Denny accurately stated, "that the Executive Branch needs to take a more active role in identifying what is perceived to be an abuse of procedure during a confirmation process." What he meant was that we cannot allow senators to abuse the blue-slip process, causing perfectly good nominees to be denied. The executive branch should take active steps to notify the public when a senator is abusing the procedure of blue slips in an effort to get his way.

It is clear that in Alabama today we have that very situation. Richard Shelby took weeks to object, so we have been told, to Mr. Joe Van Heest. However, the White House has not released what Sen. Shelby put in his blue slip when he objected to Van Heest. The White House should tell the Democrats in Alabama, who helped elect President Obama, what Senator Richard Shelby put in his objection. If Sen. Shelby is just objecting, without having made a formal report, then he is clearly perverting the process of the blue slip. He should be forced to state why he is objecting, and it should be for a good reason. This thwarting of the process is causing a good nominee to be denied, all because a Republican senator is being allowed to run roughshod over the White House.

Surely, President Obama is not going to allow a little senator from Alabama to tell him not to appoint a good candidate, one who is approved by both Alabama Democratic groups that made recommendations for the appointment.

Now it appears that is exactly what Obama is going to do. And it does not speak well for his presidency.

"Pootie" Justice: A Cat Is Called for Jury Duty

It's not often that we get to report on positive developments in our dysfunctional justice system. But I think we might finally have one.

Sal Esposito, a Boston resident, recently received a summons to report for jury service. But Sal is not your standard New Englander, called to perform his civic duty. He's a cat.

Sal's owners aren't sure how he wound up on the jurors' list. They tried to get him an exemption, claiming he doesn't speak English. But it was denied!

Thankfully for Sal, it looks like he won't have to go through the tedium of being questioned by lawyers about his likes and dislikes. His veterinarian wrote a letter to court officials, explaining that Sal's a cat, not a human.

Here's an update about Sal's brush with the court system:



Why could this be a positive development? Well, I've witnessed two juries in action, from start to finish of trials. In one case I was a party, in the other an observer. In both cases, the juries got their findings hopelessly wrong, based on the facts and the law. I strongly suspect both juries were tainted--or members of the juries were on some serious opiates.

One of the great myths of American justice is that our jury system is somehow sacrosanct. In fact, I suspect many Americans would be shocked at how often juries are corrupted--and how easy it is to corrupt them. Based on my observations, I would say if you can somehow get the jury foreman in your hip pocket, you've probably got the whole jury.

I wonder how often foremen are swayed--with a gift, a favor, an out-and-out bribe--in order to push juries in a certain direction. It probably happens way more than most people would dream.

And here's another theory of mine: I suspect much courthouse corruption originates in clerks' offices--at both the state and federal levels. Clerks' offices decide which judges get which cases, who gets into jury pools, etc. In other words, some of the most important decisions that determine the outcomes of cases originate in clerks' offices.

Do powerful law firms in certain jurisdictions have the wherewithal--and the utter lack of ethics--to sway actions of courthouse clerks? My guess is--yes, they have that power, and yes, they use it.

How do we get around this dilemma? I think Sal Esposito has helped provide an answer: We start having animals on jury duty.

Animals are much more honest than people anyway. And think about it: How could a corrupt lawyer manage to bribe a cat? And how could a slimy judge improperly influence a jury full of cats? Heck, our cats, Baxter and Chloe, don't listen to me--and I control their food supply. Why would they listen to a judge, one who wears a scary black robe and probably smells bad.

I asked Baxter if he would like to serve on a jury, and he seemed up for it.

"Will I actually have to pay attention?" he asked.

"Nope," I told him. "I've seen human juries that obviously didn't pay attention."

"Is it OK if I fall off to sleep?"

"Perfectly fine. I've seen human jurors do that."

"Is it OK if I lick myself from time to time?"

"I've seen human jurors do that, too."

"What about noms?"

