Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, long has been one of our favorites here at Legal Schnauzer. She's smart, articulate, unapologetically progressive, and she's easy on the eyes.
My eternal flame for Katrina is OK on the home front because Mrs. Schnauzer likes her, too. "Whatever's the opposite of a man crush, that's what I've got on Katrina," the missus says.
Our collective Katrina crush has grown stronger since our gal recently had the guts to write the truth about Barack Obama--that he's on his way to a failed presidency. In our view, the vanden Heuvel piece is the most insightful analysis so far of the Obama administration:
The president has suggested unconvincingly that he'd prefer to be a successful one-term president than a two-term president who didn't get anything done. But there are other alternatives. If the president continues on his current course, we're looking at a failed one-term presidency that the nation cannot afford.
What should be Obama's No. 1 priority? He must help our nation overcome what vanden Heuvel correctly calls 30 years worth of "calamitous conservative misrule." Obama, sadly, simply does not seem to get it:
Forget about electoral mandates or campaign promises. This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance. This requires beginning to reverse the perverse tax policies that have contributed to gilded-age inequality and starved the government of resources needed for vital investments. This demands correcting destabilizing global imbalances, laying a new foundation for reviving American manufacturing and shackling financial speculation. It means ensuring the United States leads rather than lags in the green industrial revolution. And it requires unwinding the self-destructive military adventures abroad. The president must strengthen America's basic social contract in a global economy, not weaken it.
Is this an easy task? Absolutely not. But Obama must take it on or risk having a one-term presidency--and sending the country into further decline, led by the likes of John Boehner, Rand Paul, and (possibly) Sarah Palin:
Every entrenched corporate and financial interest stands in the way; it is easier to take a less confrontational path. President Bill Clinton, for example, found it convenient to join in the conservative project of corporately defined trade, financial deregulation and social welfare constriction. From NAFTA to the repeal of welfare and the failure of labor law reform, to deregulating derivatives and repealing Glass-Steagall, he got his agenda wrong. He was seduced far more by Wall Street's Robert Rubin than by Monica Lewinsky.
Now Obama faces the same challenge. This isn't about conventional politics. This is simply about the fate and future of our country. This president has a clear and imperative historic mandate. If he shirks it, he risks more than failing to get reelected. He risks a failed presidency.
Our gal Katrina does not even address Obama's greatest failing--his complete ineptness on matters of justice. On January 11, 2009, president-elect Obama stated that he was going to "look forward, not backwards" on the apparent crimes of the George W. Bush administration. In essence, Obama was telling the American people, "You are not above the law, but officials in the Bush administration do enjoy that status. I might have a background in constitutional law, but I'm not strong enough to actually stand up for the rule of law. Even though my most ardent supporters say in surveys that their No. 1 priority involves justice matters . . . well, I don't care what they think."
Since that moment, Obama has been on his way to a failed presidency, one marked by a few muted successes and a growing sense of weakness--topped off by a "shellacking" in the November midterms. All of that, we submit, could have been avoided if Obama had shown some courage on justice issues.
As for vanden Heuvel, want another reason to admire her? She has a spine, something Obama seems to lack. We recently discovered a video of vanden Heuvel taking Karl Rove apart on ABC's This Week. Even George Will seemed to sense that his doughy right-wing colleague had been sliced and diced. It's like watching Bambi shoot the hunter--although putting vanden Heuvel in the role of Bambi is not a good fit. We suspect she sprinkles the chopped-up testicles of conservative men on her morning cereal--and we need more progressives like that:
What stunts will some lawyers pull in order to gain an unfair advantage in the courtroom? From our experience, the bag of tricks is almost endlessly deep.
We've already reported about one Alabama attorney who, while a defendant in a federal lawsuit, is trying to represent another defendant in the same case. Never mind that both state and national ethics rules say that cannot be done. He's trying to do it anyway.
Now let's consider another common trick: the hiding of evidence. If you ever are genuinely wronged and file a lawsuit because of it, don't be surprised if the opposing lawyer tries his or her darnedest to hide evidence. Also, don't be surprised if certain judges, and maybe even your own lawyer, let them get away with it.
We've witnessed that kind of thing firsthand, in a lawsuit my wife and I filed against unethical debt collectors. In fact, I wrote about it in the following post:
We will return to that subject in future posts. But for now, let's focus on a lawyer named Lisa Huggins. She works in the Office of Counsel at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) and is defending the university in a lawsuit regarding my unlawful termination after 19 years on the job.
The lawsuit involves a number of counts, including age and gender discrimination, conspiracy, First Amendment violations, and state-law claims. Huggins is heading UAB's defense, and it's interesting to note that she used to work for the Birmingham firm of Haskell Slaughter, which we have mentioned in several posts. Founding partner Wyatt Haskell has strong ties to UAB and the University of Alabama System, and we have presented evidence that individuals at the firm might have played a role in my termination--or at least know who did.
Back when I still had a job, I used to run into Huggins fairly often in the UAB Administration Building. I didn't know her name at the time, but she was a familiar face, and we would chat occasionally in the hallways or on the elevators. She seemed like a pleasant enough person. But now that I am "plaintiff" and she is "defense counsel," I'm seeing a different side of Lisa Huggins.
As I reported earlier, I have evidence that shows Huggins signed off on my firing. In other words, she was involved in the decision-making process, and that means she almost certainly knows the real reasons I was fired and who was behind it. Assuming she has that knowledge, and a few functioning brain cells, she knows it was a royal cheat job. But like many lawyers I've encountered, Lisa Huggins doesn't seem to care much about matters of justice, basic right and wrong. In fact, I've seen signs that she doesn't care much about the actual law. She just wants to win her case, it seems. If my life is ruined, my wife's life is ruined, the law is butchered, the public is cheated, our court system is abused, well . . . tough.
