Body of Missing Alabama Lawyer Is Found On Golf Course

That headline might sound like something out of The Onion. But it is deadly serious, and it accurately describes what appears to be a classic whodunit in Alabama. Given that the lawyer in question was the son of one of our state's most renowned businessmen, the case figures to rivet the Birmingham area for months.

Ironically, the case has a roundabout connection to our Legal Schnauzer story.

Major Bashinsky, son of the late Sloan Y. Bashinsky, was reported missing on March 3 when he did not return home from work at his law practice, where he specialized in wills, estates, trusts and financial planning. Golfers noticed an object floating in a water hazard on Monday at the Highland Park Golf Course in Birmingham, and a call went out to law-enforcement officials. The object proved to be a body, and it was recovered and positively identified as Bashinsky.

In published reports today, officials say they do not know how Bashinsky died--and they have not ruled out suicide.

Sloan Bashinsky was CEO of Golden Enterprises, makers of Golden Flake potato chips and other snacks. The elder Bashinsky was known for his longtime association with University of Alabama football and the late Hall of Fame coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant.

The Bashinsky family name came up on this blog during our reporting about William Cobb "Chip" Hazelrig, a Birmingham businessman with interests in real estate, oil, gaming, and investments. We described Hazelrig as a "person of interest" in my unlawful termination at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) because of his financial ties to prominent Alabama Republicans--including Governor Bob Riley and first son Rob Riley--and a $5 million donation he gave for a new radiation-oncology facility at UAB.

Here is how we described Hazelrig's business and political affiliations:

Hazelrig remains a person of interest here at Legal Schnauzer. He gave a $5 million to UAB for construction of a new radiation oncology facility, and it's believed to be the largest individual donation in school history. Hazelrig has substantial business and political connections to Republican figures who almost certainly are not pleased to read the uncomfortable truths presented on this blog.

A $5 million gift will buy a lot of influence at most any university. And we know that Republicans in the Age of Rove have a proclivity for going after the jobs of people who cause them angst.

We also noted that Hazelrig's personal life had shown signs of spinning out of control. He has a horrific driving record, which includes some 20 traffic offenses and six suspensions of his license. In 2007, he was found guilty of DUI and speeding after being clocked driving 112 mph in a 55 zone on Highway 280.
Hazelrig's wife, Lynn S. Hazelrig, filed for divorce in 2005--and it figured to involve substantial assets. The case file was mysteriously sealed, and records indicate the parties worked out a divorce arrangement on their own.

One of Hazelrig's companies, W&H Investments, is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Sloan Bashinsky. Here is how we described the case:

The lawsuit, Estate of Sloan Bashinsky v. W&H Investments, involves heirs of one of Birmingham's most well-known business figures, Sloan Bashinsky. As CEO of Golden Enterprises, Bashinsky helped turn Golden Flake potato chips, and other assorted goodies, into snack-time favorites around the South.

Bashinsky died on August 2, 2005, and you can check out business filings related to his Last Will and Testament.

M. Owen Sims, John S. Stein, and John P. McElroy, all representatives of the Bashinsky Estate and Testamentary Trust, brought the lawsuit against W&H Investments, led by Hazelrig and his partner, Fred Wedell.

The case is complicated, and I am still examining the documents. But the main issue seems to be this: Bashinsky held interests in some 280-plus oil wells through a partnership involving W&H Investments, and the plaintiffs are seeking a proper accounting of those funds.

When I last checked the case file, it had become voluminous, appearing to include more than 100 documents. I saw no indication that Major Bashinsky was directly involved in the case, although it stands to reason that an estate/trust lawyer would have more than a passing interest in a lawsuit involving his father's estate.

From my inspection of the case file, I had the impression that the case was moving along, slowly, toward a normal resolution in such a dispute. I have no indication that anyone involved with the lawsuit was in any way connected to Major Bashinsky's disappearance and death.

I do suspect, however, that this will prove to be a criminal case. The possibility of suicide seems remote to me. Throwing yourself into a shallow body of water on a golf course? Seems to be an unlikely way for a 63-year-old man to commit suicide.

If it does prove to be a crime, I suspect its origins will be in the white-collar world of law and finance. Shortly after Bashinsky's disappearance, Golden Enterprises received a letter critical of the family for reaping millions of dollars in dividends at the expense of workers who manufacture Golden Flake snacks. The letter, apparently from a disgruntled employee, called the Bashinskys "vampires."

Our guess is that the letter is a hoax, an effort to turn suspicion toward middle-class folks who make potato chips and such for a living--and away from the big-dollar, white-collar world in which Major Bashinsky tended to move.

