Debt-Collection Lawyer Is Forced to Close Up His Sleazy Shop

A prominent debt-collection attorney has been forced to give up his license and close his practice after an investigation sparked by complaints from more than 100 consumers.

Derrick McGavic, of Eugene, Oregon, also had to pay $70,000 to cover the investigative costs for the state attorney general's office. McGavic and Finney was one of the most high volume debt-collection law firms in Oregon and was known for representing national third-party debt collectors, who buy large amounts of defaulted consumer debt for pennies on the dollar and then try to collect.

The debt-collection industry is notorious for shady outfits, but press reports tend to focus on the individuals who sit in cubicles and place one call after another. The McGavic case is significant because it unmasks a big fish, a lawyer who routinely violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

This story hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because my wife and I have encountered a law firm that sounds an awful lot like the McGavic outfit. Ingram and Associates, of Birmingham, was hired by NCO, a large national debt collector based in Pennsylvania, to sue me over a debt I allegedly owed to American Express. The Ingram firm, headed by attorney Angie Ingram, committed numerous FDCPA violations--not to mention fraud and other state-law claims--and we filed a lawsuit that is pending in U.S. district court.

We see at least one major difference between our experience and what happened in Oregon. The Birmingham legal community, including federal judges, has gone to extraordinary and unlawful lengths to protect Angie Ingram. Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, on the other hand, was not afraid to go after a corrupt lawyer, on behalf of consumers. A major hat tip to Mr. Kroger, and may we someday find more public officials like him.

How did the McGavic firm step in deep doo-doo? The Eugene Register-Guard reports:

The state found a pattern of falsifying fee affidavits in motions for default by claiming services McGavic did not perform.

McGavic also is alleged to have arbitrarily increased fees based on the amount of money claimed or where the claim was filed.

Another allegation is that McGavic purposely misidentified or confused the identity of creditors to delay payment and thereby increase the fees and interest he could charge. He was accused of repeatedly calling debtors who had exercised a right not to be contacted further and did not provide specific information about the debts when it was requested.

Boy, that sounds familiar, especially the last paragraph. Let's consider just a few of the unlawful actions Mrs. Schnauzer and I have witnessed from Ingram and NCO:

* Failure to provide written notification regarding a debt--Under the FDCPA, debt collectors are required to give written notice of an alleged debtor's rights under the law. This is called a "mini Miranda" notice in the debt-collection world. The McGavic firm apparently made it a practice to ignore this requirement. Based on our experience, the Ingram firm does the same thing. We never received a "mini Miranda" notice and were completely caught off guard when Ingram representatives started calling us on the phone. Collectors, of course, like it when their targets are caught off guard, and that probably explains why written notification often is not sent. Angie Ingram stated under oath in our lawsuit that her firm sent the notice two days before calling us. But Mrs. Schnauzer testified under oath that one of Ingram's representatives admitted in a phone conversation that the firm had not prepared or sent written notice. In my conversations with two Ingram reps, which I tape recorded, neither ever mentioned a written notification or their obligation to send one.

* Confusing the identity of creditors--This apparently was a favorite of the McGavic firm, and we experienced a similar tactic from Ingram. Ingram did not try to confuse us regarding creditors, but it did lie to us about who the firm represented. Ingram reps repeatedly told us that they had been hired by American Express, that Angie Ingram was American Express' lawyer. Discovery in our lawsuit has shown that was a blatant lie and clearly meets the legal definition of fraud. In fact, Ingram was hired by NCO, and the firm admitted it had no documents from American Express to prove I even had an AMEX card, much less that I owed a debt on one. Obviously, it's an effective tactic for a debt-collection law firm to say it has been hired by a well-known national credit-card company--as opposed to being hired by NCO, which an alleged debtor probably has never heard of. This violates federal and state laws, but debt collectors want money--whether they can prove it's actually owed or not--and they'll do most anything to get it.

* Threatening to sell our house--Ingram reps told us on multiple occasions that they could sell our house "on the courthouse steps." Never mind that the alleged debt was in my name only, and my wife and I jointly own our house. In fact, an Ingram rep told my wife they were going to sell her house, not long after admitting Mrs. S. had nothing to do with the alleged debt. I've yet to see a statute that says a jointly owned house can be sold in its entirety--on the courthouse steps, or anywhere else--to satisfy an alleged credit-card debt.

McGavic's law practice did not collapse overnight; his fall was years in the making. Williamette Week, in the Portland area, reported three years ago about numerous federal lawsuits the firm had settled. McGavic apparently treated the settlements as the cost of doing business and went about his unlawful way. The misconduct finally became so blatant that the state attorney general and state bar stepped in, shutting down the firm.

God only knows how many debt-collection law firms around the country need to meet a similar fate. Williamette Week provided insight on the ugly incentives that lead so many debt collectors to violate the law:

To understand why a lawyer might cross the line in his efforts to collect, it helps to know a bit about how America’s billion-dollar debt-collection industry works.

Credit-card companies sell their uncollected debts to debt-purchasing companies, who buy them by the thousands for up to 20 cents on the dollar.

Many of those debts are past time to collect. Others have been discharged under bankruptcy. But if the companies play hardball, they can collect enough to turn a profit. So they hire collection agencies and lawyers like McGavic, who can win a court order to raid bank accounts and garnish wages to pay off the debt. But there’s risk for the lawyers as well. They get paid only 25 to 30 percent of what they collect—if they turn up nothing, there’s no paycheck.

The lawyers file dozens of boilerplate lawsuits at a time, hoping a few pan out. Some debtors won’t respond at all. Then the lawyer wins a default judgment and the right to collect—though the deadbeats, if they can be located, often have nothing left to take.

Even some lawyers are turned off by the ugliness in the debt-collection racket:

Portland debt lawyer David Schumacher says the work is typically a lawyer’s last resort. “It’s the necessary evil,” he says. “If you do it right, you’ll be successful at it. I’m just amazed at the rules that are broken out there. It just blows me away.”