"You get plenty of time for lunch. And taxpayers pick up the tab."

"Is it OK if I entertain the other jurors during breaks with some of my leaping, tumbling, and roll-over tricks?"

"Heck, that kind of thing is encouraged in Alabama. During the Don Siegelman case, a juror did back flips for her fellow panel mates. They called her "Flipper" because of her gymnastics skills. I'm sure you can pull off tricks that she never dreamed of. And you're probably cuter than she is, too."

"I'm a high-tech guy. I've got to be able to send texts and e-mails to my buddies on the jury."

"Not a problem. Again, in the Don Siegelman case, that kind of behavior among jurors was perfectly fine."

"That sounds great, dude. Count me in."

"Good deal. I'll call the clerk's office right now."

While I'm on the phone with the clerk, I'm going to suggest they contact "Sammy the Cat" in Notasulga, Alabama. He already hangs around a post office all day, so he probably can learn the ropes of a courthouse. Here's the latest on Sammy. If I were involved in a case, I would take my chances with Sammy, over a human, any day.

Did the Attacks of 9/11 Really Change America?

Mrs. Schnauzer and I were scrolling through the cable offerings on a Saturday evening during the holidays when we stumbled upon the The History Channel and a documentary called 102 Minutes That Changed America.

The film depicts the New York-based events of the September 11 attacks, primarily using raw video footage from amateur citizen journalists. 102 Minutes premiered on September 11, 2008, and probably has been rerun numerous times--but we had managed to miss it until late December 2009.

The documentary is compelling viewing and kept us riveted to our TV. It also raised a couple of powerful questions:

* Are you seriously getting old when you watch The History Channel on Saturday night?

* Did the 9/11 attacks really change America?

The answer to the first question appears to be a definite yes. The answer to the second question, best I can tell, is no.

I asked Mrs. Schnauzer what she thought the producers meant by the title they chose for the program. She said she thought the title was intentionally vague, hinting that the 9/11 attacks had undoubtedly changed America--but leaving it to the viewer to determine whether those changes had been positive or negative.

I disagreed, which I don't often do with my beloved (or at least I don't often verbalize those thoughts). I thought the title implied that 9/11 had somehow changed America in a positive way--had made us tougher, more resolute, more determined to protect and uphold the principles that made us a great democracy.

Based on that interpretation of the title, I had to ask myself: Did 9/11 really change America? The only answer I could come up with? Not one bit. If anything, we've gotten worse--weaker; whinier; more self-obsessed; more divided; less united; more willing to turn a blind eye to dishonesty, corruption, and injustice.

In the spirit of self-obsession, I couldn't help but think about our own experiences since 9/11:

* We see trial judges in Shelby County, Alabama, repeatedly rule unlawfully in a lawsuit that our troublesome neighbor filed against me;

* We see Alabama's appellate courts allow the unlawful judgment to stand;

* We see a trial judge in Jefferson County, Alabama, unlawfully grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in a legal-malpractice claim I brought against the first attorneys I hired (Jesse P. Evans III and Michael B. Odom) to defend me in the Shelby County case--the ones who took almost $12,000 of our money and did nothing to keep a judge from cheating us raw;

* We see Alabama's appellate courts again allow an unlawful judgment to stand;

* We see another trial judge in Jefferson County, Alabama, unlawfully dismiss a legal-malpractice claim I brought against the second attorney I hired (Richard Poff) to defend me in the Shelby County case--the one who took $4,500 of our money up front and preceded to do almost nothing on our case. In this instance, the judge butchers the law, essentially allowing Poff off the hook because he had filed for bankruptcy in federal court--even though Poff had not named me as a creditor in his bankruptcy case.