Why do I say that UAB's lawyer seems to have little regard for the law? Well, we will examine that in a number of posts. But first, let's look at a little matter called "spoliation of evidence." That's a legal term that refers to the "intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding."
As plaintiffs often do in lawsuits, I sent a spoliation notice to the defendants, instructing them not to destroy or alter any potential evidence related to my case. The notice especially mentioned relevant university records and any electronic communications to and from the named defendants.
You can check out my spoliation notice, and based on my research, it's pretty standard for a modern legal case. Items such as e-mails, phone records, voice messages, and computer records are a critical part of many lawsuit these days, so a lawyer should not be surprised at the contents of my spoliation notice.
But UAB's lawyer did seem surprised by it. In fact, Huggins filed a document with the court styled "Defendant's Motion to Limit Spoliation Notice." (See the motion, and my response, at the end of this post.)
My guess is that most lawyers have never heard of such a motion. I've examined the files in quite a few lawsuits, including a number involving UAB, and never seen such a motion before. It's possible that I missed some, but I have a feeling Huggins' handiwork could almost be described as "unprecedented."
Keep in mind what a spoliation notice is and what it is not. It is not a matter of the plaintiff saying, "I am entitled to every item listed" or "I demand all this material right this minute." It's simply saying, "These items have potential evidentiary value in this case, so please make sure they are not destroyed or altered."
It's about making sure that potential evidence is preserved, whether the court deems that it must be produced eventually or not. Huggins, however, seems to be setting the stage for UAB to obstruct the flow of evidence in my case.
In her motion, she claims that my spoliation notice is "extremely overbroad," especially regarding the first three items listed. But those items could not be more simple, straightforward, or relevant. They ask for preservation of electronic communications involving the named individual UAB defendants and members of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, plus voice messages and phone records.
Huggins claims: "These preservation requests are not limited in any way to the plaintiff, his claims, or even plaintiff's department." She says my requests would be "unduly burdensome" on the defendant.
Notice, however, that Huggins is treating this as a discovery request. But that's not what it is; those issues should come later. This is a spoliation notice. It doesn't say, in so many words, "Turn all of this stuff over." It says, "Don't destroy this stuff, it might be important."
Huggins goes on to make a curious claim: "For that matter, some of what is requested is not available to the defendant and would be impossible to preserve."
E-mails, phone records, voice messages, and computer records are impossible to preserve? I'm not an IT expert, but I worked at UAB for 19 years, and I know the place has whole buildings devoted to the processing and storage of electronic communications. I find it hard to believe that, in the cyber age, UAB does not have the capacity to preserve such information--at least going back in the relevant time frame, two to four years.
Makes me wonder if some of this material already has "disappeared." If the judge in the case is honest--always a huge if--UAB should pay the consequences if relevant evidence is missing. The whole point of a spoliation notice is to set the foundation for holding a party accountable when it can't seem to come up with certain evidence.
UAB, it appears, does not want to turn over any information about employees outside my department. But my termination was a universitywide decision, upheld by the director of human resources and the president--against the recommendation of their own grievance committee. Discrimination cases, by definition, involve "comparators"--others in the same workplace who faced similar issues but were treated differently from the plaintiff. The treatment of other UAB employees is central to my case, but the university already appears to be stonewalling on such information.
In essence, Huggins motion is asking the court, "Please let us go ahead and destroy certain evidence that might be connected to the Shuler case. He shouldn't need it, even though the law says he's entitled to it."
Why is Huggins concerned about such issues, especially so early in the case? It makes me think she knows there is an electronic "paper trail" that explains exactly who was driving my termination train--and why they were driving it. My guess is that the e-paper trail leads to some interesting places outside the UAB campus, probably to some sectors of the legal and government communities--sectors inhabited by people that Huggins and the university want to protect.
Below, you can check out Huggins' Motion to Limit Spoliation Notice. After that, is my response to it.
A North Carolina company that recently issued a $380-million IPO on Wall Street faces charges of sex and race discrimination from three former or current employees.
Campus Crest Communities, which develops student housing near college campuses, is charged in Charlotte federal court with creating a work environment that is hostile to women and African-Americans. Two plaintiffs in the lawsuits, Nicole McAuliffe and Heather McCormack, say they were terminated after complaining of a sexually hostile work environment at Campus Crest. A third plaintiff, Tammy Hughes-Brown, says she has faced discrimination because she is an African-American.
The story has a strong Alabama component. Ted Rollins, CEO of Campus Crest Communities, is a central figure in an Alabama divorce case that appears to involve rampant irregularities. Sherry Carroll Rollins had sued Ted Rollins for divorce in South Carolina. But contrary to black-letter law, he managed to sue her in Alabama, where she and the couple's two daughters had moved after being forced from their home in Greenville.
As we've reported here at Legal Schnauzer, Ted Rollins appears to have benefited from his connections to Bradley Arant Boult and Cummings, one of Alabama's largest and most conservative law firms. The Birmingham-based firm is defending Campus Crest Communities in the discrimination cases.
Nicole McAuliffe was hired as an area manager at Campus Crest's Charlotte headquarters in October 2008. She was paid a salary of $82,500, with a bonus potential of $50,000. But she quickly discovered that the workplace was hostile and demeaning toward women, driven largely by Chief Operating Officer Brian Sharpe. McAuliffe's complaint states:
Sharpe, on a frequent and/or daily basis, used the term “fuck” and “fucking,” in his verbal communications in the workplace. Sharpe further referred to women in the office as “cunts,” “bitches” and “whores” and referred to Defendant’s marketing team as the “whore’s den.” On more than one occasion, Sharpe, in the presence of Plaintiff and others, referred to Shannon King as a “cunt.” On another occasion, while on the corporate jet with Sharpe and others, Sharpe made derogatory and misogynistic remarks about Heather McCormack, Defendant’s Vice-President of Administrative Operations, calling her a “fucking bitch” and threatening to “rip her fucking head off.”
