Wife-Beating Federal Judge Mark Fuller Personifies The Corruption That Is Rotting American Democracy

Paul Craig Roberts

U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller (Middle District of Alabama), who entered a rehab program in the wake of charges that he beat up his wife in an Atlanta hotel room, symbolizes the corruption that is causing decay in vital American institutions. In a sense, that makes Alabama "Ground Zero" for the kind of dishonest government that seems to have become the norm, especially in courtrooms across the country.

These thoughts come to us after reading the latest from Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant treasury secretary in the Reagan administration and former columnist at the Wall Street Journal.  Despite his solid conservative credentials, Roberts has become an independent voice who is willing to criticize bad actors on both the right and the left.

One such bad actor is Judge Mark Fuller, and he caught Roberts' attention in a recent piece at the Foreign Policy Journal. Fuller's handling of the Don Siegelman prosecution is a black mark on a criminal "justice" system run amok, Roberts reports:

In the totally corrupt American criminal justice (sic) system, anyone indicted, no matter how innocent, is almost certain to be convicted.

Let’s take the case of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. Judging by the reported evidence in the media and testimony by those familiar with the case, Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama was a victim of a Karl Rove operation to instruct Democrats that their political party would not be permitted a comeback in executive authority in the Republican South.

There is no doubt but that the Alabama Republican newspapers and TV stations are political tools. And there is little doubt that former Republican US Attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary and Republican US federal district court judge Mark Fuller were willing participants in Karl Rove’s political campaign to purge the South of popular democrats.

Are Martin, Canary, Fuller, and Rove the kind of people we should entrust with our most important institutions? Roberts says the answer is no, and he points to Fuller's recent activities:

Republican US district court judge Mark Fuller was arrested in Atlanta this month for beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel. The judge, in whose honor courts must rise, was charged with battery and taken to the Fulton County jail at 2:30AM Sunday morning August 10. If you look at the mug shot of Mark Fuller, he doesn’t inspire confidence. Fuller was a bitter enemy of Siegelman and should have recused himself from Siegelman’s trial, but ethical behavior required more integrity than Fuller has.

Among many, Scott Horton, a professor of law at Columbia University has provided much information in Harper’s magazine involving the corruption of Fuller and the Republican prosecuting attorneys, Alice Martin and Leura Canary.

Roberts does not give Democrats, or the public, a free pass. He is particularly critical of those who live in the South and happily ignore Mark Fuller and his ilk:

So why hasn’t the Obama regime pardoned former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman who unlike other pardoned parties is actually innocent? Siegelman was bringing the Democratic Party back in the corrupt Republican state of Alabama. He was a successful governor who would have been US senator, and Karl Rove apparently exterminated him politically in order to protect the Republican hold on the South.

It is extremely ironic that the formerly solid Democratic South, plundered, looted, and raped by Republican armies, votes Republican. If anything shows the insouciance of a people, the South’s Republican vote is the best demonstration. The South votes for a party that destroyed the South and its culture. There is no greater evidence of a people totally ignorant of, or indifferent to, their history than the Southern people who vote Republican.

Corruption across the board should be a concern for all Americans, Roberts writes. But corrupt courts are a sure sign of trouble in the future:

Every public institution in the United States and most private ones are corrupt. . . .

Law is just one public institution, but it is a corner stone of society. When law goes, everything goes.

When law goes, everything goes? Experience has taught me that law already has gone in Alabama, and it is teetering in many other states--in all regions of the country. If Roberts is correct, and I believe he is, America has grim days ahead.

Rove's Efforts to "Spin" Take Him Into Criminal Territory

Did Karl Rove obstruct justice when he discussed his role in the the U.S. attorney firings with two major newspapers, violating an agreement he had with Congress?

Yes indeed, says Alabama lawyer and whistleblower Jill Simpson, who has testified under oath that Rove was part of a conspiracy to conduct a political prosecution against former Governor Don Siegelman.

Simpson says Rove violated 18 U.S. Code 1505 by granting interviews with The New York Times and the Washington Post, which ran last week after his second round of testimony before staff members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. Rove also provided copies of selected e-mails to reporters, messages that apparently indicate his role in the U.S. attorney firings was small.

Did Rove commit a crime? The applicable law is titled "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees," and Simpson says Rove violated it. Breaking the law carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. Says Simpson:

"He violated the congressional investigation by talking to the newspapers. The statute is clear . . . I think we have a bingo. Mr Rove ran his mouth and should be charged and sentenced to five years. . . . By releasing what he said, he has put all who may testify on notice to doctor their testimony (accordingly). That is why his testimony was supposed to be secret. Shame on Karl. But he has committed a crime; now time will tell what they do with it. Also it is clearly an intentional act."

Simpson says Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin probably launched their spin campaign to let George W. Bush know the content of Rove's testimony. Says Simpson:

"I suspect the reason for the leak is to let George W Bush know what Karl said. Karl in his interview said he suspected (Bush was informed of the firings). This was his way of letting (the former president) know what he said. Also George is in direct conflict with what his press (office) said at the time, so Karl's testimony was different and open ended on that question, as reported by the press.

"Bless their black hearts, they have leaked one too many times, and this time caught themselves in a mess as they did it openly and released documents that were protected and not to be released to the public."

It should be impossible for the Obama administration to ignore the latest shenanigans from Rove, Simpson says:

"Obama can say he won't look backwards to the past administration. But this obstruction occurred . . . during his administration, so it is the present not the past. That argument won't work."

Finally, Simpson raises questions about the newspapers' roles in the leaks:

"Are the Washington Post and New York Times not also guilty of obstruction? They clearly knew about the agreement and ran the story anyway. They have been co-conspirators, in my opinion, to assisting Mr Rove in leaking info to the (former) president about what Mr. Rove testified to."

Alabama journalist Glynn Wilson, who has reported extensively on corruption in the Bush Justice Department, says the two newspapers appear to be willing dupes for Rove:

What the two top newspapers in the land don’t seem to realize is that this is an attempt by Rove to not only snake his way out of culpability in politicizing the Justice Department, but to actually try and make it appear as if he gives a damn about the problems he created as Bush’s lead political brain and attack dog. Every single decision made by the Bush administration was filtered through Rove to make sure it met political muster, and the administration aggressively pursued a strategy of taking over the country by the Republican Party. Rove often promised his GOP buddies that his mission was to keep the Republicans in charge of the country “for a generation.”

So why does this come as a surprise to the Post and the Times at this late date?

In the Times version of this fiction, Mr. Rove said he “played only a peripheral role in the removal of the prosecutors.”

Right . . .

Larisa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, is alarmed about the secrecy coming from the House Judiciary Committee and the Obama White House regarding Rove's testimony:

For nearly a month I tried to find out what exactly Karl Rove admitted during his testimony behind closed doors--and not under oath--in front of the House Judiciary Committee. The HJC would not discuss or leak Rove's testimony, not any part of it. Nor would they confirm or deny anything. The reasons for this were stated to be an agreement--on which I reported last week--between Rove and the HJC. Such was the level of secrecy that when I tried to get clarification on language used in the agreement, no one would provide it, all citing the confidentiality of the agreement itself. And this secrecy was not limited to the HJC either. The White House would not provide any comment either, which is odd since they helped broker the agreement.