[Image: bizjournals.com]

Miniature Schnauzer Lands in the Middle of a Civil-Rights Lawsuit

A miniature schnauzer puppy

Law enforcement officials in Alabama used a stun gun on a pregnant woman because she refused to turn over her dog, a miniature schnauzer. What was the dog's "crime"? It was playing in its own yard.

The woman brought a civil-rights lawsuit, saying officers had barged into her home over the dog matter and used unlawful force. A federal jury in Mobile last week determined that the officers' behavior was perfectly acceptable.

Am I making this story up? I wish I could say yes--but my imagination is not vivid enough to concoct a story like this. From the title of this blog, it's clear that I am partial toward schnauzers and their owners. Have I lost all objectivity on this subject? Am I coming to the defense of a schnauzer by trying to make noble public servants look bad? I'm not sure it's possible to make these "public servants" look worse than they already do. And how did the clod heads on a federal jury find in favor of officers who apparently acted in an outlandish fashion? I have no idea.

Actually, I do have one idea. I've encountered the plaintiffs' lawyer myself, via a phone call of about 15 minutes duration a couple of years ago. If he left the kind of impression on the jury that he left on me, that might explain an otherwise inexplicable verdict.

As often is the case in situations involving law-enforcement officers and high emotions, it's difficult to tell exactly what happened here. But based on research of several news articles, here is our best guess at what transpired:

Two stray dogs were running loose in Semmes, a community west of Mobile, Alabama. The dogs wound up in the yard of Jennifer Ann Clark, where they proceeded to romp and play with Clark's miniature schnauzer--who apparently never left its own yard. A neighbor must have called animal control about the strays because dogcatcher Vincent Hertz arrived to find them, with the schnauzer, in Clark's yard.

The dutiful Hertz rounded up the two strays and, apparently thinking the schnauzer was part of the pack, demanded that Clark turn her dog over. Our guess is that Clark responded with, "Over my dead body!" or words to that effect.

Clark took her dog, went inside, locked the door, and called a friend (Angela Stevens, who is disabled) and asked her to come over. Undeterred, Hertz summoned the assistance of two sheriff's deputies. When Clark opened the door to let Stevens in, the deputies burst through, a physical altercation ensued, and at least one stun gun went off.

How could law-enforcement officials be found not liable for such over-the-top behavior? For one, I've learned to never be dazed and confused by any decision that an Alabama jury might render. Two, the plaintiffs were represented by Jeff Bennitt, whose office is about four miles from my house in Shelby County.

I generally expect nothing but the worst from Shelby County lawyers. But a check of court records told me that Bennitt had handled a large number of employment and civil-rights cases--so I decided to give him a call. What followed sounded like a comedy sketch of a lawyer intentionally trying to run off potential business. Bennitt's crudeness was so off the charts, even for a lawyer, that I kept the conversation going longer than necessary--just to see what was coming next. I didn't know whether to be entertained or repulsed by the guy.

At first, I thought he was just pulling my leg, and he eventually would make some effort to sound professional. But he never did. Of all the wretched human beings I've encountered in my legal sojourn, Jeff Bennitt has to rank as the single biggest jackass of them all--and he beats out some serious competition for that honor.

I've spoken to at least one other person who encountered Bennitt, and she said her experience was much like mine.

Do the "schnauzer women" in Semmes, Alabama, have a chance for justice on appeal, perhaps with a different lawyer? I sure hope so.

This story has a wacky, Keystone Kops quality to it. But beneath that lies a serious case of official abuse. In the name of the schnauzer--one of God's finest creations--we don't want to see the SOBs get away with it.


[Photo: iheartminischnauzers.zoomshare.com]

Key Figure in Abramoff Case Gives New Meaning to the Term "Dirt Bag"

Kevin Spacey in Casino Jack

Reviewers have noted that Michael Scanlon is portrayed as being even more corrupt than Jack Abramoff in the new film Casino Jack, which stars Academy Award winner Kevin Spacey.

Maybe there is a good reason for that: Scanlon really is a bigger dirt bag than Abramoff. For those of us in Alabama, that has special meaning. After all, Scanlon was the one-time press secretary for our former Republican Governor, Bob Riley.

How bad is Scanlon? He is trying to worm his way out of paying millions of dollars for his role in helping Abramoff scam American Indian tribes. Reports TPM Muckraker:

Michael Scanlon, Jack Abramoff's partner in crime, doesn't want to pony up the ill-gotten millions he owes to Abramoff's former lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, and he doesn't think he has to, his attorneys said Tuesday in a court filing.

Scanlon, who worked hand-in-glove with Abramoff, pleaded guilty to defrauding a group of Native American tribes out of tens of millions of dollars and last month was sentenced to 20 months in prison and ordered to pay Greenberg for its losses. Greenberg has settled a series of actual and threatened lawsuits from the tribes that Scanlon and Abramoff defrauded, and now the K Street giant is demanding that Scanlon make good on the court-ordered compensation payments and pay the firm more than $17 million.

Will Scanlon get away with this? His lawyers are putting up a serious fight:

Not so fast, say Scanlon's attorneys, who argue the firm is liable in the scheme to defraud the tribes, which he and Abramoff carried out. The defense attorneys are urging a judge to determine that Scanlon can pursue the objection. If the judge agrees, Scanlon still must show that Greenberg played some role in the scheme or at least shares the liability for it and so must be blocked from receiving restitution.

Greenberg's lawyers last month called Scanlon's activities "reprehensible" and said they did not know about it or simply look the other way. If Greenberg is not compensated, its attorneys point out that Scanlon would be allowed to keep the money he made from the criminal scheme, which would do nothing to discourage the same type of white-collar corruption and misdeeds in the future.

A life of crime apparently has worked out pretty well for Scanlon. (Did we mention that he used to work for Bob Riley?)