Shannon King, who had been executive vice president and chief marketing officer, resigned from Campus Crest in October. McAuliffe's complaint provides insight into why King and other women might have been uncomfortable at Campus Crest:
Also, Sharpe, in Plaintiff’s presence, complained about a race discrimination complaint made by another female employee of Defendant and stated he “couldn’t believe she had fucking done this [made a complaint]” and that “if our employees don’t want to work they should fucking get out.” On yet another occasion, Plaintiff heard Sharpe shout sex-based obscenities at McCormack and observed that Sharpe had become so angry and agitated that he popped a blood vessel in his eye.
According to the complaint, Rollins and Chief Investment Officer Mike Hartnett tolerated Sharpe's behavior. In some instances, Rollins contributed to the hostile work environment:
Further, Plaintiff heard Ted Rollins frequently yell at Heather McCormack to “go get the fucking money.” On yet other occasions, Rollins insisted that all attractive female applicants for employment be introduced to Brian Sharpe; alternatively, if Rollins saw an attractive applicant for employment in the office, he would bring Sharpe in to meet her.
McAuliffe says the company practiced blatant discrimination against people of color--and for that matter, older people. She and other staff members were directed to hire predominantly young, white women to available positions at the company's various residential rental properties:
For instance, Shannon King stated in the presence of Plaintiff and others that “we have Southern investors; they do not like for us to hire blacks.” On another occasion, Yvette St. Pierre, at that time Defendant’s Vice-President of Leasing, stated in Plaintiff’s presence that “once you hire an African American, you never can get rid of them because they think they are so entitled.” Further, Sharpe made frequent racial remarks, even referring to a section of the corporate office where several African American administrative staff worked as the “hood.”
How far would Campus Crest go to make sure it hired mostly young, white employees?
Plaintiff was directed to provide her superiors with photographs taken from the FaceBook or MySpace pages of all applicants she recommended for employment to ensure that the individual applicant was not an African American or was too old. On one occasion a white male applicant who was a candidate for employment for a general managerial position of one of Defendant’s residential properties was flown to Defendant’s Charlotte corporate headquarters to determine his race because Shannon King, Julie Yow, and Yvette St. Pierre believed he had an African-American-sounding first name and they wanted to verify his race. In fact, after Plaintiff conducted this individual’s phone interview, Yow asked Plaintiff whether he “sounded Black.”
Investors have showered Campus Crest Communities with funds for future development. But what is the company really like. The complaints from McAuliffe and others paint an ugly picture. It gets ugly from an administrative, financial, and ethical perspective, too. We will be covering those angles in future posts.
The Nicole McAuliffe complaint is below. It originally was filed in state court but has been moved to federal court.
Believe it or not, I used to wonder why people got such a kick out of lawyer jokes. It's not that I didn't think the jokes were funny. But I couldn't help noticing the underlying nastiness and wonder, "Gee, why do people hate lawyers so much?"
This was some 20 years ago, long before I'd ever encountered a lawyer in a legal setting. For the past 10 years or so, my wife and I have lived under a legal cloud that, had lawyers and judges performed their duties lawfully, would have dissolved in about eight months.
The fallout from that experience continues, and I've come to fully understand why Americans hate lawyers. In fact, I now find myself thinking, "It's amazing we don't read more stories with headlines like, 'Lawyer's Carcass Found Floating in River, Former Clients Celebrate.'"
As a public service, we are starting a series of posts that will provide insight on why lawyers are among the most despised creatures in our society--ranking somewhere below debt collectors and barely above cockroaches. These posts will draw on personal experiences, supported by documents from our various legal entanglements.
Our goal is to show you how real lawyers think and behave. We will present evidence, straight from the legal front line, of lawyers acting unethically, perhaps unlawfully, and with little regard for justice or simple matters of right and wrong. In short, we will show you lawyers who seem to act without a functioning conscience.
We certainly do not think all lawyers are awful people. We actually know some who are honorable. In fact, such lawyers--Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Wes Teel--have been central characters in many of our posts, as victims of bad apples in their own profession. Some noble lawyers--Jill Simpson, Scott Horton, Andrew Kreig--have been consistent sources of insight and inspiration for this blog.
I was not predisposed to dislike lawyers. Heck, my youngest brother is a lawyer--in a state other than Alabama--and I've always thought of him as an upstanding guy.
But the experiences my wife and I have had with lawyers in the court setting--those on the opposing side and those supposedly working for us--have been uniformly dreadful. And to talk with lawyers about the details of a potential case is one of life's most nauseating experiences. I would rather have a prostatectomy without anesthesia--performed by the Village People (to borrow a line from the late, great Johnny Carson)--than have to go through that again. That might explain why I'm now representing myself, acting pro se as they say in the legal world.
After several discussions with lawyers about various legal issues, I can remember telling Mrs. Schnauzer, "That was the worst one yet, the most deceitful and oily lawyer ever." Invariably, someone comes along to top him or her.
"Every time I talk to a lawyer about our case, I feel a part of my soul dying," I once told the missus.
"Well then, don't talk to any more of them," she said. That was good advice, and I've taken it to heart.
But I want to share some of our experiences, so Legal Schnauzer readers might know what to expect should they ever find themselves in close proximity, in an official sense, with "counsel."
I can think of no better way to start a series of posts about lawyer horror stories than with our old friend William E. Swatek. He puts sleaze in the word sleazeball, dirt in the word dirtbag, scum in the word scumsucker . . . well, you get the idea.