Understandably, Alexandrovna was amazed to discover that Rove himself was discussing the matter with two major newspapers:

But my interest in this testimony is entirely focused on the US Attorneys who were NOT fired and stayed on to conduct political prosecutions--like Leura Canary, the US Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama who prosecuted former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Canary is still in office by the way as neither Obama or Holder seem interested in replacing someone this corrupt. So, as I asked both the White House and HJC staffers: "who are you protecting?" No answers.

Scott Horton, of Harper's, says The New York Time looks particularly bad in its entanglement with Rove:

Turning the page we find the Times punk’d yet a second time, in the more conventional way. Karl Rove, violating his agreement with the House Judiciary Committee (which I discussed here), gave “exclusive” interviews to the Times and the Washington Post, in a determined effort to spin the bad news about his role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys and his unseen hand in the work of the Justice Department generally. The Post’s piece, by Carrie Johnson, shows an appropriate level of balance and skepticism about Rove’s self-serving and highly misleading claims. Not so the Times. Indeed, the headline tells the whole story: “Rove Says His Role in Prosecutor Firings Was Small.” The problem, of course, is that the evidence the Judiciary Committee has collected, and the investigation by special prosecutor Nora Dannehy, show precisely the opposite. They put Karl Rove squarely in the center of the effort to remove the U.S. attorneys fired in the December 7, 2006 massacre, and they show that the firings were motivated by improper partisan political considerations. Rove was positioned as the enforcer of Republican Party discipline—ensuring that U.S. attorneys implement the party’s electoral program, including voter intimidation and suppression, or be forced to walk the plank.

The Los Angeles Times has joined the fray with a piece titled "Rove Declares His Innocence in 2006 U.S. Attorney Firings." The LA Times does not seem impressed with Rove's interviews to East Coast newspapers, noting the Judiciary Committee's reaction to Rove's handiwork:

But Rove's comments, made through his lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, prompted immediate calls of foul play by congressional Democrats, who accused him of sidestepping an agreement not to discuss his two days of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

"It's hardly surprising that Mr. Rove would minimize his involvement in the U.S. attorney firings or that selectively leaked documents would serve his version of events," said committee spokesman Jonathan Godfrey. "The committee believes that the full record will show Mr. Rove's role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys was more substantial than his statements to the media indicate."

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), who led the questioning, agreed with the committee's statement, adding: "Plainly Mr. Rove is trying to jump ahead and shape the story before the documents and interviews are released."

The LA Times also reported that Rove's interviews did not amount to much in terms of journalism:

There were few, if any, disclosures in Rove's e-mails or his interviews with the newspapers. For the most part, Rove said, as the White House did earlier, that he was providing political guidance about larger policy issues and was interested in helping put the best people into prosecutor positions that were either already open or about to become open.

"Atticus v. The Architect," documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, now is available online via Amazon

From amazon.com

A documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman now is available online via Amazon.

Atticus v. The Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman is available via Amazon streaming for $4.99. It can be purchased via an Amazon electronic link for $14.99.

Also, the DVD can be purchased at the following link. And it is expected to be on iTunes in a few days.

Directed by Steve Wimberly, the film is a detailed account of the role corrupt Republican operatives -- including Karl Rove, Jack Abramoff, and Bill Canary -- played in launching a campaign to remove Siegelman as a political opponent by having him and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy unlawfully prosecuted and sent to federal prison for roughly six years each. "The Architect" is a reference to Karl Rove, former political adviser to George W. Bush.

Here is the film description from Amazon:

The story behind the most notorious political prosecution in American history. How a corrupt cadre of politicos, led by Karl Rove, secretly rigged a federal court to railroad former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman into jail because they couldn't beat him at the polls. It exposes the dark underbelly of political corruption, and reveals the moral crisis plaguing American politics.

Legal Schnauzer has published several hundred posts about the Siegelman case -- the most extensive coverage available anywhere -- and was used as a resource during production of the film.

Since its premiere last May at Birmingham's classic Alabama Theatre, Atticus has been screened at a number of theatres around the South -- often with Siegelman on hand to take questions afterwards. A screening at the Davis Theatre in Montgomery drew a capacity crowd after the Capri Theatre backed out of a plan to show the film, under pressure from board member and former federal prosecutor Leura Canary.

Amazon is providing the first widespread distribution of the film.

A key point in the movie comes when Montgomery attorney Tommy Gallion, a longtime Republican figure on the state and national scenes, reveals that he received an invitation to a meeting where the Siegelman prosecution was to be discussed. Gallion, repulsed by the idea, declined the invitation, but plans called for Karl Rove to attend the meeting.

The documentary generally has received stellar reviews, as we reported last August:

A documentary about the political prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is "worth your time and your anger," according to a review at the Alabama Political Reporter (APR). The Prattville-based news site pledged to help arrange a showing of the film in Montgomery. . . .

Josh Moon, of APR, says the documentary makes for a powerful viewing experience. He calls it "scorching." From his review:

No wonder Leura Canary didn’t want people to see the Siegelman documentary.

“Atticus v. The Architect: The Political Assassination of Don Siegelman” is a scorching documentary, particularly if you’re one of the many Republican officials who played a role in the prosecution of Alabama’s former Governor.

The film does not offer much in the way of new information about the Siegelman case, Moon writes. But it takes a complex story and presents it in a solid, professional, understandable package for a mainstream audience:

For all of the local attention this film has received – thanks in large part to Canary’s pushback against allowing the film to be shown in Montgomery — “Atticus” doesn’t really reveal much in the way of new information. What it does – and it’s the first medium to do so – is put the whole sordid ordeal in one tidy package that’s easy for the common person to digest.

That alone would be reason enough for Canary and others to want it stopped. Because it’s only through that perspective, with all of the facts and the sequence of events laid out before you, that you understand the grandness of the scheme against Siegelman. And it is only through that perspective that the impossibility of such a grand conspiracy can be removed, and the lengths and depths to which some will go to gain a political advantage can be exposed.

Here is more from Moon's review:

Starting with the 2002 gubernatorial race between Siegelman and Bob Riley, “Atticus,” written and directed by Steve Wimberly, travels a course of corruption, much of which it lays at the feet of Riley, Republican operative Karl Rove, Billy and Leura Canary and Eric Holder.

It features interviews with some of the state’s most powerful and well-known political players. And there’s even an appearance by the most famous crooked lobbyist in DC, Jack Abramoff, who recounts in detail how he and his Choctaw Indian pals forked out $20 million to beat back a lottery and to get rid of Siegelman.

By the end, you walk away with two thoughts: Alabama politics is dirtier than I imagined (which is saying something) and Don Siegelman shouldn’t have been indicted, much less convicted.

It is well worth your time, and your anger.

For those who might want to conduct in-depth research -- either before or after watching the film -- we recommend our five-part series, "The Cheating of Don Siegelman." It is an extensive examination of the role judicial corruption -- at both the trial and appellate level -- played in the Siegelman debacle. From that series:

The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cheated former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman in multiple ways. The most glaring example involves the statute of limitations, so we will start there.

It's undisputed that the government was tardy in bringing bribery charges against Siegelman and codefendant Richard Scrushy.

All of the activity that constituted the alleged bribery took place in summer 1999. But the government's original indictment was dated May 17, 2005. That's almost one full year past the five-year statute of limitations.

Even if Siegelman and Scrushy had committed the worst sort of bribery--and the facts and the law show that they didn't commit bribery at all--the government missed the boat by a long shot.