If it was a crime, it appears to have involved more than one person. It's hard to imagine how one person could place the body of a full-grown man in a shallow body of water, supposedly under the cover of darkness.

Did Major Bashinsky have an extremely disgruntled client? Had he crossed swords with an opposing party? Was he involved in a financial deal that went sour?

Alabamians will be paying attention.

Debt Collectors And The Lying Lawyers Who Defend Them

E-mails filed in federal court show that an Alabama attorney made false statements in motions designed to exclude evidence of wrongdoing by debt collectors.

Wayne Morse, of the Birmingham firm Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick, stated that my wife and I had failed to disclose or produce an audiotape of a conversation I had with a representative for Ingram & Associates about a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. Because of that, Morse claims, the audiotape must be excluded as evidence.

But Morse's own exhibits showed that we had disclosed the audiotape during the discovery process. And e-mails filed with court documents by our attorneys, Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, show that the audiotape in question actually was produced--sent directly to Morse. And there is no evidence that he failed to receive it.

We recently were deposed by Morse and saw no sign that he is mentally impaired. Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick is a fairly prominent Birmingham firm, and Morse probably charges in the neighborhood of $300 to $400 an hour for his services--so we see no sign that he is incompetent. We can only conclude that he intentionally tried to deceive the court--and cheat us.

That's the kind of act that can, and should, bring serious sanctions from a court. And the Alabama State Bar, if it has any teeth at all, should take a serious look at whether Wayne Morse deserves to have a bar card.

One of Morse's first deceitful acts was to state in his motion that we could not blame the failure to disclose on our attorneys because we brought the lawsuit while acting pro se. But Morse conveniently failed to mention that we retained the services of an attorney, Robert Kreitlein, who handled the early portion of the discovery process for us. And records show that Morse clearly knew this.

We since have parted ways with Kreitlein, with Cartwright and Armstrong taking over the case. But the record clearly shows that Kreitlein handled discovery matters for us in the early stages of the lawsuit, and contrary to what Morse hints, neither my wife nor I were involved in the exchange of information among attorneys.

The record now shows that Kreitlein, in fact, sent the auditotape in question (along with two other audiotapes) directly to Wayne Morse. This was done via e-mail on May 18, 2009. (See full e-mail below.) And yet, Morse waited until February 22, 2010 to proclaim that he had not received the audiotape--after having repeatedly questioned me about it in a deposition and never indicating that he didn't have it.

Consider this passage from an e-mail Kreitlein sent to Morse last May 18:

Wayne,

Attached are the first two audio files, the third will come separately. I thought they had already been sent to Ingram because I sent them at the same time to both Dayle for NCO and Angie Ingram but we did have lots of problems getting them to go through on email.

Let me know if you have trouble opening them. I can always burn them to a CD and just drop it by your office if this doesn't work.

The first audio file is the one Morse claims not to have. But the e-mail shows clearly that it is attached. (See below.) And there is no indication that Morse had trouble receiving or opening them.

Interestingly, Kreitlein states that he thought he had already sent the audiotapes to Morse's client, Angie Ingram, an attorney who indeed was representing herself in the early stages of discovery. The record indicates that both Ingram and Morse received the audiotapes--and some nine months later they claimed not to have them.

Are Morse and Ingram intentionally trying to deceive the court? Sure looks that way.

How's that for legal strategy? Receive a key piece of evidence, wait nine months, claim you don't have it, and argue that it therefore must be excluded. We can't wait to see what creative explanations Morse will come up with now that it's been proven that he's had the tape all along.

Why are Morse and his client, Angie Ingram, so desperate to keep the audiotape out of evidence? For one thing, it proves without question that Ingram & Associates, acting on behalf of Pennsylvania-based debt collector NCO, repeatedly violated the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act (FDCPA).

But we suspect something else might be at work here. It's interesting that Morse and Ingram only want to exclude the first tape, the one of my conversation with Ingram representative Tracy Mize. The other two tapes, of my conversations with Mize's supervisor Jann Blalock, don't seem to be of much concern to them.

Both Mize and Blalock committed mutliple violations of the FDCPA, along with various state-law torts. So why are the debt collectors so concerned about the Mize conversation, but not the one with Blalock?

We have some guesses about the reasons for that, and we'll be getting to those. For now, let's check out the Robert Kreitlein/Wayne Morse e-mail exchange, showing that Morse has had the audiotape in question all along.

Because of all the lawyer jokes floating around out there, we suspect that many Americans consider lawyers, in general, to be dishonest and untrustworthy individuals. These e-mails involving Wayne Morse, along with the subsequent fraudulent motions he filed, show there is good reason many citizens hold lawyers in low regard.