Swatek, more than any other single individual, is responsible for our legal headaches. He represented Mike McGarity, our criminally inclined neighbor, and filed a lawsuit against me for malicious prosecution and conversion that would have needed to improve to reach the bogus level. It all started because McGarity, after multiple verbal and written warnings, simply would not respect our property rights and stay off our yard. Swatek could have solved the whole problem by telling the dunderhead who lives next to us, "You know, Mike, you might not realize this, but the Shulers have an almost absolute right to keep you, your kids, your guests, and most anyone else off their property. It's not real complicated. You have the same right. They can welcome people they like, but if they don't like you--and they apparently don't--they can keep you off their property. The fact you live next door gives you pretty much zero rights regarding their property. That's just the way it is. It's part of what we call private-property rights, something we've had in America for several years now. Maybe you've heard of it.
"If you would make it clear that you intend to respect the Shulers' property rights, I suspect we can resolve this issue without the need for courtroom intervention and with very little expense."
Swatek didn't do that. Instead, he filed a baseless lawsuit against me for malicious prosecution, even though his client admitted in a criminal-trespass case that he had indeed trespassed on our property. We've got the court transcript to prove it, but Swatek didn't bother checking that before suing me.
How bad is Swatek? He's been disciplined by the Alabama State Bar three times, and one of those included five complaints rolled into one. He's had his license suspended for acts of "fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and dishonesty." He was tried for perjury in criminal court in the early 1980s, and public documents show he unquestionably was guilty--which raises the question, "How in the hell did he get off?'
Here's a bigger question: How does this guy still have a bar card? A doctor with Swatek's history would have been booted out of the profession 30 years ago.
Swatek is so bad that Mrs. Schnauzer and I have developed new verbs and adjectives in his "honor." Consider this scenario:
Driver No. 1: Have you ever taken your car to Willie's garage?
Driver No. 2: Oh God, yes, and he's the worst mechanic on the planet.
Driver No. 1: How so?
Driver No. 2: He wouldn't know a carburetor from a brake drum. He's lazy and takes forever on your car. He won't tell you what's going on. He gives low-ball quotes and then sticks you with big bills as you're about to walk out the door. And he flat-out cheats you. I took our car in for a simple oil change, and got home to find the same dirty oil in place. When I took the car back in, Willie refused to do anything about it.
Driver No. 1: Wow, he sounds positively Swatekian.
Driver No. 2: You said it, brother.
Or consider this scenario. It's inspired by Dr. Perry Cox, one of our favorite characters on Scrubs. Upon encountering a nauseating scene, Dr. Cox coined the term "ga-vomiting," a combination of gagging and vomiting. Mrs. Schnauzer and I have developed a term to describe a combination of retching and puking. Here's how it can be used:
Diner No. 1: Man, I think there might have been something wrong with those hamburgers we just ate. It feels like I swallowed Mary Lou Retton, and she's doing back flips in my stomach.
Diner No. 2: Oh God, look at the health rating on the wall over there. They got a score of 13. It says: Warning, this establishment has been known to serve spoiled meat.
Diner No. 1: Where's the bathroom? I need to hang my head over a commode and Swatek.
Diner No. 2: It's over there. I'm right behind you, dude.
What's the latest stunt Swatek has pulled? Well, it comes in the ongoing lawsuit I have against him, McGarity, Shelby County Sheriff Chris Curry and others responsible for the unlawful "auction" of our house in May 2008.
Both Swatek and McGarity are defendants in the case, but Swatek lists himself as McGarity's lawyer. There's a slight problem with that--it can't be done, under the law.
Why is it problem? Here is a fairly straightforward explanation from a document I have filed in the case:
4. Rule 3.7 of the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct states: A lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness.”
5. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct include the same rule.
6. None of the exceptions listed by the Alabama and ABA rules apply in this case.
7. The comment to ABA Rule 3.7 states:
“Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client. . . . The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party’s rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or an analysis of the proof.”
Not only is Swatek a likely witness in this case, he is the lead named defendant. That means he is a dead-solid cinch witness, and he can't possibly represent another defendant in the same case.
I'm not a lawyer, as regular readers know, so I don't pretend to be an expert on such matters. But I can read simple declarative sentences, and it's hard to see how Swatek could lawfully represent McGarity in this case. I suspect most semi-competent lawyers would guffaw at the notion of anyone trying to pull such a stunt.
But Swatek is trying to pull it. As of now, he remains McGarity's attorney of record.
Why is Swatek doing this? I have some theories about that. I suspect he wants no part of McGarity testifying under oath without him there to stonewall about what really happened in the bogus lawsuit he filed against me--and the resulting unlawful auction of our house.
So there you have it, our first post that helps explain why we hate lawyers--and why you should, too.
We have many more to come. First, here is a Motion to Disqualify Attorney, with a full explanation of the issues involved with Swatek's curious stunt.
Jack T. Camp recently pleaded guilty to federal drug charges related to his relationship with a stripper and resigned as a U.S. district judge in Atlanta. The Camp investigation produced evidence that indicates he was not an impartial arbiter on the bench, according to an article in the Newnan (GA) Times-Herald.
It appeared the Camp matter would end with his sentencing on March 4. But U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said the U.S. Public Integrity Section is examining evidence that parties might not have received lawful treatment in Camp's courtroom. Camp has ties to Alabama, where he served as special judge in the high-profile case of Mobile outdoorsman Edmund H. "Eddie" Smith.
Reports the Times-Herald:
The disclosure regarding the investigation into whether or not Camp's judicial decisions were affected by his use of drugs or alcohol says, in part, "While Camp's use of these drugs was not limited to weekends, he denies that he used any of these drugs contemporaneously with any court business, and we are currently unaware of any demonstrable evidence to the contrary. We have not discovered evidence of illegal drug use prior to May 2010."