Below is the film's trailer:

Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove are raising boatloads of cash for Luther Strange, which means Alabamians should give "Big Lutha" the boot at the ballot box

Luther Strange
(From politico.com)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tonight is co-hosting a Capitol Hill reception and dinner to benefit the campaign of U.S. Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL). That should be enough to cause any sentient Alabama voter to check a box other than the one beside Strange's name when the state conducts its special-election primary on August 15.

If that's not reason enough to vote against Strange as the successor to Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions, consider this: Karl Rove is trying to get Strange elected.

Yep, "Bush's Brain" has turned Alabama into a political sewer since he showed up in the mid 1990s to help Perry Hooper get "elected" chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. That race likely was stolen, serving as a precursor to Bush v. Gore (2000) and Bush v. Kerry (2004) at the presidential election -- not to mention Riley v. Siegelman (2002) in the Alabama governor's race.

Now, we've advanced to an era where a foreign adversary (Russia) likely stole the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump. But the electoral sleaze dates to the 1994 Alabama Supreme Court race -- and the collusion between Rove and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to switch state courts in the Deep South from Democrat to Republican.

The Rove/Donaohue scheme worked, and Alabama now has one of the most hideously corrupt judicial systems in the country -- and the string of dubious elections has emboldened a foreign despot (Vladimir Putin) to meddle in our presidential politics, with the likely expectation that he will get away with it.

Haven't we had enough of Karl Rove in Alabama politics, not to mention the national stage?

An article yesterday at Politico shows that McConnell and Co. are pulling out all the stops to help Strange keep the Sessions seat for establishment Republicans. From the article, by Alex Isenstadt:

McConnell will put his formidable fundraising operation to work this week. On Tuesday evening (8/1/17), he's slated to co-host a Capitol Hill reception and dinner benefiting Strange. Attendees are being asked to give up to $10,000, according to an invitation.

Isenstadt then drops this pearl on us:

Much of the Republican leader's effort in the race is being overseen by the pro-McConnell Senate Leadership Fund. In April, the super PAC held an event in Birmingham, Alabama, to outline its plans to defend Strange, who made an appearance for part of the gathering. Also present was former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove, who knows Strange, a former state attorney general, from his past work on Alabama judicial races.

“We’re in for Luther — money, marbles or chalk,” Rove told the crowd, according to one attendee.

Luther Strange already is a dismal option, with ethical brush fires sprouting around his smelly appointment by corrupt former Gov. Robert Bentley, Strange's apparent ties to the Birmingham Superfund scandal, plus possible campaign-finance violations. Do we really need Karl Rove, with his mountains of ethical baggage, making a return engagement to Alabama politics, supporting an ethically challenged candidate?

Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell
(From dailykos.com)

With the primary elections roughly two weeks away, the field of candidates (for both parties) might be the worst ever assembled for a major U.S. campaign. On the GOP side, Strange, Roy Moore, and Mo Brooks are the "Larry, Moe, and Curly" of political possibilities. On the Democratic side, apparent leader Doug Jones is just as bad as that crowd. In fact, Jones might be one of the biggest phonies ever to run for office in Alabama -- and that is saying something.

Jones has accomplished zero to move Alabama forward, so he touts a "civil-rights" record that is as shallow as it is bogus. As we've shown in a series of posts, here is the ugly truth about Doug Jones:

* He is closely aligned with GOPer Rob "Uday" Riley, one of the sleaziest figures in modern U.S. political history;

* He represented Don Siegelman for a while and screwed the former governor over, charging him $300,000 while accomplishing almost nothing -- other than extending the statute of limitations to benefit the prosecution;

* He has wildly praised former Alabama Attorney General and Jeff Sessions acolyte Bill Pryor -- the virulently anti-LGBT federal judge who has a history of posing nude for photographs that ended up at multiple gay-porn Web sites;

* He has helped cover up insurance fraud connected to University of Alabama and Crimson Tide Foundation honcho Paul Bryant Jr. By doing so, Jones helped create the toxic Tuscaloosa culture that allowed the alleged rape and suicide of Megan Rondini to happen and protected the family behind ST Bunn Construction.

We have more coming about the real Doug Jones, with ample evidence to show that he does not merit support among Democrats.

I can't begin to recommend a candidate in the sorry U.S. Senate field. But Luther Strange and Doug Jones are horrible choices. And it's way past time for Alabamians to develop a spine to show Karl Rove the exit and kick him in the ass until he's out the door.

Rove Deal Is A Raw Deal For Justice

After hearing that former White House advisor Karl Rove is set to answer questions before a congressional committee about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, many progressives might be tempted to shout, "Hallelujah!"

But here's a word of caution from our justice team at Legal Schnauzer: Not so fast.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday evening that it had reached an agreement for Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. News reports indicate the testimony also is expected to cover the Siegelman case, the best known of several apparent political prosecutions under the Bush Department of Justice.

Rove and Miers are to sit for transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury, with the committee reserving the right to seek public testimony. The agreement also states that invocations of official privileges will be limited.

All of that sounds good, right? Well, we're not so sure.

For one, why is the Siegelman case the only political prosecution on the agenda? There appear to be many others, perhaps most notably the case of Mississippi attorney Paul Minor and former state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield. That is the only documented case where the Bush prosecutor--Dunn Lampton--was on a list to be fired but was removed when he pursued a specific prosecution.

For another, news reports indicate that the Obama White House was deeply involved in negotiations for the Rove testimony. And White House Counsel Gregory Craig apparently represented the Obama camp. A New York Times report states that Craig sent House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers a letter saying, "President Obama is pleased that the parties have agreed to resolve this matter amicably."

But is Craig committed to seeing that former Bush officials are held accountable for politicizing the Justice Department? News out of Alabama this week indicates that Craig might be more interested in protecting Rove than in seeing that justice is done.

Alabama attorney Jill Simpson, a GOP whistleblower in the Siegelman case, says Craig has a conflict in matters involving Rove and perhaps other former Bush officials. In a letter dated February 22, 2009, Simpson's attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, asked Craig to step down from all matters involving the Bush administration.

As justification for this request, the letter states:

* Craig represented Rove in a recent book deal;

* Emmet Flood, Craig's former close associate and mentor, is representing the Bush administration on executive-privilege issues in a case involving the U.S. attorneys firings;

* Craig was in contact with Jill Simpson on the pretense of representing her regarding her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, but declined representation only after hearing her entire case against Rove.

In the letter, Duncan states that Craig had a duty to disclose his relationship with Rove to Simpson, and he has a duty now to disclose with whom he shared information gleaned from his discussions with Simpson.

In short, Simpson alleges that Craig violated multiple rules of professional conduct for lawyers. These are the kinds of violations that, if confirmed, could get a lawyer in serious trouble. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I suspect disbarment could be on the table for Mr. Craig if he indeed took privileged information from Ms. Simpson and disclosed it to Karl Rove or others.

So is the Rove deal a step forward for justice? I don't think so. And that's because I smell a foul odor coming from the Obama White House. And it seems to be coming from the vicinity of Gregory Craig.

As we have stated before here at Legal Schnauzer, I suspect the Obama presidency could go down in flames if he does not "get it right" on justice issues. The Bill Clinton administration chose to give corrupt Republicans a free pass and lived to regret it. With the help of Gregory Craig, Obama appears to be headed down the same slippery slope.

Does Obama need to make a change in his White House counsel? I would say the answer is yes, and that's because I've read the complete Jill Simpson letter. I invite Legal Schnauzer readers to do the same.