We like to think that Legal Schnauzer, with the help of the wondrous World Wide Web, is providing readers with a rare opportunity to witness lawyer dishonesty in pretty much real time. Wayne Morse's efforts to cheat us are not from a case that took place years ago and are just now coming to light. They are part of a case that is going on right now.

This is a classic illustration of how modern technology can help inform citizens on matters of major public concern. It shows that at least one prominent lawyer in Alabama, apparently as a matter of routine, files fraudulent documents in order to deceive a federal court and help his client get away with unlawful activity.

An article such as this would not have been possible 10 to 15 years ago. But it's possible now. And it shows the doo-doo that powerful elites can step in when they try to cheat regular folks nowadays:


Kreitlein e-mail1

In Praise of "Secular Praise"--and an Alabama Musical Treasure

Alabama has a rich cultural heritage, and one of our treasures--the Blind Boys of Alabama--will be inducted into the state Music Hall of Fame on March 25.

That honor happens to coincide with a duet the Blind Boys recently recorded with the bass player for one of our favorite bands, the Eagles.

Timothy B. Schmit is the least known member of the Eagles. Don Henley, Glenn Frey, and Joe Walsh all have enjoyed major success as solo artists, while Schmit's individual efforts have tended to fly under the radar.

Schmit is best known for singing the high-harmony parts that give the Eagles their distinctive sound--and for singing lead on ballads such as "I Can't Tell You Why," "Love Will Keep Us Alive," and "I Don't Want to Hear Any More."

Back in October, Schmit released a solo album called Expando, and to our untrained ears, it stands up well with any of the solo projects produced by members of the Eagles. (The title of the album, by the way, comes from the brand of mobile home Schmit's family lived in when he was growing up.)

Among the many highlights of Expando is a gospel-tinged number called "Secular Praise," featuring the Blind Boys of Alabama on backing vocals. It might be the finest solo piece Schmit has ever done and would have made an outstanding addition to the Eagles most recent mega-selling CD, Long Road Out of Eden.

You can listen to "Secular Praise" here. And you can listen to all of Expando here. It includes lots of good stuff.

Among the standouts are "One More Mile," featuring bluesy guitar from Keb Mo; "Parachute," featuring backing vocals from Graham Nash; and "Downtime," featuring backing vocals from Dwight Yoakam and Kid Rock.

"Friday Night" would fit on most any Eagles album, while "White Boy from Sacramento" offers a funky Tim Schmit as you've never heard him before.

Here is a video of Schmit working with the Blind Boys of Alabama on "Secular Praise."

Is Justice Department Still Targeting Blacks and Democrats in Alabama?

A curious story is unfolding in Birmingham, and it raises this disarming question: Is the U.S. Justice Department still targeting public officials who are Democrats, even under the Barack Obama administration? And are those public officials particularly vulnerable if they are black?

Those questions might seem preposterous. But we have to wonder after news broke last week that the FBI seized computer hard drives from the office of Alabama Rep. John Rogers (D-Birmingham), one of the most influential members in the state legislature. Rogers was first elected in 1982 and is chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus.

What's going on? Why is John Rogers, in his 28th year as a legislator, suddenly the target of what appears to be a criminal investigation? Many questions remain, but we wonder if the Rogers probe is connected to: (a) Karl Rove and redistricting; (b) Artur Davis and his run for governor of Alabama; (c) Governor Bob Riley and his crusade to stamp out electronic bingo; or (d) All of the above.

The hard drives were seized from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where Rogers serves as director of minority affairs. We find it curious that John Rogers suddenly is being treated as a criminal suspect in March 2010, roughly eight months before a pivotal national election. (The Birmingham News reported yesterday that Rogers and two other legislators were indicted 20-years ago on federal extortion charges; Rogers was acquitted. Other than that, we know of no other court cases that have called Rogers' actions into question.)

This all hits more than a little close to home for your humble correspondent. I worked at UAB for 19 years until I was unlawfully terminated in May 2008 amid vague allegations that I had used my work computer to write my personal blog. Statements made by my former supervisor at my grievance hearing indicate that my computer, and my desk, were searched thoroughly. A UAB human-resources representative told me--in a conversation that I tape recorded--that I was targeted because of my blog content about the Don Siegelman case. UAB's own information-technology expert testified at my grievance hearing that I had not written the first word of my blog on UAB equipment or time, but the administration upheld my termination anyway. I have filed an EEOC charge, which remains under investigation, and I will be filing a lawsuit against the University of Alabama Board of Trustees (and various folks acting in their individual capacities) within the next six weeks or so.