Perhaps more substantive are signs that racial animus played a role in Camp's judicial actions:
Yates' statement regarding the question of bias begins by saying, "Witness 1, (the dancer) who became acquainted with and developed a personal relationship with Camp in approximately May of 2010 stated that Camp disliked a particular individual ("Individual A"), who was African-American and who also had a personal relationship with Witness 1."
According to Witness 1, Camp told her that when African-American men appeared before him, he had a difficult time adjudicating their cases and specifically determining their sentences because he could not differentiate them from Individual A in light of his feelings about Individual A, according to Yates' statement. Witness 1 also stated that she had recorded this conversation but was unable to find the recording.
Favoritism, in various forms, apparently was a common feature of Camp's decision-making:
Another case involves allegations that Camp said a female defendant reminded him of Witness 1 (the exotic dancer) so "he gave her a 12-month sentence instead of the suggested 60-month sentence."
The report goes on to say, "We identified a case during this period where Camp sentenced a white female defendant to a 15-month prison term instead of the 30-37 months recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. There is also evidence that confirms that Camp consulted with Witness 1 (the exotic dancer) during the relevant period regarding the sentences that he imposed."
Camp reportedly denied making decisions based on racial bias, but the U.S. attorney does not sound convinced:
Yates concludes by saying, "Our only interest in any case that we have prosecuted before Camp is ensuring that justice is served. To that end, given these disturbing facts and allegations, this office will evaluate any criminal case adjudicated by Camp for impairment or bias that a defendant requests that we review. Furthermore, from May of 2010 forward, there is evidence that Camp's judicial decision-making process may have been impacted by bias and/or impairment and it has been established that he was involved in criminal conduct during this period. Therefore, we will not object to a defendant's request for a resentencing in any case in which the defendant was sentenced during this time."
We have some quibbles with this statement from Yates. Why should any reviews be limited to matters regarding sentencing? What if Camp, in his biased and drug-addled state, made decisions that caused an innocent person to be convicted? And why is the DOJ going to wait for defendant requests before considering reviews? How about a thorough review of all cases, from top to bottom, in which Camp has been in charge--at least those in the past three or four years?
Also, the reviews should not be limited to criminal matters. How many parties in civil cases might have been cheated before Camp? My guess? A whole bunch of them.
Some of that corroboration may come from Ramos' former landlord, who told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an interview in November that the judge had bullied her in a dispute over the lease but said the judge sounded surprised and angry when she told him that Ramos, who is white, was living with a black man.
Katrina Hardy, who rented her Union City condo to Camp’s girlfriend, said she was considering legal action against Ramos when she got a call from Camp, telling her he was a judge and she should back off. Hardy said his tone changed when she told the judge about his girlfriend’s living arrangement.
“I said, ‘You know she’s living with a black man,"’ Hardy recalled. “And he said, “What!”
Yates said there was evidence the judge consulted Ramos about sentences he was going to impose.
As ugly as the Camp story is, we doubt that it is all that unusual. We suspect there are numerous judges around the country, at both the state and federal levels, who are dysfunctional and downright dangerous. Like Camp, these bad actors know they answer to pretty much no one, and that makes them stunningly arrogant.
Jack Camp is not a lone bad apple. Others like him just have not been caught yet.
Most universities have honor codes that govern academic-integrity issues. Some require students to take courses in ethics.
So you might think that university officials would have no problem speaking honestly to the public. But you would be wrong, especially if you are talking about any of the three campuses in the University of Alabama System.
It all stems from last week's Iron Bowl game between Alabama and arch-rival Auburn, won by Auburn in a stirring comeback, 28-27. Going into the game, the state was aflutter with news about star Auburn quarterback Cam Newton and the possibility that Newton's father, a minister, had sought major dollars from schools hoping to sign his multi-talented son.
When Auburn took the field for pre-game warmups at Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa, the PA system featured some curious song selections. One was the Steve Miller Band classic, "Take the Money and Run." Another was "Son of a Preacher Man," which has been covered by numerous artists, perhaps most famously by Dusty Springfield. The references to the Cam Newton story were none too subtle.
A reporter wrote about the taunting songs, and Alabama officials reacted with righteous indignation. An unnamed part-time employee was solely responsible, university spokesperson Deborah Lane said in a statement, and he had been summarily fired. No one in UA officialdom was involved in the tasteless prank. Reported Kevin Scarbinsky, of The Birmingham News:
"Our processes require that all music and videos played in the stadium prior to and during every game be carefully scripted and approved by a senior administrator in the athletics department," Alabama public relations director Deborah Lane said in a statement.
"The former staff member deviated from the script that had been approved for the game with Auburn, and the university took steps to immediately terminate his contract."
Lane then really laid it on thick:
“The University of Alabama takes great pride in our football team's long-standing tradition of playing the game with dignity and class, and showing respect for players and coaches of opposing teams. We are disappointed when the actions of any staff member undermined our deeply held values and expectations.”
Those are high-minded words from Ms. Lane. But there is one problem--they aren't true.
According to a report in The Tuscaloosa News, at least two full-time UA staffers OK'd the pre-game music script. In fact, one was in the control booth when the songs were played.
Jason Adlman, a 2008 UA graduate who works as an area disc jockey, was identified as the fired part-timer. But he hardly acted alone. Reports the Tuscaloosa newspaper:
Justin Brant, director of Crimson Tide Productions, which oversees elements of game-day presentation at University of Alabama football games, participated in selecting the songs — “Son of a Preacher Man” and “Take the Money and Run” — and was in the control room while they were played, The Tuscaloosa News has learned.
Two people involved in UA's investigation of the incident said Brant, who was hired in July, gave approval for the songs to be played.
“I don't really want to comment on that,” Brant said when reached by telephone at his UA office. “Nothing to say.”