Here is the complete Simpson letter to Mr. Craig, as first reported by Glynn Wilson at Locust Fork New-Journal. The letter includes intriguing information about a number of Alabama GOP luminaries, including Governor Bob Riley and his son Rob, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, and U.S. Judge Mark Fuller (the judge in the Siegelman case):

Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500

February 22, 2009

RE: Your position regarding advising the President on the pending testimony of Karl Rove

Dear Attorney Craig:
I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.

She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.

For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.
In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:

1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.

7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn't represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.

8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”

9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.

Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.

You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.

Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.

We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.

Sincerely,

Priscilla Black Duncan

Attorney for Jill Simpson

Has Karl Rove's Terror Campaign Worked in the Deep South?

After I wrote yesterday about the race for a seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, a disturbing question came to mind:

Has Republican strategist Karl Rove succeeded with his long-running campaign to intimidate Democratic candidates for statewide offices in the Deep South?

In his seminal reporting on the Bush Justice Department, Scott Horton of Harper's magazine has raised numerous important points about the motives behind political prosecutions, such as the Don Siegelman case in Alabama and the Paul Minor case in Mississippi.

Two points, in particular, are rattling around in my head at the moment:

* The goal behind the Mississippi prosecution apparently was to dry up a key source of financial support for Democratic candidates. Paul Minor, an attorney who had become wealthy from bringing successful litigation against the asbestos and tobacco industries, was one such donor--in Mississippi and beyond. Minor was a major supporter of John Edwards' presidential campaign, and Horton has reported that Bush strategists had fingered Edwards as the most likely threat to Dubya's re-election in 2004. That evidently helped make Minor a target for the Bush DOJ--along with state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield, who had received Minor's campaign support. Minor, Teel, and Whitfield all are in federal prison for crimes that, as we have shown in an extensive series of posts here at Legal Schnauzer, they did not commit. The message? If you give to Democratic candidates in a deep red, Deep South state, you will come to regret it.

* The goal of the Alabama prosecution apparently was to eliminate a Democrat who had a troubling habit of beating Republicans in statewide elections. Siegelman had done it four times--in races for secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor, and governor. Rove and Co. evidently decided, "By God, he's not going to get re-elected as governor." And they used a federal investigation, and disappearing vote totals overnight in heavily Republican Baldwin County, to accomplish that goal. The message? If you are a Democrat who beats us at the ballot box in a deep red, Deep South state, we will make you pay.

Those messages came to mind after I wrote yesterday that Presiding Judge William C. Thompson, a Republican, is almost certainly going to be re-elected to his seat on the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals--even though he is demonstrably corrupt. I know Thompson is corrupt because I had an appeal before him in 2005, and Thompson swept the unlawful trial-court judgment under the rug by issuing a no-opinion affirmance.

Thompson appears to be a shoo-in for re-election because Democratic challenger Kimberly Drake has not been able to put up much of a fight. My post drew the following response from Robert Sullivan, Drake's campaign manager:

To quickly and briefly respond to the Legal Schnauzer blog, we’re putting up as much of a fight as we can, given our resources.

Thompson does lead Drake in campaign contributions--this is Alabama and a Democrat will always face an uphill battle. He is a beneficiary of the same backers as Shaw (Greg Shaw, running for Alabama Supreme Court) and is another product of Rove’s gaming of Alabama’s elections.

However, Kim has TV spots scheduled to appear this week, as are some radio spots. She has given interviews with several newspapers and a radio station. She also appeared at the judicial fundraiser and candidate forum at the Birmingham Botanical Gardens.

In the mean time, Drake is still a mother of three and a lawyer, while Thompson has time to fritter away.

We are also reaching out to Christians, who are unhappy with Thompson. Politics makes for strange bed fellows.

This is not over.

I hope Sullivan is right, and I didn't mean to imply that Drake isn't doing the best she can do. In fact, she has two sure votes here in the Schnauzer household, and I encourage all Alabamians to vote for her.

My main point was this: Bill Thompson needs to be booted out of office, and it's a crying shame that the Alabama Democratic Party could not help a candidate (either Drake or someone else) put up a serious fight. For two or three years now, I've been trying to tell Alabama Democratic leaders that I can prove the all-Republican Court of Civil Appeals is corrupt--and I've been willing to go public with it. But Democrats have not been able to take advantage, and as a result, Bill Thompson almost certainly will get another six years on the bench.

But back to Karl Rove: Is it possible Democrats could not give Thompson a fight because they were afraid to do it, even afraid to win?

Why would Kim Drake, or any other Democrat, want to solicit significant donations, and why would any donor want to give? Look what happened in the Paul Minor case next door in Mississippi!

Why would Kim Drake, or any other Democrat, want to push too hard for victory? My God, what if she actually won? Look what happened to Don Siegelman!

As we sit here now, just a few days from the November 4 election, we know that a Democrat has a pretty good chance of winning the White House and taking back the Justice Department from Republican criminals. But neither Drake, nor any other Democrat who might have run against Thompson, knew that at the outset.

If I had been in their shoes, knowing what had happened in the Siegelman and Minor cases, I might have given Bill Thompson a free pass, too.

Hopefully, next Tuesday will be a red-letter day for Democrats--and for justice. And hopefully, Rove & Co. someday will pay big time for the crimes they have committed.

But for now, Rove's legacy of threats and intimidation still has teeth. And it shows in the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

Are Bushies Getting Tighty Whities?

Folks in the corrupt wing of the Republican Party, made up almost entirely of "loyal Bushies" we suspect, appear to be feeling tightness in their jockey shorts these days.

Inevitably, the story of the sewer-like Bush Justice Department, centers on Alabama. A number of honest Alabamians are fighting back against the Bush Machine, and that seems to have the Bushies in a lather.

First, it seems clear that the Bushies were counting on former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman remaining in federal prison for the next seven years or so. Instead, Siegelman is free pending an appeal, and he is able to tell his story far and wide. Every now and then, a member of the Alabama press picks up on the story, and that happens today with an enlightening Q&A from Markeshia Ricks, capitol correspondent for the Anniston Star.

Corrupt GOPers can't be happy that Siegelman now has forums to make comments like this:

The Star: Why do you believe Rove hasn't agreed to testify under oath?

Siegelman: He doesn't want to run the risk of lying under oath and being prosecuted for perjury. You know, I think it's telling that he talks a good game. He wrote a, I think it was a five-page letter to [MSNBC anchor] Dan Abrams basically asking Dan Abrams questions about why he should testify under oath. When Conyers invited him to testify under oath, he's dodged that, he's skated, and I think it's clear he's got something to hide. Otherwise, there is no reason why he wouldn't testify under oath.

Or this:

The Star: Since 1998, you've been the subject of some kind of investigation. Why do you think that is?

Siegelman: It's all part of the same case. It started when Karl Rove's bag man, I call him, Jack Abramoff, started putting Indian casino money into Alabama to defeat me in 1998. Shortly after I endorsed Al Gore in 1999, Karl Rove's client, the attorney general of Alabama (Bill Pryor) started an investigation. In 2001, Karl Rove's business associate and political partner's wife, Leura Canary, became a U.S. attorney and started a federal investigation. … It started with the attorney general and the state investigation, followed by the federal investigation, followed by indictments in 2004, and then another series of indictments leading up to the 2006 election … but, yeah, it's all part of the same case.

And then Siegelman repeats a statement that has given him quite a bit of mileage in recent weeks:

I think this will make Watergate look like child's play when it is fully investigated, not so much this case because certainly it's not about me. It's about restoring justice and protecting our democracy and, because this case shows the lengths to which those who are obsessed with power will go in order to gain power or retain power, it has attracted the attention of the national press.
Specifically, because it is tied to the White House because Karl Rove is not only a political adviser to the president but he's a close personal friend of the president, and you asked me if I was surprised, no I'm not surprised that the national media has focused on this because it is the only case that has led Congress directly to the doors of the White House.

The other cases that are being mentioned or being talked about are primarily the eight U.S. attorneys who were targeted for removal either for failing to move quickly enough or for not following really the party line — the Karl Rove party line — of trying to do damage to Democrats who were involved in an elections contest.

What Congress is seeing in this case is the other side of that coin, which is what happens when a U.S. attorney does follow the party line and a person is selectively prosecuted to impact the outcome of an election.

Siegelman goes on to note the critical role of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson in bringing Bush DOJ sleaze to light. And that leads us to the latest GOP attempt to discredit Simpson. It comes from that trusty right-wing rag, the Weekly Standard.

Writer John H. Hinderaker makes no attempt to hide his misogyny, referring to Simpson as a "conspicuously large redhead" of "uncertain mental health."

And he makes little attempt to convince semi-coherent readers that he has his facts straight.

Hinderaker says Simpson has scratched out an "uncertain living" in DeKalb County, Alabama. Does he tell us what he means by "uncertain living?" Nope. Does he offer any evidence to back up this claim? Nope.

Hinderaker describes Simpson as a "very strange person" who "lives in her own world." What in the heck is this supposed to mean? The same terms could be applied to Stephen Hawking couldn't they? Or Paul McCartney? Or Brian Wilson? Or J.K. Rowling? Or any number of the brightest minds on the planet?

Hinderaker describes Simpson as the daughter of "rabid Democrats." Does he offer any proof of that? Nope. And does he note that this contradicts Simpson's sworn testimony before Congress? Nope.

Hinderaker reports that Simpson's house and law office are on the auction block. Does he offer anything to support this, say from a public document? Nope. And what does he mean by saying the property is "on the auction block?" Does he mean it's for sale? Then why doesn't he say so?
If the property is for sale, so what? What is that supposed to mean? Hinderaker doesn't tell us.

The Siegelman/Simpson tag team apparently is drawing blood. And that seems to have loyal Bushies on the edge of becoming unhinged.

Why Is Karl Rove Planning to Visit the Backwoods of Alabama?

Enterprise, Alabama

Karl Rove will visit Alabama to give a speech in August. Nothing surprising about that. Rove made his national name in Alabama by joining with Bill Canary and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to essentially buy state-court seats for "pro business" judges.

Rove visits our fair state regularly, usually in one of the prime population centers--Birmingham, Montgomery, Mobile, or Huntsville. In August, however, the former White House strategist and current Fox News and Wall Street Journal contributor will visit a relative backwater. The location of Rove's upcoming speech should raise eyebrows for anyone who has followed the Don Siegelman case.

"An Evening With Karl Rove" will be August 18 at the civic center in Enterprise, Alabama. Sounds enticing, doesn't it? The evening begins with a reception at 5:30 and dinner at 6:30, followed by remarks from Rove. For those who can't wait, ticket information is available at (334) 494-2427 and RSVPs must be received by August 8.

Enterprise, to be sure, is a bit off the beaten path. A town of about 26,000 hardy souls, it is in Coffee County in southeast Alabama, just above the Florida line.

Why would one of the biggest names in Republican politics pay a visit to such an out-of-the-way place? Perhaps we should note that the event is sponsored by the Coffee County Republican Committee and follow up with these questions: Who used to be Coffee County's representative on the GOP's executive committee? Who used to be the elected district attorney for Coffee County before moving on to greener pastures during the George W. Bush administration?

The answer to both of those questions is Mark Fuller, now chief U.S. judge for the Middle District of Alabama. Fuller has served in that position since Bush appointed him in 2002--while Rove served as chief White House adviser.

And for what is Mark Fuller best known? Why, he was the judge who handled the case against former Democratic governor Don Siegelman, perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history. According to the sworn testimony of Alabama whistleblower and attorney Jill Simpson, that case was driven by GOP political operatives in Alabama, with assistance from Rove in Washington, D.C.

Why, exactly, is Karl Rove coming to Enterprise, Alabama? The answer is not clear at the moment. But to a reasonable observer, it looks like payback to a corrupt federal judge who helped make sure that Republicans would take over the governor's office for the foreseeable future.

Showdown in Shelby County

Have you ever wondered what corruption looks like, live and in color? Have you ever wondered what it might feel like to be a regular citizen being cheated in George W. Bush's America, right here in 2008? Have you ever wondered what justice looks like in Karl Rove's Alabama, the state where Turd Blossom made his national reputation by turning our state courts into a corrupt Republican enclave.

If you ever have wondered about any of these things, we are about to enlighten you here at Legal Schnauzer. As I've been writing about for months, government officials in Shelby County, Alabama, have been threatening to auction my house (and my wife's house) in order to satisfy a "judgment" in the grand total of $1,525.

Neither the opposing party nor his attorney has ever even asked for the money--no phone call, no demand letter, nothing. In fact, the supposed "judgment" sat around gathering mold for three-plus years; never heard a thing about it. But when I started writing this blog in June 2007, giving voice to the judicial and government corruption I've witnessed in Alabama, someone suddenly got interested in that "judgment." Someone clearly wanted my voice quieted.

That somebody was Pelham, Alabama, attorney William E. Swatek, who filed a writ of execution that prompted Shelby County Sheriff's deputies to threaten first our cars and then our house. Bill Swatek is not just any corrupt attorney. He is a proud practitioner of a special kind of corruption. You might say he's turned it into an art form, considering that he has a record of unethical behavior going back almost 30 years.

And here is something particularly important about Bill Swatek: His son, Dax Swatek, is a Montgomery-based Republican consultant who has served as a campaign manager for both Governor Bob Riley and U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Dax Swatek also has worked closely for Bill Canary. And Bill Canary has close ties to Karl Rove. And we all know who Karl Rove has close ties to.

If you are at all familiar with the Don Siegelman case, you don't need an introduction to any of those names I just mentioned. They are central to the story that landed the former Alabama Governor in federal prison. They also are central to the unfolding story of corruption in the Bush Justice Department, a tale that is likely to turn into perhaps the worst scandal in the nation's history over the next 12 to 24 months--if a Democratic Congress has the guts to the get to the bottom of it.

The videos you are about to see, on one level, look like a frustrated, exasperated citizen in the middle of nowhere, crying out for justice to authorities who clearly don't give a rip what the law says. Seen on one level, these videos are just about one couple's pain. This is all taking place in a backwater called Columbiana, Alabama, so why should anyone care?

But the attorney in the video, the sleazeball bidding on my house, is Bill Swatek. And I laid out his political lineage above. He has a pretty direct connection right to the Bush White House. And that has allowed him to get away with repeatedly cheating my wife and me--even though public records show we are hardly Swatek's only victims. He's been cheating people for almost 30 years, but Republicans in Karl Rove's Alabama protect him like the Golden Goose.

So come along for my video journey through the ethical morass that has enveloped Alabama and much of our nation over the past eight years. Many historians already are saying George W. Bush is likely to go down as the worst president in American history. The scenes you are about to see are one of many reasons why.

Some of you might have wondered what it was like to sit in the courtroom and watch Don Siegelman be railroaded and hauled off to prison in chains. The videos you are about to see might give you a little taste for what that was like.