Unlike Abramoff, who was struggling to support his family at the end of the scandal, Scanlon invested his tens of millions in real estate and is a very rich man by anyone's standards. A majority of his sentencing hearing last month was devoted to his real-estate development plans and whether he could travel to a hilltop luxury property he owns in St. Barts.

Perhaps now we know why Roger Ebert wrote the following in his review of Casino Jack, which hopefully will be coming soon to a theater near you:

The film's story line can be briefly summarized: The lobbyist Abramoff was a dutiful family man and Republican standard bearer who defrauded Indian tribes out of millions to lobby for their casinos. That enriched him and partner Michael Scanlon (Barry Pepper) and a good many members of Congress, not all of them Republicans. Abramoff worked out every day, was an observant member of his temple and a smooth and elegant dresser. Somehow at his core, he had no principles and no honesty.

If Casino Jack puts up a good front, George Hickenlooper's film is merciless with Scanlon, a venal and vulgar man with the effrontery to flaunt his corruption. It is Spacey's performance that contains most of the movie's mystery; although Abramoff's actions left little room for justification, in Spacey's performance, there is some. Abramoff used much of the stolen money for good works, which made him appear charitable. His principal charity was himself, but there you are.

A "vulgar man with the effrontery to flaunt his corruption"? Did we mention that Michael Scanlon used to work for Bob Riley?

[Image: moviefone.com

Anthony Weiner Joins the Effort to Disbar Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas

We recently reported on a watchdog group's call for the disbarment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Now it looks like Congressional Democrats are picking up the cause.

Protect Our Elections (POE) has filed a bar complaint against Thomas in Missouri, based on reporting from Common Cause that the justice failed to report spousal non-investment income on financial-disclosure forms. POE is about to pick up an ally in the battle, according to a report at Huffington Post. Writes Andrew Reinbach:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and a group of Congressional Democrats are said to be drafting demands that Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas be disbarred in Missouri for perjury, and investigated by the Department of Justice for bribery, according to House Judiciary Committee aides.

The perjury allegations stem from Justice Thomas' years-long failure to disclose his wife's non-investment income as required by law--something he's now all but admitted. The accusations of bribery are connected to a $100,000 ad campaign, made during Thomas' 1991 confirmation hearings by the conservative Citizens United group, the allegation being that Justice Thomas repaid Citizens United for helping him get confirmed by ruling in their favor in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case.

Thomas' legal headaches seem to be picking up steam. Reports Reinbach:

These Congressional actions, which would likely be released before Congress goes into recess next week, bring to three the number of serious--and official--accusations being leveled against Justice Thomas.

Watchdog group Common Cause sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the U.S. on January 21 asking it to determine if Justice Thomas had violated the Ethics in Government Act when he failed to disclose his wife's income from 2003 to 2009, and refer the matter to the Attorney General's Office if it found the allegation to be true.

Justice Thomas wrote to the Committee on Financial Disclosure the same day and explained that he didn't disclose his wife's substantial income ". . . due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions." Some lawyers say this amounts to a confession of perjury, and add that the filing instructions merely ask if the filer is married, and if so, if the spouse had any non-investment income.

Then, on February 23rd, a progressive activist group, Protect Our Elections, made a formal complaint covering the same allegations--and more--about Thomas' actions to the Missouri Supreme Court; allegations--especially the allegations of perjury--that could potentially lead to Justice Thomas' disbarment in that state, where he's licensed to practice law.

Could this become a serious problem for Thomas? Yes, says one legal expert:

"If someone confessed to 13 years of perjury that could certainly be a violation of the Missouri Code of Professional Conduct, [and] it would not be unusual for a disbarment to flow from that," says Barbara Glesner Fines, associate dean of the University of Missouri Law School in Kansas City, Mo.

Where could this be headed, and how long might it take to get there? The answers are not clear:

Whether being disbarred would necessarily lead to Thomas' formal removal from the bench through impeachment is a matter of opinion and by no means an assured fact. The Constitution only says that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (Article III Section 1), and doesn't define said behavior, so theoretically, a Federal judge could be disbarred and keep his or her job.

Whether it would be politically possible for Justice Thomas to remain on the bench during the run-up to the 2012 elections while he was under investigation is another matter. The Missouri Office of Disciplinary Counsel says complaints like those made by Protect Our Elections typically take about six months, followed by a hearing before the state Supreme Court, if the accused requests one.

Kevin Zeese, the Maryland attorney who filed the complaint for POE, says he sees this as a "multi-year effort." Weiner and his colleagues no longer control the House, so a motion to impeach Thomas is unlikely to come up. But the issue still could be a political headache for Republicans:

Mounds of complaints and legal maneuvers . . . would keep the issue before the voters through most if not all the 2012 election cycle, allowing Democrats to paint Republicans as hypocrites--if they defend Justice Thomas for voluntarily committing an offense for years that Bill Clinton had to be trapped into committing once--or as unprincipled and power-hungry if they abandon him.

And if Justice Thomas is prevailed upon to resign the bench, the Republicans lose their voting block on the Court.

[Photo: newsone.com]

Legal Fallout Begins In the Wake of the Amy Bishop Shootings at UAH

Amy Bishop

The president of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) has announced that he will step down on April 1, and some members of the university community expressed surprise.

UAH was the site of fatal shootings in February 2010, and no one who has followed the aftermath of that tragic day should be surprised at President David Williams' exit. In fact, we suspect other administrators will follow Williams out the door.

Amy Bishop, a former assistant professor of biology, faces criminal charges in the shootings, which killed three of her colleagues (injuring three others) and reportedly were sparked when UAH denied Bishop tenure. As we reported last month, at least five lawsuits have been filed in connection to the UAH shootings, and we suspect Williams' exit is a sign that the legal process is grinding forward.

We suspect it also is a sign that the University of Alabama administration will be held legally accountable--and that, in our view, is the way it should be.

From the outset, we have seen the Amy Bishop case as more than just a crime story. Is Amy Bishop a disturbed woman who was destined to act in a violent manner someday, no matter what happened around her? We think the story goes deeper than that.