Yeah, I bet he didn't want to comment on that. Neither, apparently, do others connected to the "Serenade Charade" in Tuscaloosa:
Brant's supervisor, Milton Overton, did not respond to messages. Overton, the senior associate athletics director for technology advancement, has final approval of songs to be played at UA football games. The songs were not part of the approved script for the game, according to UA.
And it doesn't end there:
Another UA employee, Amy Eifler, manager of the Production House at the Center for Public Television and Radio, was also involved and worked with Brant to plan the playing of the songs before the game, according to two people involved in UA's investigation of the event. Eifler could not be reached for comment.
Did the spokesperson, Ms. Lane, want to add to her earlier bogus statement? Not exactly:
Alabama responded Tuesday night to questions about Brant's involvement with a brief e-mail from Lane: “We have no further comment.”
This all hits close to home for your humble blogger. Dale Turnbough, who signed my termination letter, used to be a PR type at the Tuscaloosa campus before she got divorced and apparently wanted to "get out of Dodge," landing safely thanks to her UA System friends at a cushy job in Birmingham (where, by the way, she's gotten divorced again.)
Dale Turnbough seems to have an estranged relationship with both husbands and the truth. In the early stages of the lawsuit regarding my termination, I've received affidavits from a number of current and former UAB officials, including Turnbough. Several of these folks made statements, under oath, that are real whoppers. We will be discussing those in future posts.
Gary Mans, who used to work under Turnbough and since has bailed out for the University of Louisville, is an example of the kind of PR types the UA System hires. When The Chronicle of Higher Educationwrote about my unlawful termination, which was broken in a piece by Raw Story, Mans posted the following comment on the Chronicle Web site:
President Garrison asked that I respond to you. Contrary to Mr. Shuler's statements, his termination had nothing to do with politics or any conspiracy, and the university has not been contacted by any public official or representative of such about this matter. Mr. Shuler was dismissed based solely on his work performance. Because this is a personnel matter, we cannot comment further.
Gary Mans, Director
UAB Public Relations
How false, and defamatory, was this statement? It came after UAB's own grievance committee, following an almost four-hour hearing, determined that I should not have been terminated at all. It came after my former supervisor, Pam Powell, was asked repeatedly in that hearing to present any documents she had that supported her claim that my job performance merited termination. She repeatedly said she had no such documents--no oral warnings, no written warnings, nothing that is required by university policy.
In other words, UAB's own official records showed there was no problem with my work performance under university policy. But Gary Mans falsely stated to a national and international audience that I was terminated for performance reasons.
Thinking about university spokespersons reminds me of an old joke about lawyers: How do you know a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.
Apparently not content to see its own justice system befouled, the U.S. government has tried to corrupt courts in other countries.
That is one of many nauseating lessons from the recent WikiLeaks dump of cables from the U.S. State Department. U.S. officials, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, have tried to corruptly influence the outcomes of three criminal matters pending in Spain's national security court, according to a new article from Scott Horton, at Harper's.
The cases involve the death of a Spanish cameraman from the U.S. shelling of a Baghdad hotel, the torture of Spanish subjects at Guantanomo, and the use of Spanish airfields and bases for extraordinary-renditions flights.
Do U.S. officials want these cases handled in the manner required by our own constitution, which involves due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? Not at all. In fact, it appears the U.S. wants the cases to get the kind of treatment they might receive in a banana republic--complete with compromised prosecutors and judges.
Writes Horton:
These cables reveal a large-scale, closely coordinated effort by the State Department to obstruct these criminal investigations. High-ranking U.S. visitors such as former Republican Party Chair Mel Martinez, Senator Greg Judd, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were corralled into this effort, warning Spanish political leaders that the criminal investigations would “be misunderstood” and would harm bilateral relations. The U.S. diplomats also sought out and communicated directly with judges and prosecutors, attempting to steer the cases into the hands of judges of their choosing. The cables also reflect an absolutely extraordinary rapport between the Madrid embassy and Spanish prosecutors, who repeatedly appear to be doing the embassy’s bidding.
WikiLeaks exposes blatant attempts by U.S. officials to push for judge shopping:
The cables show that the embassy was briefed in detail about the pending cases, receiving information that was not publicly accessible and would have been known only to the prosecutors and the magistrates handling the cases. The embassy engaged Spanish authorities in detailed discussions about the specific judges handling these cases and on at least one occasion extracted a promise from prosecutors to seek to have one sensitive case—in which former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales, former vice presidential chief of staff David Addington, John Yoo, Jay Baybee, Douglas Feith, and William J. Haynes figured as potential defendants—reassigned to a judge they considered friendlier to the United States. In fact, around the time of the cables in question the prosecutors acted just as the cable suggests they would.
This might be one of the most grotesque news reports I've ever read. Remember how the Bush administration claimed it was trying to promote democratic principles in the Middle East? Meanwhile, it was promoting blatant unlawfulness in Spanish courts.
Is it any wonder that the Obama administration has taken a "look forward, not backwards" approach to the apparent justice-related crimes of Bush officials? Apparently it's because the Obama crowd shares the Bush crowd's warped view on basic matters of right and wrong. And should we be surprised that the Obama administration seems to be scrambling for a method to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?
Meanwhile, it appears U.S. citizens should be building monuments in Assange's honor. He might be the last hope for salvaging what's left of our national integrity.
The state-department cables provide clear proof that the U.S. government, under both Republican and Democratic control, has essentially embraced the dark side. We've spent three-plus years at this blog writing about court corruption in Alabama and beyond. Now we learn that our own government has been trying to export that kind of sleaze to other countries.
It's shameful stuff, and here is a video of Scott Horton discussing the findings with the good folks at Democracy Now!:
A litigant in an Alabama divorce case--we will call him Party A--recently was held in contempt of court and threatened with jail time if he did not catch up on his alimony.