That was a criminal case, and mine is a civil matter. That involved loss of freedom, and mine involves loss of clear title to my house.

I don't mean to imply that my pain remotely compares to what the former governor has been through. But cameras, to my knowledge, weren't allowed in the Siegelman courtroom, so the vast majority of Americans have no idea what that looked like, what that felt like.

So maybe we can help fill in that gap. We'll give you a little taste of what injustice is really like--on the front line, in a war for America's soul.

Those videos are coming next.

From Alaska to Alabama, GOP Corruption Never Changes

The nation will receive its prime-time introduction to Sarah Palin tonight, when she speaks at the Republican National Convention. But for those of us who live in Karl Rove's Alabama, no introduction is necessary for the Alaska governor.

In the days since John McCain announced that Palin would be his running mate, a steady stream of stories in the press have cast doubt about her suitability for the job of vice president--or dog catcher, for that matter.

Stories about her personal and family life have been curious, perhaps even titillating. But stories about her professional life have been downright alarming. In fact, they reveal a kind of corruption that is right out of the Deep South Republican playbook. It's the kind of stuff with which we in Alabama are all too familiar.

Let's examine some of the disturbing themes in Palin's up-from-obscurity story. The discerning reader will see that this Alaska story has a strong Alabama flavor:

* The Jack Abramoff connection--We learn from TPM Muckraker that, while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin oversaw the hiring of a lobbyist with ties to Jack Abramoff. The lobbyist, Steven Silver, listed Abramoff firm Greenberg Traurig as a client and said he lobbied the federal government on Greenberg's behalf on "issues related to Indian/Native American policy" and "legislation relating to gaming issues." Here in Alabama, we certainly know about Jack Abramoff and his interest in "Indian/Native American policy" and "gaming issues." Abramoff's interest in those issues, in the Deep South, started and ended with dollar signs. Alabama has a Republican governor with questionable ethics (Bob Riley) largely because Abramoff funneled $13 million of Mississippi Choctaw gaming money into our state to help defeat Democrat Don Siegelman.

* A problem with audiotapes--Palin's initial response to the Troopergate story was to lie and say that no one from her administration had pressured Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, who was going through an ugly divorce from Palin's sister. But then an audio recording surfaced, showing that a member of Palin's administration had indeed pressured Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire Wooten. Oops. I've seen that kind of thing in my termination from UAB. The university's president issued a statement saying I was fired for reasons solely having to do with work performance, that the decision had nothing to do with politics or the fact I write a blog. But then an audiotape surfaced showing that--surprise, surprise--my firing had everything to do with politics and my blog. Republicans seem to have this problem with indisputable evidence. Might help explain why Karl Rove doesn't want to testify before Congress.

* Costing people their jobs--By now, the story of Palin trying to fire Wooten, and then firing Monegan when he refused to fire Wooten, is well known to many Americans. But that's not the only time the governor has gone after someone's job. A posting by a woman named Anne Kilkenny, of Wasilla, Alaska, outlines Palin's penchant for trying to cost people their livelihoods. According to Kilkenny, Palin as mayor tried to fire the city librarian for refusing to remove some books that Palin wanted removed. Palin did fire the police chief and the city administrator--both highly regarded professionals, according to Kilkenny. Of course, this kind of thing has been going on for some time here in Karl Rove's Alabama. I was fired from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in May, after 19 years of service, for reasons that an audiotape shows were clearly political. And I am hardly alone. Huntsville defense contractor Alex Latifi saw his business ruined because of a bogus investigation and prosecution initiated by U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson saw her law practice badly damaged after she made sworn statements indicating former Governor Don Siegelman was prosecuted for political reasons. And on a coast-to-coast level, the Bush Justice Department scandal began to surface when nine U.S. attorneys--all Republicans and Bush appointees--were fired, apparently because they refused to conduct their business in partisan ways.

So when Sarah Palin flashes her former-beauty-queen smile tonight and tells you that she's a "hockey mom" and a "reformer," understand that she is blowing smoke up a certain orifice that belongs to you. In fact, she is just another corrupt Republican, the kind who will say anything to attain power.

Here in Alabama, we've heard this all before.

Siegelman Interview Reveals the True Nastiness Behind GOP Corruption

Don Siegelman never dreamed that he actually would be convicted and sent to prison on corruption charges, according to an article about the former Alabama governor in GQ.

"I never thought for a minute that I was going to be convicted," Siegelman tells reporter Brett Martin. "We knew where this prosecution was coming from. We knew the political motivation. I was confident that the truth would come out—so confident, in fact, that we didn't put any witnesses on the stand because we didn't think there was any evidence."

Siegelman goes on to make some profound statements about the nature of evil and the harsh realities of prison:

Do I believe in evil? Do I believe that Karl Rove is evil? I do. I don't mean that he was necessarily raised to be evil. But I think that, like Caligula, he turned himself into an evil ruler. He has subverted democracy and, by the way, done a great disservice to the Republican Party. I hear that more and more—like the former head of the Alabama Republican Party, whom I ran into at the airport in Washington lately. He told me, "I told them they should have stopped at [defeating you in] the election." Yes, I think there are evil people in the world, and I think Karl Rove is one of them.

How stark is life in a federal prison? Listen to Siegelman:

I was taken to a maximum-security prison in Atlanta. No daylight. Food served through a little slot in the door. No exercise. I stayed there for three weeks, and then I was flown to a facility in New York, then Michigan, then Oklahoma City before ending up in Oakdale, Louisiana. During this time, my wife and family were not notified where I was.

Time is viewed totally differently in prison. When you're free, you want the day to last as long as possible. You want to savor every moment. In prison, it's just the opposite; you want to get rid of days as fast as you can. I couldn't help but think about the people whose execution dates I had set when I was attorney general and that I'd upheld as governor. I said a quiet prayer that I had made the right decisions, because I knew then that the justice system was not infallible.

How important is it that Rove and others are held accountable for their corrupting influence on the U.S. justice system? It is essential, Siegelman says, that future Roves think twice before attempting to manipulate the justice system for political reasons:

If (Rove is) not held in contempt, it will send a clear signal that there are two systems of justice in this country: one for the rich and powerful, those connected to the White House, and one for the rest of us. When we get subpoenaed, we have to show up.

That's the only way we're ever going to reinstate people's belief in our government, in our democracy: clearing the air about what happened at the Department of Justice. We're not guessing that this stuff happened; we're not speculating that it might have happened. We know it happened. And if Rove doesn't pay, what are all those followers of his, the young people who want to be like him, going to think? If he's held in contempt, it sends the message that their time might be next. It may not stop 'em, but maybe it will slow them down.

What jumps out the most about this compelling interview? For me, it's the comment Siegelman received from a Republican who said he told Rove & Co. they "should have stopped at [defeating you in] the election."

What do we learn from this comment?

* This Republican, and probably others, cling to the notion that Bob Riley "defeated" Siegelman in the 2002 Alabama gubernatorial election. In reality, substantial evidence suggests that the '02 election was stolen when vote totals in Baldwin County changed overnight. (The story has been covered on a number of respected Web sites, but it has been largely ignored in the mainstream press.) Republicans are noted for playing fast and loose with the language, and this appears to be another example of it.

* It apparently is a poorly kept secret in Republican circles that Rove & Co. were out to get Siegelman. This GOPer flat-out tells Siegelman that he knew about the plot and counseled against it. How many other insiders knew about it, and when are they going to be called to testify before an authoritative body?

* Rove & Co. are prone to overreach, and I know about this firsthand. Siegelman's airport companion says he told his Republican cohorts they should be content with having "won" the election--that pushing for a prosecution of Siegelman would be going too far and could lead to big trouble. Did they listen? Nope. Could they wind up in big trouble? We can all hope.

Similar behavior has taken place in my Legal Schnauzer case. And keep in mind, the "bad guys" in my story have direct ties to Rove. The corrupt attorney who filed a bogus lawsuit against me (William E. Swatek) has a son (Dax Swatek) who worked for Bill Canary. And Canary, of course, is a close associate of Rove.

Just as in the Siegelman case, we are talking about gold-plated Rovites here. And did they overreach? Well, they could have stopped at costing my wife and me thousands of dollars. They could have stopped at causing a bogus lawsuit to go to trial, when by law, it could not go to trial. They could have stopped at threatening to seize our cars and home.

But no, they had to cost me my job at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where I had worked for 19 years.

What will be the cost of their overreaching? That remains to be seen. But if I have anything to do with it, it's going to be high.

Siegelman Team Probably Expected to Get Cheated on Appeal

Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and his lawyers probably expected to get shafted by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. And they did.

In a decision announced last Friday afternoon, a three-judge panel upheld most of Siegelman's convictions and all of codefendant Richard Scrushy's convictions on corruption charges.

As we noted in late November, things didn't look promising for Siegelman when an all-Republican panel was announced to hear his appeal. One can only wonder at the arrogance and tone deafness of a justice system that allows an all-Republican panel to hear a case involving a Democratic politician who claims he was the victim of a political prosecution.

At the time, Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said he had no problem with the makeup of the panel; that's the kind of thing a lawyer has to say for public consumption. But The Birmingham News article on the subject hinted that the Siegelman team was mighty concerned about the panel and its GOP leanings. As we noted here at Legal Schnauzer, the News article included curious references to a number of controversial decisions the judges had been involved in:

I find it hard to believe that News reporters Kim Chandler and Mary Orndorff would, on their own, go to the trouble of looking up controversial decisions these judges have been involved in. It looks to me like someone fed them that information, and it probably was someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy team. Why would someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy side feed that information to the reporters? Because they think the makeup of this panel stinks to high heaven--but they feel they can't say that publicly.

Muriel Kane has written an excellent overview of the three judges on the Siegelman panel. She notes that Gerald Bard Tjoflat and James C. Hill both originally were appointed to the federal bench by Richard Nixon and to the appellate court by Gerald Ford. The third, J.L. Edmondson, was appointed first by Ronald Reagan and named chief judge of the 11th Circuit by George W. Bush in 2002.

Let me repeat: One of the Siegelman panelists owes his title as chief judge to George W. Bush--and it's reasonable to assume that Karl Rove played a hand in making that appointment!

Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would raise concerns about the impartiality of this panel.

Perhaps most alarming is the role Tjoflat played in Karl Rove's ascendancy to political prominence. Tjoflat was part of a three-judge panel that weighed in on the 1994 election contest for Alabama Supreme Court chief justice between Republican Perry Hooper Sr. and Democrat Sonny Hornsby.

The panel upheld a lower-court ruling that threw out 1,700 unwitnessed absentee ballots, making Hooper the winner.

Karl Rove was intimately involved in the Hooper/Hornsby race, and his efforts to get Hooper elected under controversial circumstances signaled a sea change in Alabama courts, which once were all Democratic and now lean way to the right.

Rove used his success in the Hooper/Hornsby race as a springboard to national political prominence.

The only way the deck could have been stacked more against Siegelman would have been for the panel to include William Pryor, the former Alabama attorney general who initiated the state investigation of Siegelman. Pryor did that, of course, after winning a campaign that was managed by . . . Karl Rove.

What can citizens take from the 11th Circuit's ruling on the Siegelman case? That our federal courts are corrupt at both the trial and appellate levels.

Sadly, the Obama administration has shown no signs yet that it has the stomach for helping to clean up the mess. And Obama's White House counsel, Greg Craig, appears to be doing his best to protect Rove.

The Siegelman case, from the outset, has been about politics and not facts or the law. The 11th Circuit panel ensured that it would remain on a political track.

Siegelman Eleventh Circuit Ruling by Roger Shuler

All-Republican Panel Will Hear Siegelman Appeal

Three federal judges, all Republican appointees, have been chosen to hear the appeals of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and his codefendant, HealthSouth founder Richard Scrushy.

The three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will include Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson, Senior Judge James C. Hill, and Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat. Oral arguments are set for December 9 in Atlanta.

President Gerald Ford appointed Hill and Tjoflat to the federal bench. President Ronald Reagan appointed Edmondson.

All three judges have experience in handling politically charged cases. But some of them have been involved in controversial rulings that are likely to give many Siegelman supporters pause.

Siegelman is a Democrat who held four statewide offices in Alabama--secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor, and governor. A federal jury in 2006 convicted Siegelman and Scrushy of federal-funds bribery, conspiracy, and honest-services mail fraud.

Tjoflat was one of four Republican appointees who dissented in an 8-4 decision that sided with Al Gore's request to continue with manual recounts in Florida as part of the Bush v. Gore case in December 2000. Edmondson was one of three Republican appointees who sided with the majority in that case.

Tjoflat was part of a three-judge panel that weighed in on the 1994 election contest for Alabama Supreme Court chief justice between Republican Perry Hooper Sr. and Democrat Sonny Hornsby. The panel upheld a lower-court ruling that threw out 1,700 unwitnessed absentee ballots, making Hooper the winner.

Karl Rove was intimately involved in the Hooper/Hornsby race, and his efforts to get Hooper elected under controversial circumstances signaled a sea change in Alabama courts, which once were all Democratic and now lean way to the right.

Hill was part of a 2000 panel that allowed student-led prayer at Alabama's public schools.

Siegelman lawyer Vince Kilborn said he has no concerns about the makeup of the panel. But the story about the three-judge panel, and the circumstances surrounding the Siegelman case, raises some important questions:

* The central argument of the Siegelman/Scrushy appeal is that the prosecution was politically motivated, that Republicans in the Bush administration were out to get Alabama's most successful Democrat. Given that, isn't it curious that the three-judge panel consists of all Republican appointees? I'm not an expert on the procedures for picking appellate panels, but for the sake of appearances, wouldn't it have made sense to make sure the panel was politically balanced--at least a little bit, say with maybe one Democratic appointee?

* Isn't it curious that this story was released in the Thanksgiving Day issue of The Birmingham News and was buried on page 2B?

* I have more than 30 years of experience as a journalist, and I'm not sure I buy Kilborn's statement that he isn't concerned about the makeup of the panel. For public consumption, he has to say the panel looks stellar and fair. But I find it hard to believe that News reporters Kim Chandler and Mary Orndorff would, on their own, go to the trouble of looking up controversial decisions these judges have been involved in. It looks to me like someone fed them that information, and it probably was someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy team. Why would someone on the Siegelman/Scrushy side feed that information to the reporters? Because they think the makeup of this panel stinks to high heaven--but they feel they can't say that publicly.

* What was my reaction upon hearing about this panel of three Republicans? I immediately thought of William Pryor, former attorney general of Alabama who started investigating Siegelman before the Democrat's fanny had barely hit the governor's chair. Pryor now serves on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, as a George W. Bush appointee, and I couldn't help but wonder: "Why isn't Bill Pryor on this panel? His presence is about the only thing that could make this panel worse. Did Pryor have a round of golf scheduled for that day?"

* That reaction was from my rational side. What was my paranoid, irrational side thinking? That this is a last gasp by the corrupt Bush administration to subvert justice one more time before being shown the door. And once again, the target is Don Siegelman. What better way to protect Karl Rove from future inquiries than to have Siegelman's conviction upheld on appeal? And what better way to do that than to have an all-Republican panel hear it?

We all know that federal judges are, in theory, insulated from political considerations in their decisions. But anyone who has studied the machinations of U.S. Judge Mark Fuller in the Siegelman case, or those of U.S. Judge Henry Wingate in the Paul Minor case, knows that quaint theory no longer holds in Karl Rove's America.

Rove and his acolytes have found receptive audiences in U.S. attorneys offices and federal courthouses around the Deep South. And don't think for a moment that appellate courts are any more honest than trial courts. This all-Republican panel is every bit as capable of acting corruptly as was Fuller, the trial judge.

As a progressive who is concerned about justice in the South, I am alarmed about the selection of this panel for the Siegelman appeal. And I think the Siegelman legal team is alarmed, too.

Alabama Republican Rob Riley Seeks Blogger's Arrest Over Series Of Investigative Posts

Rob Riley

Alabama Republican Rob Riley has filed a proposed court order that seeks the arrest of my wife and me for reporting on certain topics here at Legal Schnauzer.

Riley, who reportedly plans to seek the U.S. House seat being vacated by Spencer Bachus, wants two citizens arrested for--get this--practicing journalism.

The preceding paragraphs were not taken from The Onion. They also were not pulled from a document that dates to Josef Stalin's Soviet Union. They are for real, and they are happening right now in Karl Rove's Alabama. (What makes my home state "Karl Rove's Alabama"? The answer can be found in Joshua Green's definitive article on the subject, "Karl Rove In a Corner," from a 2004 issue of The Atlantic.)

Rove no longer presides over the White House, but Rob Riley's actions are glaring proof that Rovian arrogance and lawlessness still reign over Alabama and other deep-red states across the South.

Riley's father, two-term GOP governor Bob Riley, took office in 2002 on the "strength" of blatant election theft that Rove acolytes almost certainly engineered. Bob Riley also benefited from $20 million that GOP felon Jack Abramoff has admitted funneling into Alabama because a proposed education lottery from Democrat incumbent Don Siegelman posed a financial threat to Abramoff's Indian-gaming clients in neighboring Mississippi.

The skinny? Rob Riley is deeply connected to some of the most corrupt activities in modern American political history. So it should be no surprise that Riley objects to reporting that calls his "pro family" public stances into question. It also should be no surprise that Riley is trying to quash our reporting on the subject, especially now that Spencer Bachus has surprised many observers by deciding to abandon his safe Congressional seat.

How exactly is Rob Riley trying to circumvent the First Amendment and force our reporting out of public view? The latest salvo is found in a cover letter and proposed court order, dated October 7 and prepared under the name of Jay Murrill, an attorney in the Riley Jackson law firm. (See a copy of the cover letter and proposed order at the end of this post.)

The proposed order explicitly seeks to have my wife and me arrested if we failed to appear at a court hearing that was set for last Thursday (October 18) at the Shelby County Courthouse in Columbiana. The hearing was designed to hold us in contempt for refusing to abide by an unlawful preliminary injunction. Here is the key segment of the proposed order:

Pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 70A(c)(2), Respondents [Mrs. Schnauzer and me] are hereby notified that failure to appear at the aforesaid hearing may result in an issuance of a writ of arrest pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 70A(d) to compel the Respondents' presence.

Did we attend the hearing at Rob Riley's kangaroo court? No, we did not--and here are three reasons why:

* We have not been lawfully served with the summons and complaint, meaning the court has no jurisdiction over us. Shelby County Sheriff's deputy Mike DeHart "served" us during the course of an unconstitutional traffic stop, and service has been challenged as improper and invalid;

* We were not given lawful notice of a hearing on the preliminary injunction, meaning no such injunction currently exists under Alabama law;

* Such an injunction violates the "prior restraint" doctrine that forbids injunctions in defamation lawsuits. Prior restraint grew out of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and has only been around, in one form or another, for about 230 years.

In a semi-functional democracy, Rob Riley would be embarrassed to file such a proposed court order. Retired Circuit Judge Claud D. Neilson, who was appointed by the Alabama Supreme Court to hear this case, would be embarrassed to even think about granting it.

But this is Karl Rove's Alabama. Long-settled law and constitutionally guaranteed civil rights mean little or nothing here.


(To be continued)

Rob Riley--Proposed Order (Contempt) by Roger Shuler

Curious Reporting in Birmingham

I promise we will return to the issue of selective prosecution by the Bush Justice Department soon, but just had to weigh in on the strange story about the Don Siegelman saga in today's Birmingham News.

Reporter Brett Blackledge, who recently won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the two-year colleges scandal in Alabama (which involves mostly Democrats), endeavors to inform us that Dana Jill Simpson's affidavit could have two meanings regarding Karl Rove.

The affidavit, Blackledge reports, could mean that Bill Canary said Rove instigated the Siegelman prosecution from the outset. Or it could mean that Canary merely was acknowledging that Rove knew about a prosecution of Siegelman that already was under way.

Early in the story, Blackledge reports that Simpson herself agrees that the affidavit could be interpreted two ways; she emphasizes that she simply was trying to report the conversation as factually as possible. (Simpson goes on to state that she believes, based on the conversation she heard, that Rove was involved in the prosecution. This is buried deep in a story that must run 30 to 40 column inches.)

The News states that numerous national publications, including The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, have reported the story as if Rove had been involved on the front end. But the News claims that Simpson's affidavit does not specifically say that.

Call me dense, but I fail to see what is open to debate in the Simpson affidavit regarding Rove. In item 16 in the affidavit, Simpson quotes Canary telling Rob Riley (son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley) "not to worry that he had already GOTTEN IT WORKED OUT WITH KARL and Karl had spoken with the Department of Justice and the Department was already pursuing Don Siegelman."

Gotten it worked out with Karl? Where I come from, that's plain English for "Karl was involved on the front end."

While Rove's involvement has drawn much attention from the mainstream press and many bloggers (including yours truly), any alleged actions on his part are not the central story in Simpson's affidavit. In Simpson's own words, her main point was that Siegelman attorney Terry Butts had a conflict of interest, causing Siegelman to be denied his sixth amendment right to have an attorney who is free of conflict. And in exposing Butts' conflict, Simpson revealed the political motivations behind the Siegelman prosecution--regardless of what Rove knew and when he knew it.

By the way, Scott Horton of Harper's, saw this coming. He reported last night that the News was about to pull out one of its heavy hitters (Blackledge) to write a story that would spin the Simpson affidavit in a light most favorable to Republicans. Until now, Republicans have been saying the conversation outlined in Simpson's affidavit never took place. Horton notes that since it can be proven that the conversation took place, Canary & Co. are now taking a different approach--claiming that Simpson misunderstood what was said.

Remember, Horton reported this Saturday night, and the story appeared, just as he stated it would, in today's Birmingham News. More great reporting by Harper's on the Siegelman case.

My experience with corrupt Republican judges in Alabama has given me some insight into how The Birmingham News operates. I will be sharing those insights with you shortly.