* Having learned my lesson about Alabama's appellate courts, I don't even bother to appeal the Poff ruling;

* After experiencing all of this, and realizing the George W. Bush Department of Justice was prosecuting innocent people for political reasons (see Siegelman, Don and Minor, Paul), I decide in June 2007 to write a blog about injustice in Alabama and beyond;

* Mrs. Schnauzer and I, damaged financially from our encounters with corrupt lawyers and judges, begin to receive calls from debt collectors. After several months go by, we realize these scuzzy outfits are violating the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) with impunity;

* On May 19, 2008, I am fired from my job as an editor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), in apparent retaliation for complaining about age discrimination and for writing a blog that someone considered politically sensitive. Recent discoveries indicate our problems with debt collectors might also have contributed to my unlawful termination at UAB, after 19 years of service.

* On September 25, 2009, Mrs. Schnauzer is fired from her job at Birmingham-based Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation, after almost three years of service. Her mysterious "firing" comes as our lawsuit against debt collectors is hitting a critical stage in discovery. It also comes as we learn that one of the law firms defending the debt collectors just happens to have extremely close ties to Infinity Property & Casualty.

This chronicle of crookedness involves only the stuff Mrs. Schnauzer and I have witnessed personally. It doesn't include the many other injustices we've written about on this blog, including the fact that we know of at least four people--Richard Scrushy, Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield--who are wrongfully imprisoned for "crimes" they did not commit. It doesn't include the fact that someone we know personally--former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman--will be heading back to prison for a "crime" he didn't commit unless the U.S. Supreme Court or the Obama administration intervenes.

Imagine how many times--and in how many ways--the U.S. Constitution has been trampled just in cases connected to our little SchnauzerWorld. And all of these wrongs have been committed by "officers of the court"--lawyers, judges, prosecutors, etc.--people who take our tax dollars in order to ensure that our justice system operates according to the law.

These aren't small-time crooks, committing crimes. These are people of power and privilege, desecrating the very foundation upon which our nation is built. And this all happened since the attacks of 9/11.

Does it sound like America was changed in some substantive, positive way by 9/11? Sure doesn't look like it to me.

Did the some 3,000 Americans who were killed on 9/11--and the many more who gave their lives in wars sparked by the terrorist attacks--essentially die in vain? Did they die so that people in authority could abuse their positions, all to serve some selfish, greed-filled, power-hungry, un-American agenda?

Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

Alabama's "King of Conflicts" Takes On Another Curious Case

Birmingham attorney Doug Jones once led Don Siegelman's defense team while also suing Siegelman's codefendant, former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

It seems Jones never met a conflict of interest he didn't like. What's the latest evidence? Jones now is involved in the John Goff criminal case, according to Bob Gambacurta of the Montgomery Independent.

Goff is the Montgomery insurance executive who sued Alabama Governor Bob Riley, seeking (among other things) information about Riley's campaign funds in the 2002 election. Goff wound up being prosecuted for a matter that already had been resolved in an administrative-law court. According to Scott Horton, of Harper's, Riley sicced Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Leura Canary on Goff in retaliation for the lawsuit.

So what's curious about Doug Jones' involvement in the Goff case? Well, Jones has an interesting partner in the ongoing civil case against Scrushy and others connected to HealthSouth. And that partner is Homewood attorney Rob Riley, the governor's son.

As we reported in an earlier post, Jones and Rob Riley joined forces to help rake in almost $28 million in fees for plaintiffs' attorneys in the HealthSouth lawsuit. And the case isn't over.

Jones is a Democrat, and Riley is a Republican. But they apparently have no problem crossing political boundaries when cold, hard cash is to be made. Could they also join forces when cover is needed for the governor's unsavory actions? Could that be why Jones is involved in the John Goff case?

Goff is seeking a new trial, based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and violations of his constitutional rights--and Doug Jones is leading that effort. But consider this curious passage from Gambacurta's story:

Gone from the appeal are Goff’s original defense team; also gone are the allegations of a political conspiracy, by Gov. Bob Riley and others including White House advisor Karl Rove, to destroy Goff and his once lucrative insurance business.