My experience is instructive because it indicates that UAB easily caves to pressure from the conservative political and corporate forces that run Alabama. That appears to be what is happening in the John Rogers case.

Here is what The Birmingham News reported last Wednesday:

Records related to programs that are overseen by Alabama state Rep. John W. Rogers Jr., at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, where Rogers works, were turned over to the FBI Monday.

Rogers confirmed that UAB received the request on Monday. Rogers said today that UAB technicians showed up at his office and pulled at least a dozen hard drives off his computers.

Does that sound a little Gestapo-like to you? It does to me. And I've seen how UAB henchmen (and women) act, in an up-close and personal way, when under pressure from our state's conservative elites.

Is John Rogers a crook, who somehow has been using his UAB position for personal gain? It's possible. But it seems mighty strange that this kind of investigation would pop up now, 28 years into his legislative career.

What could have sparked it? We have some theories:

* The Karl Rove Theory--Rove recently wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, noting the importance of state legislatures in the congressional redistricting process that will take place after the 2010 census. Why does this matter? Turd Blossom tells us:

To understand the broader political implications, consider that the GOP gained somewhere between 25 and 30 seats because of the redistricting that followed the 1990 census. Without those seats, Republicans would not have won the House in 1994.

Could John Rogers be seen as powerful enough to possibly thwart GOP plans in Alabama? That wouldn't be a problem, of course, if Rogers is under criminal investigation or forced from office by a federal indictment? It's unlikely that Rogers' district would go to a Republican, but perhaps a "centrist" Democrat could be found, one who would be easily manipulated by conservatives.

* The Artur Davis Theory--It has been widely reported that Davis is courting the support of business interests in his run for governor. That probably explains his recent decision to vote no on health-care reform, essentially stabbing his "friend," President Obama, in the back. Davis played a major role in Obama's choices for key justice positions in Alabama--U.S. attorney, federal judge, etc. Now the folks that Davis helped put in power appear to be going after John Rogers. Could Davis essentially be serving up Rogers' head on a platter in exchange for support from Alabama's corporate community?

* The Bob Riley Bingo Theory--Governor Bob Riley's crusade to eliminate electronic-bingo, apparently at the insistence of Mississippi gambling interests who supported his 2002 campaign, has been an embarrassment for Alabama--and to the state GOP. Is it possible that GOP henchmen figure Riley has damaged the party brand enough that it might cost them the governor's mansion in the November election? Numerous sources have told Legal Schnauzer that pro-gaming interests have unearthed some serious dirt on Riley and his associates, and it could come home to roost in the next eight to 12 months. Are GOPers concerned that such dirt could be strong enough to keep Riley's hand-picked successor, Bradley Byrne, from winning the governor's race? Under those conditions, is it possible that some Republicans might throw their support to Artur Davis for governor, on the condition that they receive help in taking over the legislature? Does Artur Davis care what that could mean for congressional redistricting--and the agenda of his "friend," President Obama? Probably not.

Interestingly, Rogers has been an outspoken proponent of gambling. Could the raid on his office simply be the latest warning shot from Riley toward pro-gambling forces--sort of a followup to his famed "don't get too close the families" threat?

We will watch the John Rogers story closely. But here is some ugly irony to ponder now. Karl Rove probably should be headed to federal prison for his role in Bush-era crimes. But Barack Obama' determination to "look forward, not backward" has let Rove off the hook and left him in power as a prime GOP strategist--one who already is plotting to help Republicans take back Congress in the not-too-distant future.

And what will happen if Republicans do take back Congress while Obama is in the White House? Our guess is that they promptly will launch the kind of investigations that hamstrung our last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. And we won't be surprised to see a number of Obama staff members wind up in federal prison--while Karl Rove goes merrily on his evil way, perhaps promoting another book about "courage" while he's at it.

The John Rogers case could be seen as the "canary in a coal mine" for Democrats. It probably indicates that Republicans know Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are weak--and the GOP intends to take advantage of it.

Will Democrats ever learn? Apparently not. Consider this hopelessly naive statement from John Rogers, as reported by The Birmingham News:

"I ain't done nothing wrong," Rogers said. "They can have all the records I have or UAB have and they won't find anything illegal."

Rep. Rogers, have you not been paying attention for the past eight years? Paul Minor and his codefendants in Mississippi did "nothing wrong" in Mississippi--and they are in federal prison at this moment. Don Siegelman and Richard Scrushy didn't do "anything illegal"--but Scrushy is in federal prison, and Siegelman might be headed back there.