By most accounts, Bishop displayed a prickly personality at UAH and could be pushy. Perhaps because of her Harvard pedigree on a relatively unknown Alabama campus, she gave off an air of superiority to some of her UAH colleagues. Some disturbing incidents in Bishop's past, none of which brought criminal charges at the time, have been widely reported.

But the record indicates that Bishop almost certainly met the standard for tenure. UAH had touted Bishop's skills as an investigator, and one of her inventions had generated $1.25 million in investment funds--at a school that was striving to enhance its research profile.

Tenure decisions generally involve an evaluation of skills in research, teaching, and service. I worked in higher education for almost 20 years, and my understanding is that research often carries far more weight than the other two components. Some reports indicate that Bishop received mixed reviews as a teacher, but more than 20 of her neuroscience students signed a petition supporting her bid for tenure. On her research record alone, Amy Bishop probably had earned tenure.

So, why was she denied? We know that her department chair, the person who should have been most familiar with her work, supported her candidacy. (The chair, Gopi Podila, was killed in the shooting.) We know that an unidentified faculty colleague spoke out in meetings against Bishop, claiming she was "crazy"--and his comments reportedly carried weight in the final tenure decision.

Did the faculty colleague have some special insight into Amy Bishop's behavior, and if so, why did her department chair not pick up on it? Did the faculty colleague have a genuine reason to believe Bishop was crazy or was he possibly jealous about her research successes? What really went on with the decision to deny Amy Bishop tenure?

The University of Alabama probably will do everything in its power to make sure the public never learns the answers to those questions. We suspect that means the victims and their families eventually will receive significant sums from the university for their pain and suffering. But the truth about what happened with the tenure process, in the weeks and months leading up to the shooting, probably will never be known.

Victims and their families, of course, deserve compensation--and behind-the-scenes negotiations probably are going on now. Some of the lawsuits have named Bishop and her husband as defendants, but there is not much money to be found there. The deep pockets, and much of the legal liability, lie with the university.

Why? One of two scenarios seem to apply here:

* The university failed to follow its own procedures, causing Amy Bishop to wrongfully be denied tenure--and she snapped under the strain of an injustice; or

* The faculty colleague had genuine reason to believe Bishop was already disturbed, prior to being denied tenure, and university administrators failed to take those concerns seriously.

A review of complaints filed in the various lawsuits indicate negligence, wantonness, wrongful death, and premises liability are some of the legal theories that will be raised.

A number of defendants have been named, but we look for the buck to stop at the door of the University of Alabama administration. And David Williams' resignation is a sign that process is under way.


[Photo: al.com]

The Ugly Story In Joe Scarborough's Political Closet

Joe Scarborough

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, is sending signals that he might be ready to run again for public office. He was the subject of a fawning profile in Parade. An op-ed piece he penned at Politico made Scarborough sound like a reasonable Republican who might appeal to independent voters. A persistent rumor even has "Morning Joe" running on a presidential ticket with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

If "Morning Joe" does wind up on a ballot somewhere, voters might want to keep this question in mind: Was a young woman once murdered in Joe Scarborough's office?

Many Americans probably have forgotten, or never knew, that a 28-year-old female staff member was found dead in the summer of 2001 in the office of U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL). Officials in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, determined that Lori Klausutis died from an accident. The mainstream press largely ignored the case, but our review of several investigative reports indicates the official finding is highly questionable.

Does that mean Joe Scarborough is a murderer? No. But we suspect someone who had access to Scarborough's office in 2001 is a murderer. We find it unlikely that the head trauma that killed Lori Klausutis was the result of an accident.

We hardly are the first to raise the "murder" issue that surrounds Scarborough. Two liberal icons, filmmaker Michael Moore and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, made references to it and wound up in public spats with Scarborough.

Since Scarborough himself doesn't shy away from the topic, we won't either. The subject is of particular interest here in Alabama because Scarborough is a graduate of the University of Alabama and is pals with former Gov. Bob Riley and his son, Homewood attorney Rob Riley. The Rileys probably are one of the sleaziest father/son tandems in the history of American politics. Regardless of what one might conclude about the Lori Klausutis death, any would-be voter should be alarmed by Scarborough's ties to the Rileys--especially since dead bodies mysteriously kept popping up around Alabama in the final year of Big Bob's reign.

Why should we doubt the finding of an accidental death in the Lori Klausutis case? Here are several reasons:

* The nature of the head trauma does not suggest an accidental death--According to a report from American Politics Journal (APJ), Dr. Michael Berkland, medical examiner, determined that Klausutis had an undiagnosed cardiac arrhythmia that caused her to faint and hit her head on a desk in Scarborough's office. Reports APJ:

There are several problems with the head injury. Generally, for a closed head injury to cause bleeding inside the skull, there is a much more severe injury on the outside of the skull. Do the autopsy notes, indeed, describe such a severe injury on the outside of the skull? In fact, the only closed head injury which usually may cause bleeding inside the skull involves a fracture of the temporal bone, with rupture of the underlying artery. The most important discrepancy that should be answered is how intracranial bleeding could continue if the cardiac arrhythmia had caused a cessation of blood flow to the brain.

* The fainting story does not add up--What is the likelihood that an apparently healthy woman, who ran marathons, would faint and hit her head on a desk in such a way that would cause death? It's pretty unlikely, our research indicates. Reports APJ:

Presumably the heart valve condition alluded to is Mitral Valve Prolapse. This may be associated with arrhythmias, but rarely with VTach (ventricular tachycardia) or VFib (ventricular fibrillation), the only arrhythmias which would stop the flow of blood to the brain.

Generally, with syncope of whatever cause the "guarding reflex," wherein one raises a hand to protect the head, is preserved.