A litigant in another Alabama divorce case--we will call him Party B--essentially was encouraged to skip his alimony and child-support payments. In fact, the same judge who dealt harshly with Party A, ignored the fact that Party B had an outstanding warrant for failure to pay alimony/child support in South Carolina.
What's the difference between the two cases? Party A has ties to Democratic politics; Party B has ties to Republican politics. Could party affiliation actually determine the outcome of divorce cases? Sure looks like it--at least in Shelby County, Alabama.
Party A is Steve Sayler, who served as finance director under former Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, who is serving a federal prison sentence for his conviction on Bush-era corruption charges. Party B is Ted Rollins, a member of the family behind Orkin Pest Control, Rollins Inc., and other enterprises. The Rollinses are one of the wealthiest families in the country, and they have a long history of support for the Republican Party.
The judge in both cases is D. Al Crowson, who has served on the bench in deeply conservative Shelby County since 1988.
According to court documents, Ted Rollins was $20,410 behind on his alimony/child support after being sued for divorce by Sherry Carroll Rollins in Greenville, South Carolina, where the couple had lived. On top of that, Ted Rollins had failed to pay $50,000 in attorney fees that had been ordered against him in South Carolina.
In short, Ted Rollins was in arrears to the tune of $70,410--almost 10 times the amount that Steve Sayler was behind. But did Judge Crowson see to it that Ted Rollins was arrested and turned over to South Carolina authorities? Not exactly.
With the help of a Birmingham attorney named G. John Durward, Ted Rollins filed a lawsuit against Sherry Carroll Rollins in Alabama, where she and the couple's two daughters had fled after being kicked out of their home when Ted Rollins failed to pay the mortgage--even though a court had ordered him to pay it.
Once jurisdiction has attached in one court, that court has the exclusive right to continue its exercise of power until the completion of the case, and is only subject to appellate authority.
Multiple lawyers for Sherry Carroll Rollins pointed out to Crowson that he had no jurisdiction over the case and it could not proceed in Alabama. But Crowson ignored clear law and let Ted Rollins have his way.
Did that pay off for Ted Rollins? Oh, yes. A South Carolina judge had issued a temporary finding, ordering him to pay $8,355 a month in combined alimony/child support. But when D. Al Crowson took over the case in Alabama, Ted Rollins wound up having to pay $1,315 a month--$815 in child support (that's total, for two children) and $500 a month in alimony.
That's a monthly savings of $7,040 for Mr. Rollins. And he surely needs that cash. One of his companies, Campus Crest Communities, recently issued an IPO on Wall Street that is estimated at $380 million. Court documents in South Carolina indicate his family is worth billions, with a "b."
How did Ted Rollins and his attorney, Mr. Durward, get away with this scam? That question will be the subject of many more posts here at Legal Schnauzer. But it's interesting to note that Bradley Arant Boult and Cummings (BABC), one of our city's largest and most influential law firms, long has been handling real-estate and construction matters for Ted Rollins. In fact, BABC attorneys Dawn Helms Sharff and Walter Sears have been particularly active on the Rollins account.
If Steve Sayler is behind on his alimony, he certainly needs to pay it. But one wonders why Judge D. Al Crowson did not hold Ted Rollins to the same standard.
GMAC Mortgage is at the heart of the evolving foreclosure-fraud story. And who has GMAC picked to help "review" its activities in the burgeoning scandal? Why, an Alabama law firm that helped create the mess in the first place.
Birmingham-based Bradley Arant Boult and Cummings, which touts itself as Alabama's largest law firm, is one of three outfits that GMAC has tabbed to conduct an "independent review."
The blog Naked Capitalism, in a post titled "Foxes Now Minding Very Big Henhouse," finds Bradley Arant's involvement to be problematic, noting that the Alabama firm has been GMAC's national counsel on real-estate servicing matters for some time.
Writes Naked Capitalism:
Given Bradley Arant’s long-standing and extensive involvement in GMAC’s mortgage business, how can it legitimately be part of the team conducting the review? It’s incentives will be to minimize any problems, for a host of reasons, the most important being so as not to ruffle a big meal ticket and to avoid the exposure of any issues that might create liability for the firm.
We've written several times about Bradley Arant, and it has never been in a positive light. That's because the firm seems to be about as "pro business" and "right wing" as you can get--and it seems to have little interest in fundamental matters of justice, or the rights of regular folks. It's main interest seems to be cold, hard cash.
Consider Rob Campbell, a partner at Bradley Arant who happens to be Governor Bob Riley's son-in-law. Campbell and other Riley allies have helped the firm rake in huge sums of state dollars over the past eight years.
More recently, we've written about Ted Rollins, a member of one of America's wealthiest families, who was the beneficiary of numerous extraordinary--not to mention unlawful--rulings in a divorce case in Shelby County, Alabama. Rollins is based in Charlotte, NC, but he has ties to Alabama, mainly because his real-estate development interests have been represented by . . . Bradley Arant. Two of the firm's lawyers, Dawn Helms Sharff and Walter Sears, have been particularly involved with Rollins' activities, including a recent $380-million Wall Street IPO for his firm, Campus Crest Communities.
We will be writing much more about Ted Rollins and his ties to Bradley Arant. And we will be keeping an eye on the firm's involvement with GMAC Mortgage and the foreclosure-fraud story.
We've seen no sign that the esteemed lawyers of Bradley Arant are remotely interested in matters of truth and justice. The chances of such lawyers actually getting to the bottom of what caused the foreclosure mess are extremely slim. It's much more likely that they will try to help cover it up.
Birmingham is planning to build a downtown baseball park, and we think it's one of the neatest ideas to come from the city in years. Unfortunately, it appears the city intends to built the ballpark in the wrong location. Fortunately, we have a resident who is knowledgeable about such matters and knows exactly how the project should proceed.
The big question: Will someone in city government listen to this fellow before it's too late?