John Rogers reminds me of the man in the classic poem First They Came--the man who sat silently by while "they came" for others. And when they finally came for him, there was no one left to speak up.

My guess is that John Rogers' legislative career is over, and if he doesn't resign his position, he probably is headed for prison--whether he's done anything illegal or not. I further guess that the Barack Obama administration will not do a damn thing about it. (Which raises these questions: Has there ever been a more ineffectual attorney general than Eric Holder in the history of the United States? Does the man even exist? It's as if the person we see on TV from time to time is an apparition--or a mannequin--someone incapable of taking substantive action.)

And finally, I guess that the majority of Democrats will not wake up and realize what has happened--until it's too late, and the GOP is back in charge, running our country into the ground once again.

Siegelman Shines Spotlight on Obama's Folly

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman knows the dangers of a dysfunctional justice department in a way that most Americans only can imagine.

So when Siegelman points out that the Barack Obama administration is acting irrationally on justice matters, citizens would be wise to pay attention.

Siegelman still is appealing unlawful convictions obtained against him under the George W. Bush DOJ, so he knows the harm that can come when federal prosecutors are allowed to run amok. Many progressives held high hopes for Obama on the justice front, but Siegelman says those hopes are far from realized.

As Exhibit A, Siegelman points to a recent announcement that the Obama DOJ is about to launch an indigent defense program. Siegelman sees disturbing irony in that.

"The U.S Department of Justice announced last month a new program to help poor people accused of crimes obtain a lawyer," Siegelman says. "Great Idea! But what difference will that make as long as the DOJ approves of their prosecutors framing innocent people?"

The Justice Department approves of prosecutors framing innocent people? Yes, indeed. Says Siegelman:

In January, lawyers for President Obama argued before the U.S.Supreme Court that we don't have a constitutional right not to be framed. Check it out: On January 5th, The LA Times reported in the case of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee and Harrington, “President Obama’s lawyers asserted there is no constitutional ‘right not to be framed . . . ’" In this case two men spent more than 25 years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit.

We have written before about the Pottawattamie County case. The Los Angeles Times reported that several justices were underwhelmed by the Obama DOJ's arguments. The Times' David G. Savage reported:

In the past, the high court had said prosecutors could not be sued for doing their jobs, even if they sometimes convicted the wrong defendant. And in November, an Obama administration lawyer argued on behalf of Pottawattamie County, asserting that there is no constitutional "right not to be framed."

But several justices said they found that argument appalling. They signaled they were not prepared to shield prosecutors who knowingly fabricated a case against a suspect.

What can happen when prosecutors know they cannot be held accountable? Siegelman answers that question in a poignant way:

On my 62nd birthday, February 24th, 2008, while I was in federal prison in the swamps of Louisiana, for something that The New York Times and 91 former state Attorneys General say is not a crime, CBS’ 60 Minutes did a 12 minute piece showing how prosecutors bargained with a “crook” to get him to write and rewrite his testimony until he got it the way the government wanted. Then government prosecutors (Karl Rove's best friend's wife who was and still is the U.S. Attorney in my case) presented false evidence to get a conviction.”

Siegelman recently passed his 64th birthday, and he still faces the possibility of returning to prison for committing a "crime" that doesn't exist under the law. He encourages those who are concerned about justice issues to revisit the 60 Minutes story about his case. You can check out the story here:

Did Ex-Alabama Governor Get a Raw Deal?

Perhaps the story will serve as a reminder of just how little progress has been made on justice issues under the Obama administration. Says Siegelman:

Today, two years later, even after John Conyers, Chairman of the U.S.House Judiciary Committee, has written letters to three U.S. Attorneys General (Gonzales, Mukasey and Eric Holder), there still has been no investigation of the government's misconduct in my case.

Is our first black president so busy "looking forward, not backward" that he simply does not care about gross violations of basic civil rights? Will our first black president, the man who seemingly embodies the work of Martin Luther King, continue to turn a blind eye toward injustice?

Will this, in so many words, be Barack Obama's legacy: "I saw injustice all around me . . . and I ignored it"?

Rove's New Book is Compared to a "Hoax"

Former Bush White House strategist Karl Rove has a new book coming out, and it is drawing a strong response from several quarters.

One of those quarters belongs to former ambassador Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson. The Wilsons contend that Rove played a central role in outing Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA officer, and they say Courage and Consequence is a poor attempt to rewrite history.

State the Wilsons:

Karl Rove’s book “Courage and Consequence” is less memoir than hoax. The chapters that relate to the CIA leak scandal are yet another attempt to deflect attention from his central role in the betrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA officer. His distortions and fabrications are consistent with his approach throughout this sordid and criminal affair. Wasting his opportunity to tell the truth, he offers absolutely nothing new, and his selective use of facts and quotes are a transparent effort to continue his long campaign to confuse people, unfortunately consistent with his past behavior.

The Wilsons also take Rove to task for his role in shaping Bush-era foreign policy:

His book is a pathetically weak defense of the disastrous policies pursued by the Bush administration, involving our country in a war of choice based on false intelligence and badly tarnishing the good name of the United States of America. Nothing in Karl Rove's book refutes those facts.

The Wilsons do say that Rove's book has some value--it says a lot about Rove as a "man." In short, the Wilsons say Rove knows nothing about "courage" and has faced virtually no "consequences" for his actions:

His book, however, is illuminating in further exposing his political methods, especially his reliance on personal insults, not simply towards Valerie and myself, but also towards all those who opposed his unprincipled behavior. If any additional proof to the irrefutable historical record were needed, Rove's book demonstrates once again the actions of a vindictive, angry and petty man. Karl Rove betrayed his nation; now he has betrayed history.

Debt Collectors Resort to Fraud In An Effort to Exclude Evidence

Lawyers for debt collectors have filed fraudulent documents in U.S. district court, seeking to unlawfully exclude evidence that points to multiple violations of federal law.

The motions probably amount to attempted fraud on the court and represent the latest action in a lawsuit my wife and I filed against Pennsylvania-based NCO and Birmingham-based law firm Ingram & Associates. The suit alleges multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and related state-law claims.

At issue are audiotapes I recorded of conversations with representatives for Ingram & Associates, who were working on behalf of NCO and attempting to collect a debt allegedly owed to American Express.

The audiotapes present indisputable evidence of FDCPA violations, but lawyers for the debt collectors now claim that I failed to produce one of the tapes during the discovery process. Because of that, the lawyers state in court documents, the tape must be excluded.

There is one problem with the debt collectors' argument. It is based on false information. And our lawyers responded with documents that prove the debt collectors knew their information was false.

Wayne Morse, an attorney representing Ingram & Associates, filed the original motion claiming that I had withheld evidence, and the tape in question must now be excluded. (See the full motion below.) Morse is with the Birmingham law firm of Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick. Lawyers representing NCO quickly filed notice that they were joining Morse's motion.

Why would I "withhold" a tape that helps conclusively prove our case against NCO and Ingram & Associates? Morse has no answer for that one. But he does make plenty of wild accusations, claiming:

* I failed to mention the first of three audiotapes in initial disclosures;

* I failed to produce the first of three audiotapes in the discovery process;

* I stated under oath in a deposition that only two audiotapes existed;

* I cannot blame the failure to disclose on my attorneys because I filed the lawsuit myself, acting pro se.

All of Morse's claims are false or grossly misleading. Here is how our attorneys, Darrell Cartwright and Allan Armstrong, responded in court documents. (See full reply below.)

Defendant Ingram makes great hay of his claim that the Shulers did not disclose a third audio recording to the Defendants. Defendant Ingram's exhibits to their motion to strike show exactly the opposite--in fact, a startling five (5) separate instances in Defendant Ingram's own exhibits hereto disclose the very audio recording he falsely claims was not disclosed.

Let us repeat: Ingram's own exhibits, prepared by Wayne Morse, show that his claims are false. How do we explain Morse's bizarre actions? Is he incompetent, mentally impaired, corrupt?

We will leave those questions hanging for now. But the bottom line is this:

* I did disclose the existence of three audiotapes;

* I did not fail to produce the first audiotape;

* I did not state under oath that only two audiotapes existed;

* And while I did initiate the lawsuit myself, I was represented by counsel during the discovery request--and he handled that aspect of the case.

More importantly, Ingram & Associates' claim that the first audiotape must now be excluded for any reason is not supported by fact or law.

We have discussed fraud on the court here at Legal Schnauzer before. And while I am not a lawyer, it appears that Wayne Morse's actions in this case come extremely close to fitting the description for fraud on the court. It's been clear for quite some time that NCO and Ingram & Associates have no defense for their actions in our case. So to what do they resort? Trying to pull a fast one on the court.

Time will tell whether they succeed. But this much is clear: Our lawyers have filed documents with the court showing that Ingram & Associates did, in fact, receive the first audiotape. And if they do not currently have that tape, it is their own fault--not mine.

For now, here is Ingram & Associates' motion claiming that I withheld evidence, followed by our response.


Ingram Motion Withholding Evidence



Shuler Response Withholding Evidence

Workplace Violence Strikes Another University Campus

Less than one month after fatal shootings at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), workplace violence has struck on another campus.