What is Doug Jones' legal strategy in the John Goff case? A big part of it seems to be: Keep Bob Riley and his associates out of it, at all costs.

Could Jones be doing that as a favor to Rob Riley, his new moneymaking partner? If the political-conspiracy issue is off the table, it appears that Bob Riley's role in abusing the U.S. Justice Department to go after John Goff will never be known. Is that what Doug Jones wants?

Those certainly seem like reasonable questions, from where we sit. It's also possible that Jones, and Goff, are simply taking a pragmatic approach. Perhaps they know that our justice system, in its current form, is hopelessly corrupt--and with Attorney General Eric Holder seemingly asleep at the switch--it isn't likely to get much better under the Barack Obama administration.

Maybe John Goff has decided, "The heck with Bob Riley. I've got to limit my damages and try to avoid prison time. And my best bet is to let Riley and his nasty bunch off the hook."

Either way, it's a sad situation. Try to grasp what the governor of Alabama allegedly did: He retaliated against someone who had sued him by encouraging the corrupt Bush Justice Department to bring a bogus prosecution for the ugliest of political reasons.

It's hard to imagine a more grotesque abuse of executive power than that. If proven, it's the kind of thing that should send Bob Riley to a federal prison for quite a spell.

But it's looking more and more like he will get away with it.

Is Doug Jones trying help Riley get away with it? Or is he taking a realistic approach that might be his client's best hope, given our twisted, befouled system?

I hope John Goff is asking himself those questions.

Alabama Football Booster Has Ties to Insurance Fraud

Paul W. Bryant Jr., the most prominent financial booster of the University of Alabama's football program, has connections to a massive insurance-fraud case that resulted in a 15-year prison sentence for a Pennsylvania man.

The revelations come less than a week after Alabama defeated the University of Texas to win the BCS national championship game in Pasadena, California.

Bryant, the son of Hall of Fame football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant and a member of the University of Alabama's board of trustees, is president of Greene Group Inc. One of his companies, Alabama Reassurance, was implicated in a $15-million fraud scheme involving a Philadelphia lawyer and entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart.

Stewart was convicted in December 1997 on 135 counts of racketeering, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. His conviction was upheld on appeal in 1999, and his motion to vacate the sentence was denied in 2001. Stewart forfeited about $17 million in 2003.

The Alabama connections to the Stewart case were so strong that a prosecutor named Michael Rasmussen and a forensic accountant named Thomas Gober, both in Birmingham at the time, worked the case. The lead prosecutor was Philadelphia U.S. Attorney Linda Dale Hoffa, who now works in the office of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA).

Sources tell Legal Schnauzer that, during the Stewart case, the U.S. Department of Justice was prepared to launch a heightened investigation of Alabama Reassurance. That determination, our sources say, came from Caryl Privett, then U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. By the time the Stewart case was over, however, Privett had stepped down and been replaced as U.S. attorney by Doug Jones--and the investigation into Alabama Re was called off.

Jones is a University of Alabama graduate, and our sources say he has done legal work for Paul W. Bryant Jr. Jones now is with the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter.

We can find no record of the mainstream press reporting on Paul Bryant Jr.'s connections to the Allen W. Stewart case. Documents showing the connections, however, are readily available on the Internet.

A 2001 memorandum opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lays out the scheme involving Stewart and Alabama Re, which involved counts 24 through 32 of the 135-count indictment. Footnote No. 11, which begins on page 16 of the opinion, addresses Alabama Re's role in the fraud:

11. The relevant portions of the charge read as follows:
Counts 24 through 32 charge a wire fraud scheme to deceive state insurance regulators involving reinsurance. The superseding indictment alleges that in late 1992 or early 1993 the defendant devised a scheme to deceive state regulators and others regarding the true and complete reinsurance arrangements involving Summit National Life Insurance Company, its subsidiary Fidelity General Life Insurance Company, and the Alabama Reassurance Company in order to inflate their financial statements.

The gist of the offense? Stewart worked with Alabama Re, Paul Bryant Jr.'s company, to deceive state regulators and inflate financial statements.

A 1997 civil case, styled Linda S. Kaiser v. Allen W. Stewart, provides more details about the arrangement with Alabama Re. At the heart of the case was a Stewart-owned company called Summit National Life Insurance Company (SNLIC). The Kaiser document states:

A fraudulent reinsurance agreement, disapproved by the California Department of Insurance, was nonetheless entered into between Summit and Alabama Reassurance. This transaction caused a false surplus of $15 million on SNLIC's balance sheet.

What was the end result of this financial skulduggery? The Kaiser document puts it in stark terms:

In a span of less than five years, the defendants, through various acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, systematically siphoned assets from and mismanaged the affairs of SNLIC and [Equitable], turning what were financially healthy insurance companies into companies with millions of dollars in deficits and leaving in their wake overburdened insurance guaranty funds and, most tragically, uncovered claims.

The bottom line in everyday terms? Allen W. Stewart, with the help of Alabama Reassurance, left policyholders holding the bag. Sounds a lot like Enron, WorldCom, and others, doesn't it?

Allen W. Stewart is paying a heavy price for his crimes. But what about those who run Alabama Re, including Paul W. Bryant Jr.? There is no sign that they have been held accountable in any way.

In fact, Bryant surely will be at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa on Saturday to celebrate the Crimson Tide's latest national championship. Stewart will be in decidedly less pleasant surroundings.

All of this leaves us with some intriguing questions:

* Is there a connection between Paul W. Bryant Jr.'s fraudulent business practices and the University of Alabama's success on the football field? Has Bryant invested ill-gotten funds into the Crimson Tide program? Does Bryant have an unusual ability to write large checks on short notice to help the Tide gain, and sustain, championship status?

* Who exactly called off the investigation of Alabama Re and why?

* Does someone with Paul W. Bryant Jr.'s history have any business helping to run the affairs of a major university? If Bryant conducts his personal business affairs in a fraudulent manner, what kind of influence is he having over a public institution?

We will be examine these questions, and others, in future posts.

Calling for an Investigation of GOP Corruption in Alabama

A progressive activist group is calling on the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress to investigate alleged corruption connected to Alabama Governor Bob Riley.

Restorejusticeatjustice.com says allegations of former Riley cabinet member Bill Johnson need to be fully investigated. Johnson, a Republican candidate for governor in 2010, says the Riley administration has been plagued by conflicts of interests and possible criminal activity.

Johnson's allegations have connections to disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. Since bringing his concerns to light, Johnson has received death threats--and the Republican Party executive committee in his home county is pushing for a resolution that would ban him from speaking as a GOP candidate.

What prompted Johnson to speak out? A Restore Justice press release states:

Last year, Johnson became aware of possible conflicts of interest on the part of the Governor involving the giving of favorable contracts to close relatives and accepting money from Indian tribes involved with gambling while opposing gambling efforts by other parties. As a cabinet member, Johnson was required under Alabama law to report any perceived or actual conflicts of interest. Having both a legal and moral obligation, he made the difficult decision to put aside all party affiliations and friendships and report these conflicts to the U.S. Attorney's office of the Northern District, Alabama, as well as the FBI. He also left the Governor’s office.

Johnson's allegations tie Riley to Abramoff and Mississippi Choctaw gambling funds:

Among the conflicts raised by Johnson are concerns that the millions of dollars received by the 2002 Riley Campaign for Governor from Mississippi Indian casino owners are shaping the Governor's position on gaming in Alabama and are the catalyst for Riley's 2008 launch of an anti-gambling task force. These types of "contributions" precipitated the Jack Abramoff scandal and are still under investigation by the Department of Justice and United States Congress.

Johnson's whistleblowing actions drew a hostile response from his own party:

In addition to the threatening letters to Johnson's home, a new threat against Johnson has emerged from the Alabama GOP itself in the form of a formal resolution banning him from speaking as a GOP gubernatorial candidate. The GOP resolution, which can be found at http://billjohnson.org/gop_resolution.asp, states that because Johnson raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest by a "hard-working and popular" Governor, Johnson should be banned from speaking as a GOP candidate. The resolution, sent to executive committees in all 67 Alabama counties, originated in Johnson's home county which is led by a hand-picked Riley supporter.

Restore Justice says a full investigation of GOP activities in Alabama is a critical step toward restoring the reputation of the U.S. justice system.

"This is not the first time that Bob Riley has been tied to corruption," said Restore Justice spokesperson and attorney Kevin Zeese. "His name keeps popping up for his involvement with Jack Abramoff, bags of cash payoffs from Indian casino interests, unethical political patronage, manipulation of his 2002 election, and the targeting of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Now he is trying to silence Bill Johnson, a close insider who witnessed first hand Bob Riley's corrupt activities. Johnson's allegations appear to indicate blatant criminal conduct and obstruction of justice in violation of federal statutes. Clearly, because of Alabama's sad history of corruption and political protection, we demand a high level criminal investigation authorized by the Attorney General."

Alabama Governor's Son Has Connections to Money Laundering

In explaining Alabama Governor Bob Riley's opposition to electronic bingo, press secretary Todd Stacy recently stated: "Governor Riley will not tolerate criminal activity from anyone--no matter how powerful or politically connected they may be."

If we'd read that with a mouthful of coffee, we would have spewed java clear across our kitchen. That's because Riley's own son, Homewood-based attorney Rob Riley, reportedly has ties to money laundering. Last time we checked, money laundering is a crime.

For good measure, our sources indicate that Daddy Riley, then a U.S. Congressman, helped steer sonny boy clear of federal investigators.

Bob Riley won't tolerate criminal activity? Hah!

How do we know about Rob Riley's ties to money laundering? They came to our attention last fall as we prepared a post about activities leading up to 60 Minutes' report on the Don Siegelman prosecution.

As the air date for the 60 Minutes piece drew near, it became clear that Alabama attorney and whistleblower Jill Simpson would play a major role in the story. Rob Riley apparently wanted to do an on-camera interview for 60 Minutes too, in an effort to counter Simpson's story that the Siegelman prosecution was orchestrated for political reasons by GOP operatives.

Riley, however, forgot a minor detail--Jill Simpson knows him, and his business dealings, all too well.

What happened next? Here's how we reported it:

Simpson worked up a list of questions that could be asked of Riley about two organizations: an Alabama-based company called Crimsonica and a Virginia-based company called Triad Management Services. The list of questions made their way to a key person at 60 Minutes, and when Riley learned about some of the questions that might be put to him, he suddenly decided that an on-camera interview wasn't such a good idea after all.

We already know about Rob Riley's ties to gambling, through Crimsonica. But what about Triad Management Services? That's where money laundering enters the picture.

A March 1998 article by James Youngclaus at opensecrets.org provides some intriguing information about Rob Riley. The title of the article is "All Politics is Legal: Soft Money, Issue Ads, Non-Profits May Nationalize '98 Local Elections."

What was Triad Management Services up to? Reports Open Secrets:

Triad Management Services--a conservative "consulting" group that was virtually unheard of until it surfaced last year in congressional investigations of the 1996 campaign--offers a vivid example of the new lawless campaign-spending era. Triad does not embody such headline-grabbing topics as foreign money, Buddhist temple fund-raising, and White House telephone solicitations, but it demonstrates how money in politics skates right to the edge of the law--and perhaps beyond.

The self-styled political financial management firm is headed by Oliver North's former campaign fund-raiser Carolyn Malenick. Funded primarily by secretive donors, Triad offers campaign analysis and spending advice to candidates and donors alike. In the last election cycle, Triad recommended social and fiscal conservative candidates to like-minded contributors, who then gave directly to the candidates or through PACs or provided support through "independent" advertising.

Individuals legally can contribute $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, but PACs can give $10,000. So Triad matched conservative donors with conservative PACs. A donor would contribute directly to a candidate, then give to a Triad recommended PAC which, in turn, would contribute to the same candidate. This "laundering" arrangement allows a donor to skirt campaign finance limits.

Who was in the middle of this cozy arrangement? Why, none other than Rob Riley. Reports Open Secrets:

Here's one example The Wall Street Journal highlighted: Robert Riley Jr. contributed $5,000 via five different PACs to his father, Robert Riley Sr., who was elected to Congress from Alabama's 3rd District. In each case, the PAC gave to Riley Sr. within a few days or weeks of receiving money from Riley, Jr. Triad claimed that the practice doesn't constitute money laundering because the PACs could not guarantee that money from donors would be used to support specific candidates.

Jill Simpson provided 60 Minutes with several questions that could be asked of Rob Riley about Triad Management Services. Riley apparently wanted no part of answering them. Here are a few of the questions:

3. You were accused in 1996 after the 1996 election of violating the FEC laws in that you donated over $2,000.00 to a candidate in an election cycle. Is that correct sir?

4. The Wall Street Journal accused you and proved that you contributed over $5,000.00 via five different PACs to your father's campaign during one election cycle and violated the FEC law. Is that correct Mr. Riley?

5. You tried to claim at the time to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Riley, that that practice did not constitute money laundering, did you not? In fact, you knew that was money laundering didn't you, Mr. Riley, and was a direct violation of the FEC laws?

6. You tried to claim that the PAC would not guarantee that the money would be used for a specific candidate but in fact all the money you donated was given to your father within a couple of days of you donating and you knew all along where the money was going didn't you Mr. Riley?

Then came a couple of questions that might have caused Rob Riley to soil himself. We'll have to leave that to readers' imaginations:

7. In fact, this laundering arrangement allowed you to violate campaign financial limits, did it not?

8. Further you would have been prosecuted if it had not been for your father and his GOP friend, Fred Thompson, stopping the investigation of this money laundering investigation, is that true?

Fred Thompson? Isn't that the guy who ran a desultory campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008? Wasn't his campaign so bad that some folks said it seemed Old Fred really didn't want the job? Maybe that's because Old Fred didn't want anyone asking questions about his history of helping to cover up money laundering.

Bob Riley won't tolerate criminal activity? Don't make us laugh.

While we're at it, let's examine the full list of questions about Triad Management Services that Jill Simpson supplied to 60 Minutes. This also includes the full opensecrets.gov article:

Simpson Triad

What's the Matter With Democrats?

Surveys consistently show that Americans agree more with Democrats than Republicans on major issues facing our country. And if it accomplished nothing else, the George W. Bush administration proved that Democrats can govern more effectively than Republicans.

So why do Democrats lose way more elections than they should? And why do those Democrats who do win struggle to consolidate their holds on political power?

David Michael Green, a professor of political science at Hofstra University and author of the blog The Regressive Antidote, provides a compelling answer: Democrats have forgotten how to be tough.

In a post titled "The Perils of Passivity," Green says he wants to laugh/cry every time he hears a right-winger portray Barack Obama, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi as a hard-nosed, scary type. Writes Green:

It’s really astonishing, because I can hardly think of three wimpier or more politically anemic drenched noodles than these Democratic buffoons, along with the rest of their pathetic pity party. And also because America actually has had some pretty tough progressives in its history. Harry Truman would eat Harry Reid for breakfast, and still be hungry again before lunch. Lyndon Johnson could teach Barack Obama a few (thousand) things about how to move a legislative agenda through a balky Congress, and it wouldn’t involve getting his ass kicked by Joe Lieberman, I can tell you that. Franklin Roosevelt would surely be able to school Nancy Pelosi on the fine points to national leadership.