A report at onlinejournal.com, stated that such a fall in a healthy person is unlikely to cause death. Berkland's determination of an accidental death, however, brought the investigation to a virtual halt:

According to the medical literature, simple falls in young, healthy people, virtually never cause death. Berkland’s claim that injury opposite to the site of impact is observed only when a person’s head hits a stationary object is also contradicted by the literature. . . .

The autopsy describes the prolapsed mitral valve in great detail, claiming that the medical literature sustains the notion that this is likely to be fatal.

Dr. Berkland contends in lengthy autopsy comments that “there are only about three entities that generally cause one to drop in midsentence or in midstride . . . pulmonary embolus . . . a ruptured aneurysm . . . and most common, is a sudden cardiac arrhythmia.” Yet, the medical literature suggests that neither pulmonary emboli nor aneurysms are likely to cause immediate loss of consciousness. A blow to the head is a common cause of loss of consciousness. . . .

Finally, although the report shows the subdural hematoma was severe, it was far from the site deep in the brain stem that controls heartbeat and respiration. Dr. Berkland’s microscopics give no description of the brain stem and no evidence that it was damaged at all, leaving a question as to the exact cause of death. Ed Friedlander, M.D., a noted forensic pathologist has stated that “A good rule of thumb is that nothing inside the head short of a gunshot wound through the lower brain stem will kill a person in less than 60 minutes.”

* The medical examiner had a troubled history--Before moving to Florida, Dr. Berkland had practiced in Kansas City, Missouri. His time there ended in controversy. Reports onlinejournal.com:

Before moving to Florida, Dr. Berkland had worked in Kansas City, MO. The August 30 edition of the Pitch Weekly, based in that city, noted in its Kansas City Strip column, “Former Jackson County coroner, Mike Berkland, provides the brains for a scandal in Florida.”

The Pitch said, “Berkland claims he ‘sectioned’ Klausutis’ brain during her autopsy to determine that her head was injured by a fall, not by a blow from a weapon. But that’s the same sort of claim that got Berkland run out of Kansas City in 1996, after he’d falsely reported that he’d sectioned brains later found whole by his boss—a mistake he blames on poorly proofread reports written with computer macros. No such mistake occurred with Klausutis’ brain Berkland told the Pitch. ‘You can rest assured it was sectioned,’ he says.”

Jennifer Van Bergen, writing at Truthout, said Berkland's actions both in Missouri and Florida raise serious questions about the Lori Klausutis investigation:

The final touch in this case which simply makes it cry out for further investigation is the fact that Associate Medical Examiner Michael Berkland had lost his license in Missouri in 1998 for "misrepresentation or unethical conduct and knowingly making a false statement in the autopsy reports." As a result, Berkland was suspended from practice in Florida.

In 1999, Berkland's supervisor, Dr. Gary Cumberland, the Acting District Medical Examiner, who, by the way, had donated heavily--and perhaps beyond federal limits--to Joe Scarborough's election campaigns, said that he "still has full confidence in Berkland and no plans to replace him," according to Beach Browser, a local paper. It seems that Berkland was reinstated with the issuance of a "letter of guidance" by the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine.

Van Bergen provides a summary of the oddities surrounding Lori Klausutis's death:

* The congressman (an ardent and vocal supporter of G.W., by the way) resigns only six months after re-election, just prior to his aide’s death. The reason: amid rumors of marital infidelity, the recently-divorced husband wants to spend more time with his sons.

* A medical examiner who had his license revoked in another state. Why? He lost it falsifying autopsies.

* The medical examiner’s supervisor had contributed thousands of dollars to the congressman’s election campaign.

* Contradictory reports about whether there is a visible head injury or not.

* A medical conclusion that contains several inconsistencies. First, that Mrs. Klausutis, who was a marathon runner, died of a cardiac arrhythmia. Second, that although she had suffered a fractured skull and a “contracoup” bruise on the opposite side of the brain, the injury could not possibly have been caused by a physical assault.

* Then there’s the question of whether the office was locked and the lights were on. One report says the door was locked and the lights were off; another report says the door was unlocked and the lights were on.

* And if all this weren’t enough, there’s the scientist husband who does high level weapon design work for the Air Force.

Is Joe Scarborough a murderer? We cannot reach a conclusive answer at this point. But the evidence strongly suggests that Lori Klausutis' death was the result of foul play, not an accident.

If "Morning Joe" steps back into the political arena, voters should have serious questions about his fitness for office.

The Assange Case: Police Official and Accuser Are Friends

The police interrogator and one of the accusers in the Julian Assange case are friends, according to a new report out of Sweden. The interrogator and one of the two accusers had known each other for at least 16 months when rape allegations were raised against Assange, according to the newspaper Expressen.

Neither the interrogator nor the accuser is named in the Expressen report. But the Web site rixstep.com identifies the Stockholm interrogator as Irmeli Krans. Krans took the testimony of Sofia Wilen, but the interrogator is friends with Anna Ardin, the other Assange accuser. Krans and Ardin reportedly have both political and personal ties; the Expressen article describes them as "party friends."

Meanwhile, the hacker group Anonymous has launched a civil-disobedience campaign against the U.S. Federal Reserve and major financial institutions, which it says have damaged the global economy and mocked the rule of law.

Expressen says the interrogator played a pivotal role in prompting prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand to order the arrest of Assange:

The female police officer had just started her shift at the Klara police station in central Stockholm when the two women showed up. It was on the afternoon of August 20. Just sixteen hours later Expressen's scoop of the arrest order against Julian Assange became worldwide news.

The female police soon realised that her friend and party colleague was one of the plaintiffs--yet she was still the first to interrogate one of the women in the case. At 16.21 she started the questioning of the other plaintiff, without reporting a conflict of interest that made her participation in the case challengeable.

Was Assange essentially railroaded by a police officer who was friends with one of the accusers? That certainly appears possible:

This questioning session initially came to play a decisive role when on duty prosecutor Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand decided to order the arrest of Julian Assange.