Nathaniel Brown, a custodian at Ohio State University, shot and killed his supervisor early Tuesday morning and wounded another boss before turning the gun on himself.

The Ohio State incident did not involve any students or faculty members. It comes after three people were killed and three others wounded at UAH on February 12. Neuroscientist Amy Bishop has been charged in that case, and news reports indicate that the university's denial of Bishop's bid for tenure played a role in sparking the shootings.

Brown, 50, was hired at Ohio State last October, and he recently had been informed that he would not be retained beyond his probationary period. Brown shot and killed Larry Wallington, his immediate supervisor, and wounded Henry Butler Jr., Wallington's boss, before killing himself.

The Columbus Dispatch reported that Brown recently had broken up with a female companion and faced possible foreclosure on his house. University records show that problems on the job started not long after he was hired:

Records released by the university show that Brown was hired as a custodian on Oct. 5. He was considered a probationary employee and was notified March 2 that he would not make probation.

"I regret to inform you that you are removed effective March 13," wrote David Simpson, a labor-relations manager for Ohio State.

Brown's evaluations in the past few months reflected an inability to follow instructions and a sometimes belligerent attitude when others pointed out his weaknesses.

Brown also apparently had not been truthful on his job application. Writes the Dispatch:

Records show Brown lied on his OSU job application by not disclosing that he spent five years in prison between 1979 and 1984 for receiving stolen property. He also said he had never been fired or asked to resign, though at least one former supervisor said he had planned to fire Brown in 2008 for issues similar to those reported by OSU supervisors. That supervisor, who had been listed as Brown's first reference, said he never received a call from OSU.

Brown reportedly had gotten along well with his original supervisor. But things changed when Wallington took over. Writes the Dispatch:

Tracey Gunter retired from OSU last year and was Brown's boss before Wallington.

Gunter said Brown had a learning disability that affected his short-term memory and made it difficult for him to remember from day to day how to operate the machinery they used for jobs such as waxing floors. He also had at least one conflict with Wallington before Gunter left.

"We sat down and talked about it, and Nate told me he didn't know how things were going to go with him and Larry when I left," Gunter said.

A Corporate Mindset Is Taking Over Higher Education

A small, public university in Alabama made a major decision last week, and it illustrates an alarming trend in higher education.

The University of Montevallo, which sits in Shelby County about 30 miles south of Birmingham, is a liberal-arts school with an enrollment of about 3,100 students. The school had been searching for a new president for several months and announced last week that it had two finalists: a woman with solid credentials in teaching and administration, and a man with a strong background in . . . fund-raising.

Guess who got the job.

John W. Stewart, vice president for institutional advancement at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida, is the new Montevallo president. The runnerup was Maravene Loescheke, president of Mansfield University in Pennsylvania.

Loescheke has extensive classroom experience and reportedly is highly regarded by students and faculty members. But my guess is that she never had a serious shot at the Montevallo job.

Stewart is credited with increasing total fund-raising from $1 million to $22 million in just two years at Flagler. (How do you do that, by the way? By robbing banks?)

When I read about the two finalists in the paper, I made a bold prediction to Mrs. Schnauzer. She can tell you that my batting average on predictions is only slightly above baseball's famed "Mendoza line," but I was confident about this one.

"If the fund-raising guy doesn't get the Montevallo job, I'll strip off my clothes and run naked through downtown Birmingham at high noon," I said.

"Whatever makes you happy," Mrs. Schnauzer said, without looking up from the daily listings for Home & Garden Television (HGTV).

Birmingham residents will be delighted to hear that I won't be running naked through downtown--at least not because of anything related to the University of Montevallo.

How was I so sure that this charming little Alabama school would go with the moneymaking "rainmaker" for president? Well, I spent 19 years working at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), which could be called exhibit A in the development of the "corporate university."

UAB was built by people like Dr. Joseph Volker, Dr. Tinsley Harrison, and Dr. S. Richardson Hill, who had an inspiring vision for a comprehensive urban university in a city that had been wracked by racial tension and backward thinking. Those leaders--along with many outstanding faculty members, researchers, and students--turned UAB into a stunning success story.

But in recent years, the school has been taken over by corporate hacks who have the vision of a bat and the ethics of a Bush-era CEO.

Now, I believe in the importance of development in higher education. I spent my time at UAB in various areas of what was called "institutional advancement." But when the fund-raising tail starts wagging the educational dog, ethics can be the big loser.