When did Democrats become wimps, and what has it meant to our country? Green has some ideas:

Democrats have been playing the weakness game for nearly a half-century now, ever since Johnson was driven from office in 1968. That has meant very bad things for the country, which has now been all but completely captured by economic oligarchs, via their wholly-owned human levers in both parties.

What is more remarkable is what it has meant for the Democratic Party, which seems incapable of being assertive even when it comes to preserving its own interests. And what it has meant for the Democrats is more or less that they lose elections, except when the default governing party of the GOP screws up so badly that the public has no other choice than to go with the feeble ones for a while. Republicans then get a few years to rehabilitate themselves, during which time they incessantly shred the Dems from the sidelines, and then the cycle begins anew.

It boggles the mind that the Republican Party, in its current pathological form, remains a contender at all, Green writes:

It absolutely defies the imagination that the Republican Party hasn’t been sentenced to death by hanging, drawing and quartering after the crimes of the last decade. But no, remarkably, they are in the midst of an amazing revitalization now, courtesy of their aggressive deceits and the utter capitulation of the party nominally in charge.

Why have Democrats been incapacitated by weakness? Green provides some disturbing answers:

There are three things that Democrats absolutely don’t understand about the notion of assertive leadership. First, if you don’t do it, you won’t achieve anything. The American political system, as created by the Founders, is designed to produce utter stasis, the only exception being, well, exceptional moments. Second, no one will follow you, if you don’t lead. Leadership is crucial to substantive achievements, but it also has its own intrinsic rewards. People want to be led, and they want to believe in their leaders. Indeed, they will follow strong leaders, like Ronald Reagan for example, even when they disagree with their politics. On the other hand, if you project fecklessness, they will tend to despise you, sometimes even though they like your ideas.

Finally, if Democrats don’t lead, the aggressive ogres in the opposition who care not the least about the corrosive effects of deceit and destruction on the institutions of democracy will go ahead and define you to the country, and not in a pretty way either. Sound familiar?

The latest example, Green writes, came when the Obama administration was slow to react to news that a terrorist had tried to bring down an airliner headed for Detroit:

So what happened next? What else would happen in an American political system populated by vicious Republicans and pathetic Democrats? The GOP thugs came out swinging, attacking the Obama administration for being weak on national security. It reminds me precisely of what Bush did. No, I mean what his father did. No, I mean what Reagan did. No, it’s what Nixon did. No wait, wasn’t this McCarthy’s stock trick? Get it? This is not exactly cutting edge, newfangled politics in America, though you’d never know it watching Democrats deal with this stuff.

Led by former vice president Dick Cheney, wingers used the opportunity--and a slight vacuum--to fill the airwaves with all kinds of lies and distortions. And Green writes that, sadly, this toxic stew probably worked, with Democrats allowing it to happen:

The point of all this is that the radical right’s arguments about national security this week are entirely absurd, and that’s on a good day. Most of the rest of the time they are completely contradictory and utterly hypocritical.

But this kind of thing goes on all the time. Obama is labeled a big spender for trying to use Keynesian tactics to rescue the economy from the disaster bequeathed us by a regressive goon who doubled the size of the national debt in just eight years. Democrats are called socialists for adding 35 million instant coerced customers to private insurance rolls, rather than creating a public healthcare plan, like just about every other developed country in the world. Obama is supposedly weak on national defense, according to the folks who ran two wars against third world countries right out of the tenth century, and succeeded in getting nowhere almost a decade later, while the US military is spent and the national treasury depleted.

It’s unreal. But worst of all, this stuff actually gets traction. Loads of it. Tens of millions of Americans swallow it whole, and many more are added to the ranks every day.

These are the wages of wimpiness. These are the perils of passivity.