Häljebo Kjellstrand decided that the facts reported to the police interrogation were so credible that the level of suspicion was probable cause.

How did the interrogator and the accuser--identified by rixstep.com as Krans and Ardin--come to know one another?

The police interrogator and the woman got to know each other through the Swedish social democratic party, with which both are involved.

The police interrogator has amongst other things been on the board of the HBT (homo-, bi- and transsexual) social democrats. On her homepage she has published pictures of herself together with the retired leader of the party Mona Sahlin, and the former minister Thomas Bodström. The same Bodström who together with the social democrat Claes Borgström runs the law firm that has been hired by the plaintiffs in the Assange-investigation.

At the same time the police interrogator has--despite participating in the criminal investigation against Assange--commented negatively about the Wikileaks founder on her facebook page.

Social networks, in fact, show a clear relationship between the two women:

When the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet recently let it’s readers chat with Assange the interrogator commented:

“What the heck is this??? Judgement zero!!!

The day before she wrote in a status update on her Facebook-page:

“Way to go, Claes Borgström!!!”

In another status update from late February the police interrogator wrote about “The overrated Assange bubble ready to burst”.

In their blogs, the police interrogator and the woman who reported Julian Assange have been open about their friendship. As recently as February 10 this year the woman commented a status update that the interrogator had on her Facebook page. The woman still links from her homepage to the private blog of the police interrogator. The interrogator in turn links to her party friend and lawyer Thomas Bodström, who has a vested interest in the Assange case through his law firm.

When contacted by Expressen, the police interrogator was not anxious to discuss her role in the Assange case:

Expressen has on several occasions recently had contact with the female police inspector via e-mail. Initially she said she was prepared to answer all questions. But on Wednesday she said:

"It has been decided that questions about the police handling of this matter will be answered by Ulf Göranzon (the police press officer) and questions about the ongoing investigation will be answered by the prosecutor. I cannot comment on the matter as a police officer."

Police superintendent Ulf Göranzon tells Expressen that he is not aware of the fact that the police interrogator is a friend of one of the plaintiffs.

And we thought law-enforcement officials in the U.S. were clueless.

As for Anonymous, it is demanding that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke step down. Below is a video about Anonymous' latest initiative, called Operation Empire State Rebellion. Anonymous states that it "seeks to restore the rule of law and fight back against the organized criminal class."

We hope, in time, Anonymous will target the U.S. court system and the Department of Justice, which have done so much to tarnish the rule of law on American soil.





[Image: time.com]

Arizona State Tops List of the Dirtiest Programs in College Sports

Arizona State Sun Devils

Today is Selection Sunday for the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, and as someone who worked for 11 years as a sportswriter, I like to think I have some expertise in this area. If I had to pick the No. 1 event in all of sports, my choice would be the NCAA Tournament. For sustained drama and memorable upsets, nothing can match it.

But I've been close enough to college athletics to know it has an ugly underside. And that was driven home the other day when we received a list of the 10 most corrupt college athletics programs in America. The minute I saw the headline, I knew someone from my home state of Alabama had to be on that list. And I was not disappointed. My only surprise was that at least two Alabama schools didn't make it.

The "most corrupt" list comes to us courtesy of associatesdegree.com, a Web site that promotes online, college-level coursework. Is the Web site trying to spread the message that life on America's campuses isn't all rosy? Perhaps. But possible ulterior motives aside, I would say the list looks pretty accurate.

Here is college athletics' terrible 10, as chosen by associatesdegree.com. You can check out the full article here:

1. Arizona State
2. SMU
3. Auburn
4. Minnesota
5. Oklahoma
6. Texas A&M
7. Wichita State
8. Wisconsin
9. Florida State
10. Memphis

The only surprise on the list, to me, was the University of Wisconsin. I tend to think of the big school in Madison as a pretty classy place, but I did not realize how many problems the Badgers' sports teams have had over the years.

Auburn, the reigning champion of college football, made my home state "proud." But I'm still trying to figure out how our other big-time school, the University of Alabama, failed to make the list. After all, UA has a board member with documented ties to massive insurance fraud. His name is Paul W. Bryant Jr., son of the late Hall of Fame football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant. One of Bryant Jr.'s companies, Alabama Reassurance, was implicated in a $15-million fraud scheme several years ago in Pennsylvania.

How many schools can claim a certified, gold-plated fraudster on their board of trustees?

Alabama probably didn't make the list because the NCAA, for years, tended to cut "mother campuses" lots of slack. In fact, former UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian long has told this classic joke: "The NCAA got so mad at Kentucky for cheating that they gave Cleveland State two more years probation."

Over the past decade or so, the NCAA has started pulling back the mask a little on mother campuses. So we can look forward to the Crimson Tide joining Auburn in future top 10 lists of the most corrupt programs in college sports.

For now, Texas is the only state with two schools on the list. But we think Alabama has the potential to join that elite company very soon.

[Photo: si.com]

Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Hiring Practices Let Criminals Through the Cracks

Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BC/BS) handles massive amounts of medical data about individuals it insures. BC/BS employees have access to personal information for more than 100 million Americans.

You might think that the company would be extra cautious about the people it hires. But according to our research, you would be wrong.

Few companies have done more to fight health-care reform in America than Blue Cross and Blue Shield. On any ranking of companies that put corporate interests over those of the nation at large, BC/BS probably would be near the top. Now we learn that the company, which has a long history of practicing Medicare fraud, is sloppy in its hiring habits.

We reported several months back about Latonia Davis, an employee at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama who pleaded guilty to trafficking in stolen identities. While we noted that the company apparently had been vigilant in that case, we wondered why BC/BS of Alabama has allowed my troublesome neighbor to work there for 20-plus years, even though he has an extensive criminal record.

My neighbor, the charming Mike McGarity, has been the subject of numerous posts at Legal Schnauzer--and will be the subject of many more. I have enough documentation on his criminal history to produce several weeks' worth of posts.

McGarity is directly responsible for the legal headaches my wife and I have experienced for almost 10 years now. But this issue goes beyond our personal tale of woe. Blue Cross and Blue Shield affiliates, because of their longstanding problems with Medicare fraud, have been charged by the federal government with being particularly strict about hiring practices. Is the company living up to its obligations?

Koko Mackin, a spokesperson for BC/BS of Alabama, said after the Latonia Davis story broke that the company takes seriously the security of its members' health information. If that is the case, how did somebody like Mike McGarity slip through the employment-screening cracks and stay there for almost 25 years? How many other people with criminal records have slipped through the cracks and have access to your private health and personal information?

This question becomes particularly compelling when you a conduct a little research into the problems BC/BS affiliates have had with fraud--and the resulting scrutiny its hiring practices have received.

As for Mike McGarity, whoever said "love thy neighbor" never met this guy. And apparently, BC/BS didn't bother to check out his criminal history before hiring him, in 1984 or thereabouts. It's not like his record is a secret; after he started causing my wife and me all kinds of legal headaches, I did some research and found it easily--a matter of public record.

A company with the resources of BC/BS couldn't have done a background check on the guy? Or did the company do a background check and hire him anyway? BC/BS just enjoys hiring criminals?

Well, that's not how it's supposed to work. The various "Blues" around the country have long had problems with employee fraud. Former Blue Cross employees were sentenced in 2009 for their role in a major South Carolina fraud scheme.

The issue of fraud is particularly sensitive at BC/BS of Alabama, which is a regional Medicare administrator. Because of fraud concerns, government agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS, formerly HCFA) have paid close attention to the hiring practices of Medicare contractors, such as BC/BS of Alabama.

In fact, the CMS manuals for claims-administration contractors recommends that "the employment application provide for the applicant's signed acknowledgement that falsification of his application could be cause for dismissal at any time after employment."

Is this serious business? Oh, yes. The hiring practices of Medicare contractors has been the subject of investigations by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the U.S. House of Representatives. One report was titled "Improprieties by Contractors Compromised Medicare Program Integrity." Another was titled "HCFA Oversight Allows Contractor Improprieties to Continue Undetected."

In short, the documents indicate that the "Blues," because of their problems with fraud, are not supposed to be hiring folks with criminal backgrounds. So why is Mike McGarity employed at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama?

It's not like his criminal record is small. He has at least eight convictions, and those were just the ones I could find--from checking Alabama, Jefferson County, and Birmingham records. That doesn't count the numerous other jurisdictions in metro Birmingham alone. And they don't count a drug-possession charge for which he confessed guilt, but the case was nol-prossed.

All of McGarity's convictions that I found are misdemeanors. But they are not all "minor" offenses. One is a violence-related offense, one is a sex-related offense, and several involve substance abuse.

My guess is that he probably has more criminal convictions than everybody else in our neighborhood combined. And who does he wind up living next door to? Mrs. Schnauzer and me. Has it been fun? No.

Here is a cavalcade of criminality from Blue Cross/Blue Shield employee Mike McGarity, with charges and offense dates, in chronological order. These records come from Birmingham Municipal Court:

* Affray (fighting)--7/2/77

* Disorderly conduct--7/6/77

* Obedience to police--7/6/77

* Indecent Proposal--11/20/77 (original charge was soliciting prostitution)

* Drinking in public--2/11/78

* Reckless driving--11/14/79

* Disorderly conduct--5/22/80

* Reckless driving--7/29/81

Having McGarity as a next-door neighbor has provided one comical moment. After he filed a bogus lawsuit against me, I wound up representing myself and conducted a deposition of him. I asked about his criminal record and was curious about his two disorderly conduct convictions.

That is a broad charge--just ask famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates--that can apply to all kinds of offenses. In conducting research, I've seen it applied to everything from someone screaming at another person in public to soliciting gay sex in a men's room.

My research showed that McGarity's second disorderly-conduct conviction was for urinating in public. But I wasn't able to find the nature of the first charge. So I asked him. And his reply?

"I don't remember."

I'm not making this up, folks. The guy has been arrested so many times that he doesn't remember what they all were for! And he winds up as our next-door neighbor!

I guarantee you that if I had ever been arrested, I would remember it vividly. I bet most of you would say the same thing.

So here's the big question: How did Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama come to hire Mike McGarity some 25 years ago, when his criminal history was fresh on the books? Did McGarity disclose his record, and the company hired him anyway? Did McGarity fail to disclose his record, and the company didn't bother to do a background check--even though it handles sensitive, private information with federal taxpayer dollars?

As we noted above, falsifying an employment application at a federal Medicare contractor is supposed to be grounds for dismissal. Is anyone paying attention at BC/BS of Alabama?

During summer 2009, in the midst of the Great Bush Recession, Blue Cross and Blue Shield laid off more than 150 people. Best I can tell, Mike McGarity was not one of them.

My guess is that those 150 people combined do not have as many criminal convictions as McGarity has by himself. And yet they were let go, while McGarity still seems to be drawing a paycheck.

I wonder how some of those folks would feel about knowing an accomplished criminal still works at BC/BS of Alabama--while they are out of jobs.

Again, is anyone in the human-resources department at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama paying attention?

(To be continued)

Is the FBI In Alabama Really Interested in Public Corruption?

The FBI in Alabama is encouraging citizens to come forward with information about public corruption, according to a recent article in The Birmingham News.


Given the political nature of many "corruption" cases brought in Alabama over the past 10 years or so, one immediately suspects an ulterior motive is behind the FBI's recent plea for information. I know from personal experience that Alabama FBI agents tend to ignore information they receive about public corruption, especially if it involves Republicans and/or members of the legal community.

So why should citizens believe the feds have a genuine concern now? They shouldn't, and that's because the FBI probably is up to something--and it likely has little to do with justice. For their trouble, however, The Birmingham News and at least one FBI agent might have bought themselves a defamation lawsuit. Serves them right. More on that in a minute.

The FBI piece, which ran in Sunday's newspaper, might be the strangest story I've ever read in The Birmingham News--and that's saying something. What is the main point of the story? It seems to be this, based on information from agent Tom Mayhall:

Mayhall and other FBI agents want more people to step forward--anonymously or not--with information about public corruption. And when a person does risk stepping forward, agents will work to keep their identity secret, he said.

"We have to give people a level of confidence" to the extent possible, Mayhall said.

The FBI reminds the public that timeliness can be important in a public corruption case:

Stepping forward with information as quickly as possible is important. That's because the statute of limitations on certain crimes can prevent charges from being filed and a suspect can get away with a crime, he said.

We even learn that the Birmingham FBI has a Contracting Corruption Questionnaire on its Web site. And The Birmingham News article, curiously, focuses almost entirely on a recap of the Jefferson County sewer case.

Does the FBI want information about public corruption in general or only certain kinds, especially those involved with contractors? If it is focusing only on crime associated with contractors, why is that? Why are public officials getting a free pass for other forms of corruption, such as that involving courts.

I can provide reams of information about public corruption involving lawyers, judges, and our courthouses. I know more than a dozen people who can provide similar information. But is that the "wrong kind" of corruption for the FBI? I'm going to soon pay a visit to the Birmingham FBI and find out--and I'm going to encourage my contacts to do the same thing.

I've got information that probably could put any number of Birmingham-area judges and lawyers in federal prison for quite a spell. I know other citizens who have similar information, coming from both Jefferson and Shelby counties. Perhaps we soon will learn if the FBI really is serious about public corruption in Alabama.

Meanwhile, The Birmingham News perhaps have stepped in doo-doo by focusing on the sewer case. That's because Mayhall might have been a little loose with the facts in some of his statements about the case. He focused partly on former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White:

The first indictment came in 2005 in the McNair and Swann cases. Former Jefferson County Commissioner Gary White was indicted on federal bribery charges involving contractor Sohan Singh and US Infrastructure in Nov. 2007.

Langford, Blount and LaPierre were indicted in December 2008 on bribery charges.

The FBI already was investigating White for allegations involving his time as commissioner supervising the county's general services. Those allegations involved an architect, whose firm had ongoing county projects, providing White free architectural plans for a garage and mountain cabin in Mentone and hunting trips to South Dakota.

Sohan Singh, the contractor charged in the bribery of McNair, stepped forward to tell FBI agents about bribing White, Mayhall said.

Judy White, wife of Gary White, was none too pleased with how her husband was portrayed in the article, and she ripped off the following e-mail to reporter Kent Faulk, demanding a retraction:

On behalf of Gary White, this is a demand for correction and retraction.

The article bearing your "by" line states as follows: "Sohan Singh, the contractor charged in the bribery of McNair, stepped forward to tell FBI agents about bribing White, Mayhall said."

That is absolutely and provably FALSE; it is also absurdly illogical. Sohan Singh pleaded not guilty to bribing Chris McNair and has maintained his innocence while continuing his appeals. How much sense does it make that he would deny bribing Chris McNair, then, out of the blue "step forward" and tell his own prosecutors that he bribed Gary White, not Chris McNair?

And, if that actually happened, why wasn't Sohan Singh charged with bribing Gary White? Does that mean if I "step forward" and "tell FBI agents" that I--hypothetically--robbed a bank, for instance, they would pat me on the back, thank me, give me credit, but not charge me? I don't think so.

Your article quotes Mayhall . . . as saying, "The sewer cases . . . were viewed as three investigations." Think back to elementary school practices, and you don't have to look hard to see which one is different: the--wrongful--prosecution of Gary White. What is missing or different? It's very easy--and I'm not even a deputy-dog reporter.

In the other cases, alleged participating parties--PLURAL--were charged, being those who were alleged to have paid AND received. Gary White was charged ALONE with bribery--by definition a multi-party crime--and conspiracy--by definition a multi-party crime. Again, Sohan Singh was not charged, nor did he plead guilty or have any negative consequences whatsoever.

How does that work, IF he "step[ped] forward to tell FBI agents about bribing" anyone? Why doesn't your article mention the millions of dollars that were CREDITED to him after his testimony at Gary's trial? And why didn't he testify to having bribed Gary? Bill Blount testified that he bribed Larry Langford, and if I'm not mistaken, Al Lapierre did as well. Sohan Singh never testified or made any claim or statement that he bribed Gary White. His testimony at trial was, in fact, quite the opposite. I have previously provided the trial transcripts. but no one has been interested in even reading, much less reporting, what was actually said, preferring instead to simply publish false information provided by Alice Martin's press office.

The reasons Gary White was targeted and prosecuted have nothing to do with bribery, conspiracy, or public corruption--other than the corruption of Alice Martin, Tom Mayhall, and their counterparts. It began with his refusal to give prosecutors false testimony against Siegelman and Scrushy, and continued, with someone telling us at one point of one driving factor being the "Oreo" factor. Alice Martin had prosecuted Chris McNair and had her sights on Larry Langford, but needed a white Republican to avert claims of racial and political bias. Gary White was the Oreo filling, the victim of a corrupt political prosecution.

We long ago understood your employer's lack of interest in the truth. It is irresponsible and actionable for you to continue to publish false and defamatory information, having been informed of its falseness and provided proof thereof, which establishes malice.

We look forward to your immediate and prominent retraction and correction, in compliance with the legally established standard. I will also remind you that case law has established the responsibility of the publication, even when attributing a quote, when the information quoted is not true.

Sincerely,

Judith Ayers White
as Attorney in Fact for Gary White

I know Judy White to be a smart, tough individual--and her e-mail makes a compelling case that The Birmingham News and FBI agent Mayhall engaged in serious misstatements regarding the sewer case.

If agents such as Mayhall can't keep their facts straight, should we trust the FBI with information about public corruption?

[Photo: cbsnews.com]