Just consider my personal story at UAB. I decided to write a blog, with my own time and resources, about a matter of significant public concern--the corruption of our justice system, in Alabama and beyond. Evidence suggests that the content of my blog hit too close to home for someone in our state's political hierarchy, so that person (or persons) pressured UAB President Carol Garrison to concoct a bogus reason to fire me--possibly applying some pressure to the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, for good measure.

UAB presidents like Joe Volcker or Dick Hill would have told such an interloper to, in so many words, "go to hell." Carol Garrison, however, has no spine and weak ethics--and she went along with it.

That's one mini example of what we might call the "Enronization" of higher education in America. And Carol Garrison is one of many "Ken Lays" running once proud institutions into the ground.

Is it a coincidence that UAB in recent years has been beset with fraud, extensive human-resources problems, layoffs, and the loss of numerous star faculty members? I don't think so.

The UAB administration, under Garrison, seems to go out of its way to hire deans who allegedly bring in money but have little discernible management skills. Consider Doreen Harper, the current dean of the School of Nursing at UAB. When longtime dean Rachel Booth retired several years ago, UAB had any number of excellent candidates for the job already in the school. But it decided to go all the way to the University of Massachusetts Worcester to hire Harper, reportedly because she was adept at bringing in grant money. What kind of human-relations skills does Harper have? Numerous sources have told Legal Schnauzer that interacting with Harper is like trying to have tea with a wolverine.

Or consider Robert Rich, dean of the School of Medicine. He was hired to much fanfare from Emory University, mainly because of his reputation for securing grant funds. A few months back, Rich quietly stepped down as dean amid multiple problems--research fraud, Medicare fraud, discrimination lawsuits, gross mistreatment of international medical graduates, and so on. Rich apparently couldn't be bothered with such problems because he was so busy looking for grants. I guess Rich stepped down in order to spend more time with his family.

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years at the University of Montevallo. My guess is that valued faculty members will become disenchanted and look elsewhere for work, longtime employees will be run off, the work environment will suffer, alumni support will shrink, and genuine learning for students will decline. Also, look for a rise in discrimination lawsuits--legitimate ones.

But hey, the new president can bring in big bags of money. And that apparently is all the Montevallo board of trustees really cares about.

My Favorite Lawyer

Regular readers could get the idea that I don't much care for lawyers. (How anyone could get that impression is beyond me.)

The truth, however, is a bit more complicated than that. While the villains in our Legal Schnauzer tale tend to be lawyers, the heroes also often are lawyers. Unfortunately, the villains greatly outnumber the heroes.

Perhaps that's why I have great admiration for some lawyers--the rare honest ones who actually live up to their profession's high ideals. It isn't easy to be ethical in a profession that has built-in incentives for unethical behavior.

While I admire the few noble lawyers that I've encountered in real life, my favorite lawyer is a different story altogether. That's because he isn't real--and maybe that says something about the legal profession.

My favorite lawyer is Theodore Buckland, Esq., better known as Ted, the in-house counsel at Sacred Heart Hospital in the brilliant TV comedy, Scrubs.

Ted is the hospital's resident "sad sack," a title he earns by regularly having pens explode in his shirt pocket. With his band "The Worthless Peons," Ted helps provide a musical backdrop for some of Scrubs' classic moments.

As for lawyering skills, Ted is a little lacking in that department. For example, Ted is not exactly the tough-guy intimidator that Chief of Staff Bob Kelso would like to have. When Kelso confronts Dr. Perry Cox about improperly placing a patient in a clinical trial, Ted fails to convey the serious nature of the charges:

Cox: I'm waiting.

Ted: Unfortunately, you've put us in somewhat of a legal bind.

Kelso: Way to go, Ted. You couldn't scare a child.

Ted: Who would want to?

One of my all-time favorite Scrubs moments comes when Dr. Chris Turk has been sued for medical malpractice because a surgical procedure he performed harmed a patient's tennis game--even though the patient was a terrible tennis player to begin with. The patient is represented by a testicle-eating female lawyer named Nina, played by Julianna Margulies of ER fame.

Nina: So, should we start this deposition or do you boys just want to hand us a big bag of money?

Patient: Huh, huh, huh . . . big bag of money.

Turk (whispering): You aren't going to freeze up around her again, are you Ted?

Ted: No chance, I'm drugged up. Plus, if I concentrate, I think I can control the excessive flop sweat I get the second she speaks."

God, I love Ted, and so does Mrs. Schnauzer. If the real legal profession included more people like him, the world would be a better place. Ted might be incompetent, but at least he's genuine and honest. And that's way more than I can say for many lawyers.

Here is a video of "Ted's Greatest Hits" from Scrubs. Enjoy.