Plans call for moving the Birmingham Barons of the Class AA Southern League to a downtown site from Regions Park in Hoover. If the new ballpark is not built in the right spot, however, everyone involved would be better off leaving the Barons in the suburbs.
Over the past 20 years or so, downtown areas across the country have been revitalized with the construction of ballparks that offer both modern amenities with classic, old-timey sensibilities. The best of these parks merge a functional baseball facility with a modern cityscape, creating an environment that provides comfort, attractive sight lines, and a strong sense of place. The idea, in essence, is to mix the simplicity of a sandlot with the majesty of skyscrapers--or whatever vistas a particular city has to offer.
Many of these projects have been smashing successes, at both the major- and minor-league levels. The best of them are like baseball cathedrals, true works of art that promote both a sporting spirit and a sense of community. A few examples:
San Francisco's magnificent AT & T Park sits on China Basin Channel. No wonder the Giants won the World Series this year. Who wouldn't be inspired from playing in this place?
Pittsburgh's PNC Park sits on the shores of the Allegheny River and might be the finest stadium in the history of baseball. The Pirates are an awful team, but they have a splendid place to play. In fact, the only negative I've heard about going to PNC Park is that you have to watch the Pirates play.
Birmingham does not have a river running through it. And we do not sit on a breath-taking bay. But for a medium-sized city, we do have an attractive skyline. And the new ballpark needs to take advantage of that.
Here's the problem: Current plans call for the new ball park to be built near Railroad Park, a 19-acre green space that opened in summer 2010. Railroad Park is probably the second neatest idea to come out of Birmingham recently, and it promises to be a major plus for years to come. But it has nothing to do with baseball, and there is no reason to connect it with the new ballpark. Railroad Park is about history, nature, and interactive activities. The proposed Railroad Park district needs to focus on those attributes.
The new baseball park needs to be viewed as a separate matter. The proposed location near Railroad Park is several blocks from the downtown district and would limit the use of the city's skyline for aesthetic purposes. The ballpark needs to be a place where citizens come to view a sporting event--and drink in the metropolitan vibe all around them. A downtown ballpark needs to be smack in the middle of DOWNTOWN.
Again, if you are going to build the baseball facility near Railroad Park, you might as well leave the Barons in Hoover. Regions Park is only 22 years old, and while it lacks the ambiance of a downtown park, it's nestled amid pine trees and remains a mighty fine place to watch a ballgame.
What to do? A Birmingham resident named Craig Krawczyk knows exactly what to do. And Mayor William Bell and the Birmingham City Council need to be listening to him.
Krawczyk is an architect with Birmingham-based Live Design Group. Long fascinated with sports venues, Krawczyk, on his own, drew up a full design for a baseball park in Birmingham--one that would be in the Civil Rights district, in the midst of downtown. "I just thought it would be a fun thing to do, something to play around with at night," he said.
What Krawczyk came up with is a stroke of genius--exactly what Birmingham's downtown ballpark needs to be, where it needs to be. Wrote The Birmingham News, in a profile of the architect:
His plans feature details such as an event space with a view of the ballfield and a sculpture garden that links to the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.
But the design is more than just pie-in-the-sky ideas.
Krawczyk considered practical needs for the project, including logistics for visitors and ways the facility would mesh with the rest of downtown.
While most of the buzz about a new downtown ballpark centers on a site near Railroad Park, Krawczyk said he sees benefits in having it closer to downtown offices and the Civil Rights District.
Krawczyk's design is both a practical and an artistic winner:
"It's pretty close to the Civil Rights Institute to take advantage of all the parking structures over there, and it's within walking distance of the basic business core, so business people can bring clients and walk over for the afternoon," he said.
It's also close to the Alabama Theatre and the McWane Science Center, which is good for families and others who want to fill up an entire day with downtown activities, he said.
"I didn't want it to be completely hypothetical," he said. "I wanted it to have somewhat of a client, with real-world parameters."
From what we understand, Krawczyk has not spoken with anyone at City Hall. But he and his colleagues at Live Design Group need to get involved in this project, pronto. They know what they are doing.
Consider the photo below of the architect with a rendering of his design. Notice how it incorporates the city's skyline beautifully into the overall scenario. Front and center would be the Regions Harbert Plaza, which is Birmingham's most attractive modern building--and to my untrained eyes, one of the most attractive buildings of its kind anywhere.
Downtown Birmingham features an attractive, modern skyline, along with a number of timeless buildings that have made up the city's core for decades. Krawczyk's design is an ideal blending of the city's past, present, and future.
Regions Harbert Plaza
It would put Birmingham on par with baseball-based projects that have energized downtowns across the country.
Birmingham often has needed outsiders to help it move forward. Krawczyk is that kind of guy. He grew up in Ohio and remembers attending a Cleveland Indians game when he was about 5 years old. "I couldn't tell you anything about the game itself, but I remember going to that stadium and being in awe of the place," he said. "I think I spent more time looking at the building than watching the game."
What impact have baseball parks had in other cities? Consider just a few examples:
Autozone Park in Memphis is considered by many to be the finest minor-league ballpark in the country. It is home to the St. Louis Cardinals' Class AAA team:
Victory Field makes dramatic use of the Indianapolis skyline for the Class AAA Indianapolis Indians:
Fifth Third Field has become an attractive home for the Class AAA Toledo Mud Hens, the team Corporal Max Klinger made famous in M*A*S*H. Like the Birmingham Barons, the Mud Hens had played at a suburban stadium before their move downtown:
In the 30-plus years that I have lived here, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute undoubtedly is the most significant project to take shape downtown. But in terms of grand scope and potential long-term impact, the downtown ballpark becomes No. 1. It's critical that the project be done the right way. And Craig Krawczyk is the guy who needs to lead the effort. Let's check out an interview with the architect:
